Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October

< September 2007 Deletion review archives November 2007 >

31 October 2007

[edit]
  • Cade Gaspar – The consensus here is not as clear as it might be, but the best outcome is to endorse the AfD close, which fell reasonably within ordinary admin discretion, but restore on the merits. The sockpuppetry in the AfD is not relevant, since those accounts made no arguments anyway. The misunderstanding of WP:BIO isn't really relevant either, because there were other arguments to delete and no reason to believe that the AfD hinged on that misunderstanding. Essentially the whole thing comes down to the argument that players at this level are routinely deleted. I'm not convinced that's true, and in any case a Google news archive search indicates that Gaspar got an unusual amount of attention for a career minor-leaguer because he was an early draft pick. Thus, I don't see the mere fact of Gaspar's not having reached the major leagues to be the deciding factor as claimed in the AfD, since there's reliable coverage of that fact itself. This should be considered a "no consensus to delete" close; the article can be relisted for deletion at editorial discretion at any time. – Chick Bowen 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cade Gaspar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was surfing through my old contributions and noticed that this one had ended up as a delete. At the very least, this should have been a "no consensus". The nominator's argument was that the Minor League player's article failed WP:BIO. WP:BIO states "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". There are three kinds of professionality in sports - amateur, semi-pro and professional. All teams within the official Minor League Baseball organization are fully professional and operate within a fully professional league. Therefore, all players who play MiLB are players in a fully professional league. Meeting a notability criteria doesn't come anymore straightforward than that. The only delete reasons were either the nominator or "per nom" or not based in policy. In addition, this page had essentially the same arguments (by the same people and on the same day, no less) as Juan M. Gonzalez, but with a different result. Smashville 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, most of the delete votes were based upon the incorrect belief that Gaspar did not play in a fully professional league and thus failed WP:BIO. --Stormie 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion again minor leaguers who didn't reach past Double A aren't notable, it failed WP:SPORTS (which failed itself because of inactivity), but it wasn't failed by the community. Jbeach sup 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument made in the AfD is that it failed WP:BIO. It did not fail WP:BIO. The debate was misinterpreted, this is not another AfD. WP:SPORT was not even mentioned in the AfD and is a failed guideline. With the completely wrong argument that this failed WP:BIO, at the very least, the debate should have been closed as no consensus. Smashville 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me reiterate that I'm not claiming that he is notable...I'm saying that at the very least, this is a no consensus close, as the subject inarguably passes WP:BIO...at the very least, this needs to go back to AfD where someone can prove a lack of notability. Smashville 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my own) deletion. Consensus to delete was clear at the AfD. Despite the fact that they meet the letter of WP:BIO minor league baseball players are routinely deleted at AfD. People citing a guideline inaccurately shouldn't be enough to overturn where it's based on a misapprehension of the guideline rather than of the facts of the case. My interpretation of the AfD is that people believed that WP:BIO calls for the deletion of minor league baseball players (as it should, IMO) rather than that they thought Gaspar never played professionally. Eluchil404 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • People citing a guideling inaccurately was the only argument made. The argument made was "fails WP:BIO" which it clearly does not. You even admit it meets it "to the letter". So how does that make sense? Smashville 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still baffled as to how this would be a "clear" consensus when the only delete argument is based on the exact opposite meaning of the policy. Smashville 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIO was not the only argument made. Three people (DrunkenSmurf, Jaranda, and MisfitToys) called for deletion on the explicit argument that minor leaguers are not notable without reference to any guideline or policy. Only the nominator used the flawed rationale of calling for deletion per the guideline. I believe that their arguments were more persuasive than those simply asserting that he met WP:BIO without explaining why that conferred notability in this case. More generally, I believe that the text WP:BIO is simply wrong in this area. There is no community consensus to keep minor league (at least below triple A which is what distinguishes the Gonzalez AfD) though in most sports the line is drawn with full professionalism. Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I follow what I believe to be the actual community consensus on this issue rather than the literal text of the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying it's a bureaucracy and I'm not saying it to do it for the sake of the process. I'm saying there is clearly no consensus. There is a huge difference. The keep arguments were based in policy while the deletes were not. There is no way that there was a consensus to delete from that AfD. You also say that "in most sports the line is drawn with full professionalism". So - why delete favoring the arguments based on opinion instead of the arguments based on policy? Smashville 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Ignoring the contributions of Miamite and Truest blue who are no longer here because of Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random, the delete reasons were weak since they failed to address any of the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Did the text of the article include enough information to explain why the person was notable? Was the person the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and was that coverage enough? Neither of these questions were address in the AfD. A look at the deleted article shows that the article include enough information to explain why the person was notable. The importance/significance of Cade Gaspar was laid out in the article and no one at the AfD disagreed with this. Instead of then addressing the published secondary sources issue, the discussion went off on a tangent under the false assumption that a player in the minor leagues would not receive enough coverage in published secondary sources for a Wikipedia article. Also, no one in the AfD addressed whether published secondary sources would have wrote about Cade Gaspar for reasons other than his baseball playing. The weak discussion contained no mention of any of Wikipedia's four article standards (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, Biographies of living persons). No consensus seemed the appropriate close. -- Jreferee t/c 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gavin Hoyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted in September 2006, at which point in time Hoyte was a youth football player for Arsenal nowhere near the first team. Since then he has signed a full professional contract, [1] played for England U17s at the FIFA U-17 World Cup,[2] and been given a first-team squad number at Arsenal. [3]. He has been named on the substitute's bench for three matches (FA Cup v. Blackburn Rovers [4], Football League Cup v. Newcastle United [5] and Sheffield United [6]) but has not played. He has also been profiled extensively on Arsenal's and The Football Association's websites [7] [8] both of which are significant coverage in my view.

While he has not played a competitive match yet for Arsenal, the result of discussion in recent AfDs such as Giannoulis Fakinos, Davide Facchin (et al) and Paul Rodgers (footballer) is that professional players that have been officially named in a first-team squad for a major club are considered notable. I supported the article's deletion a year ago, but all of the above mean I have now changed my mind, and I believe he is now notable enough for inclusion. Therefore I request the decision be overturned. Qwghlm 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article BookFinder.com refers to a California-based company that runs a popular vertical search engine for books. The article first went online in 2003, and overwhelmingly survived an AfD discussion in 2006. It was speedily deleted without public discussion on October 28 by editor JzG, citing CSD:A7 (no indication of importance/significance). I believe this judgment was made in error, as the article's subject is clearly notable under both the criteria for companies and websites; there's a list of 950+ media mentions here, including coverage in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Newsweek, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, CBC, NPR, etc.

I made a good faith effort to discuss the speedy deletion with JzG. He suggested restoring the article, which I did, adding more references to help establish notability (e.g. cites for two New York Times profiles of the website) to respond to his concerns about CSD:A7. He speedily deleted the article again, on October 30. (You can read the transcript of our discussion here; it contains more details.) I'd like to see the article restored, either the first version that was speedily deleted on October 28 (restoring the history as well, if possible), or the improved second version with added cites and copyedits which was deleted on October 30. If the article still seems fundamentally flawed, I suggest restoring it and proposing deletion, rather than endorsing a unilateral speedy deletion decision.

I appreciate your time. Thanks. - Anirvan 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg – Deletion overturned. Kablammo's reading of Minn. law is persuasive: the image is very likely in the public domain. Its historical significance, and place in the career of the Senator, is not for one administrator to determine (though I think a reasonable argument could be made that this photograph is about one-hundred fold more significant than the Hugh Grant image hereinunder referenced. The comparison nearly made me laugh.) Although several commenters have asked for a definitive ending to the question of whether this belongs in the article on the Senator, that is ultimately an editorial question. The only thing that is clear is that the image's claim to significance is sufficiently reasonable such that speedy deletion is wrong, and consensus below so concurs. IfD relisting is sure to occur, so it will be left to the discretion of those supporting removal. – Xoloz 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|DRV)

Circumvention of prior deletion decision, circumvention of image deletion process, deletion based on administrator's refusal to provide basis of speedy deletion from WP and information to support that claim, refusal to seek consensus regarding issue after prior Deletion Review was overturned →Lwalt ♦ talk 08:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Larry Craig

The image in question was improperly deleted a second time by circumventing process for removal and/or deletion of images, against consensus in working collaborating with other editors of the article, and against findings in a prior decision and consensus in a prior Deletion Review posted on September 16 and closed on September 24, 2007. The image of the booking photo in question was released by the State of Minnesota as public data under Minnesota statute 13.82, subd. 26(b) (language of statute located near the end of the page). I had once posted a message for another administrator, who I thought would be knowledgeable about the proper use and classification of the image on Wikipedia (i.e., Wikipedia Commons vs. fair use), but the person never responded to my query.

The image was included in the article because of its significance, which was also the object of coverage in the article itself, for use as a secondary photo on the page to support content in its section. In addition, the use of the image also meets the Criterion #8 under Acceptable Images. The image was clearly marked in its caption to provide information about the nature of the booking photo, which was used as a secondary image to support content regarding a recent event. The same administrator mentioned that a "free" image was available (the subject's "official" U.S. Senate photograph, which is the primary image), discounting the fact that the booking photograph was taken in connection with a specific incident of significance on a specific date. Coverage of the incident was stated as reported by various news sources without analysis to maintain neutrality.

I posted a request for the administrator to seek consensus about concerns, as can be seen in the message on that person's User Talk page, with that person's responses included here and here. The administrator has since deleted these responses. The ongoing discussion (and request for information claimed by user and responses regarding the request for this information) can be found on the article talk page. According to this administrator, his claim for justification to remove or delete the image was in essence "Jimbo said so." The administrator has declined through inaction to provide proof of the basis for this deletion, and wants us to take that as the final decision without verification.

The nature of this second deletion clearly and purposefully circumvented process, and this deletion occurred one day after I provided a link to the prior Deletion Review discussion to point out the actions of the deleting administrator. Another editor for the article also mentioned that the concerns about the deleting administrator, who continued to show contempt in the unwillingness to work with editors. To get around disagreements of this administrator's point of view, the administrator simply deleted the image without further discussion on the article talk page, even though an editor asked a second to provide information claimed by the administrator. Both editors and administrators also pointed out the improper handling of the image during the first Deletion Review, with one actually mentioning that this same administrator is displaying the same contemptuous behavior in that case as has been witnessed in this case.

To my knowledge, no new discussions have occurred outside each of these forums about deleting or keeping the image through the Image for Deletion process. The image history includes a full rationale (including licensing and basis for the license) to support of the image's use in the article. I have not come across a speedy deletion request for the image.

For your convenience, I'm providing links to other discussions related to issues regarding the booking photo, which can be found here, here, here, in addition to a message on the talk page for the image.

-- →Lwalt ♦ talk 08:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image was included under a claim of fair use, but we already have a free image for this article (and one which does not carry prurient or pejorative overtones). The image does not belong in the article, per WP:BLP, because there is no evidence that the image is in and of itself significant (cf. the Hugh Grant booking photo, which was in every newspaper in the UK and many around the world). Its inclusion serves no purpose other than to inflate still further the size and prominence of the section on the subject's arrest, which is already around a third of the article, well in excess of what will I think turn out to be its final historical importance. We do not use fair use images where a proper free image exists, and we certainly don't use them to illustrate the mere fact of having been booked. This is not a picture of the events in question, the arrest, a trial, or anything else, it's just a routine booking photograph, which adds precisely nothign of encyclopaedic merit to the article. Lwalt seems very keen on the principle of being able to include this, but has failed to make, so far as I can see, any credible argument as to why we would want to include a booking photo on an article that already has a recent and perfectly good free image which adequately identifies the subject. I am not the only one who thinks this. I do not like hypocritical queer-bashing politicians either, but I've seen enough OTRS complaints to realise that sometimes righteous indignation is counterproductive in the context of an article. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Guy's view. The image itself is simply not encyclopedic enough to outweigh the WP:BLP concerns it presents. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, Keep out of article - WP:CSD#I5 doesn't apply since the image was not tagged with a template that placed it in a dated subcategory of Category:Orphaned fairuse images for more than seven days. The image has not received any other deletion tags that would start any image deletion clock. Deletion notice of the image was give to the uploader on 5 September 2007. After that, the BLP issue was raised on 16 September 2007 at DRV and DRV restored this image (see 2007 September 16 DRV). The present deletion of the image is not based on Wikipedia process, thus overturn. Image in article - Although WP:BLP is not a basis to delete this image from Wikipedia's databases, the image does not belong in the Larry Craig article, per Guy's discussion above of WP:BLP and per WP:POV. A photo of Craig's bathroom actions would be relevant as an issue. The booking photo is not relevant as an issue. Thus, keep the image out of the Larry Craig article. Licensing - Minnesota "public data" (compare Minnesota "private data", "nonpublic data", and "not public data") means data available to the public in a reasonable manner (see Minnesota statute 13.82, subd. 16. It does not mean Wikipedia free use. Minnesota statute 13.82 itself is public data, but right at the top of the Minnesota statute 13.82 page is a copyright notice. If Minnesota considered "public data" to mean Wikipedia free use, then a victim could not have a right to request withholding of certain public data under Minnesota statute 611A.021. The "public data" bit mislead others in the last DRV into believing the image was Wikipedia free use. Hopefully, that won't happen in this DRV. How to proceed- Overturn, tag the image with {{Non-free mugshot}}, and, for those interested, follow the image deletion process such as giving 48 hour deletion notice to the uploader per NFCC enforcement or placing a seven day tag on the article per WP:CSD#I5. Note to closer - Please remark on the consensus in this discussion regarding whether the image belongs in the Larry Craig article. The matter has been batted around too long and we need some closure on this issue. -- Jreferee t/c 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'm inclined to agree with JzG at this point. FCYTravis 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per WP:BLP we have no use for this image. Text is more than adequate to cover the incident; I've understood it quite well from text only media that I've encountered elsewhere. Adding a mugshot has the sole purpose of attacking the subject, and is not acceptable. GRBerry 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn playing around with deletion rules to skirt consensus and get ones own way. By someone with a conflict of interest. Consensus to remove the image should have been established on the article talk page. --W.marsh 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd endorse any of JzG's decisions, and I don't see any difference here. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know whether this decision is consistent with other mugshots or not, so I won't comment on it directly. I will comment on this: JzG says that the arrest is "a third of the article, well in excess of what will I think turn out to be its final historical importance". An awful lot of smart people, including many writing in very reliable sources, would disagree. Larry Craig was a completely unremarkable conservative Republican from a state with virtually no national political clout until this incident made him a national figure. History is much more likely to remember him for this than for the handful of insignificant legislative votes in which he played a role. Forgive me for saying so (I'm a huge JzG fan), but I'm not sure the political irrelevance of Idaho's U.S. senators might be readily apparent to a citizen of a smaller country with a parliamentary system. . . If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me off roundly. Chick Bowen 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the state from which a Senator hails is relatively tangential to his clout (among other things, Craig is a former chairman of two committees, and the 14th most senior Republican Senator), and since the design of the Senate explicitly and deliberately gives smaller states outsized power equal to that of Texas or California, I'm not sure you're calculating his importance correctly. Regardless, the incident is what he'll be remembered for, but I don't think that WP:NPOV#Undue weight allows it to bloat to 1/3 of the article. He spent 26 years in Congress, after all. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, of course, and this is a debate for another day and another forum, but just to make my point clear--it's not Idaho's size that makes it's senators irrelevant, it's its political outlier status. At any rate, I've said before that I am not comfortable with our dependence on mugshots, and a copyright debate is worth having. But a BLP issue? I don't see it. Chick Bowen 05:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mug shot does not illustrate his bathroom activities and does not illustrate the contradiction between his anti-gay stance and his bathroom activities. The mug shot does convey Craig's brush with the law, but the crime (infraction?) was minor and not a main topic of the article. The unwritten desire to use the mug shot in the article is so that the mug shot's stigmatizing effect will attack Craig's image because of Craig's contradictory beliefs/actions. BLP violation pure and simple. -- Jreferee t/c 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, keep out of article. I guess it's ineligible for Commons. But it doesn't really serve any purpose in the article. I do think process was subverted with this one, though. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore BLP concerns? It's properly sourced, he was convicted - even pleaded guilty. Whether it goes in Craig's bio or a separate article about the conviction and its repercussions in US politics is for editorial discretion. Am I alone in thinking that politicians have a very small BLP protection, i.e., what is contentious to the private Joe is part of the rough & tumble risk of running for office and feeding at the public trough. Carlossuarez46 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DRV decision, overturn unilateral speedy deletion Blatant misuse of admin tools to push an editorial viewpoint. The image has been restored by prior DRV, so any speedy deletion is clearly out of process. If you can't live with the fact that controversial decisions are made by community consensus, feel free to leave the project, Chapman. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The copyright notice at the top of Minnesota statutes refers to the image and codification of the statutes on the Revisor's web page, not to the data which are the subject of Chapter 13. Section 13.03, Subd. 1.[9] provides that All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute . . . Section 13.82, subd. 26[10] provides that booking data, including arrest photographs, are public. This is not a fair use case. As to the other issues, I take no position. Kablammo 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other note: Section 611A.021[11] mentioned above refers to the right of a victim to keep data private; it gives no rights to an accused. While there are certain exceptions to release of data (e.g., protecting an ongoing investigation,13.82, subd. 26, protecting identities of victims, confidential informants, etc., 13.82, subd. 17) they do not apply here. Kablammo 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per JzG, he spoke my mind. ^demon[omg plz] 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The booking photo is really only necessary if the photo itself is of importance. Nobody needs to see it in order to understand that he was arrested. A clear violation of WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of data which are public under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Much of the discussion above assumes that the image is not free, on the assumption that there is no explicit licensing. This is turn assumes that the image is subject to copyright-- you don't look for exceptions to use non-free content if the content is free and therefore not subject to copyright. The data in question here are however free and are not subject to copyright. This is because data which are public under the Minnesota Data Practices Act are not copyrighted. As stated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration (who administers the Data Practices Act):

. . . a fundamental principle of the M[innesota] G[overnment] D[ata] P[ractices] A[ct] is that anyone may use public data, for any purpose.

. . . unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public's right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity's claim of intellectual property rights in those data.[12]

Unless the legislature were to specify that booking photos are subject to copyright (it has not), they are public and can be used by anyone for any purpose. There may be reasons not to use the photo in question, but copyright law is not one of them. Kablammo 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I thought we had gotten rid of User:JzG and ended his long and unfortunate pattern of abusing his administrative privileges. Such is not the case. As with his previous speedy deletion of this image, JzG has demonstrated a persistent disrespect for other editors and for the process of obtaining and building consensus from anyone other than himself. After his previous abuse was overturned by consensus, it appeared the issue had been settled. Rather than respect this consensus, JzG has for a second time abused his administrative powers to delete the image, using an utterly nonviable approach that hadn't even crossed his mind as an excuse during the last go around. It's high time that the administrative mop be removed from someone who seems utterly unable to understand how to use it. The first step in this process is to overturn this arbitrary deletion and to have the image placed under the WP:IFD process, assuming that there is a legitimate case to be made there. IFD will allow a demonstration of actual consensus of Wikipedia users on this issue, not just what one self-appointed judge, jury and executioner has decided. Alansohn 23:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yuniti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New Sources, Greater Notability. Sources of notability:

Also, notable feature/document being used on the internet, ability for users to hide their age, providing greater safety for younger users:

Please see DRAFT: User:Marquinho/Yuniti (draft) -- Marquinho 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Endorse close - The AfD close was a few days ago. My read of the close was that the article did not and would not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability in view of the behaviour of those interested in the article. Even though the topic might meet Wikipedia:Notability, the article still needs to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy or at least have a reasonable chance to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The best (and quickest) way to overcome this is to use material from the relaible sources provided and write a draft article in your user space, such as at User:Marquinho/Yuniti (draft). When that is done, come back to WP:DRV and request that Yuniti be recreated using your draft article as the next edit to the article. -- Jreferee t/c 01:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 October 2007

[edit]
  • Image:Manti-1999.jpg – Deletion endorsed. FCYTravis should probably have sought input from other admins rather than deleting it himself, but common courtesy, not to mention our WP:BLP policy, does not allow us to display a personal, private photograph of ordinary citizens for purposes the subjects did not intend and would not approve. – Chick Bowen 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Manti-1999.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

No consensus to delete - deleting admin was the only "delete" vote, citing only his subjective evaluation of the image's "quality" as rationale for deletion. See WP:IFD#Image:Manti-1999.jpg Reswobslc 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - The image was deleted with the reasoning "It's a lineup family photo which does not illustrate any point in particular. This photo is not encyclopedic quality." The person who uploaded the image listed it for deletion at IfD because people are placing the image in selected Mormonism articles where the combination of the article text and the image raised serious WP:BLP concerns. As noted by the deleting admin, the only legitimate place for the photo is the uploader's userpage. WP:CSD#G7 Author requests deletion applies. -- Jreferee t/c 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The BLP concerns should be solved simply by removing the image from Anti-Mormon, not by deleting the image. WP:CSD#G7 is not the real issue either, because deletion wasn't the uploader's goal. The uploader's original concern is that he did not want to be associated with the term "Anti-Mormon", not that he genuinely wanted the image deleted. He only nominated his image for deletion, asserting his "copyright", after becoming frustrated that his removal from Anti-Mormon wasn't getting anywhere. Come to think of it, he should be able to expect this removal. In fact, recognizable images of real people really don't belong in articles about controversial subjects without clear and positive references tying that person to that specific viewpoint or term. If a free image of Michael Jordan were included in the Nigger article as an example of a "black" person, he'd be well within his rights to expect its removal - which would not necessitate deleting the image from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as a whole. Likewise, we wouldn't delete the images of every Black person from Wikipedia just because somebody might later include them in Nigger. Reswobslc 05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Although my !vote in the IfD is listed as "Keep", I was ready to change it after the subsequent discussion at the IfD and here. Image is unnecessary for illustrating the point it was being used for in Anti-Mormon, and it is unclear (not to mention contrary to the testimony of the user who posed in and uploaded the image) that the people involved were engaged in any anti-Mormon behavior. In fact, it is not clear what the people are doing at all, which is what makes the picture un-encyclopedic. A year ago, one of the current "Keep" !votes called this image "not appropriate," citing many of the arguments now being given by FCYTravis, Jref, and myself. Finally, it is common courtesy to delete an unnecessary image at the request of a person pictured in it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Too many reasons to fully enumerate, but they include WP:CSD#G7, WP:BLP, and that the consensus of the IFD was to delete. GRBerry 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At what point do the terms of the GFDL (WP:NOREVOKE) begin to count? Does licensing one's contributions "mercilessly" edited or redistributed by others mean anything. And what part of the IfD looks like a consensus to delete, with only one person out of six saying "delete" and a second weakly agreeing? Reswobslc 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOREVOKE is mainly concerned with text contributions to WP. If you decide to leave WP, you can't go back and edit out all the text you had previously added. Images are much less integral to the encyclopedia, and not actually mentioned in WP:NOREVOKE. The most convincing arguments by far, I think, are WP:CSD#G7 and WP:BLP and common courtesy (perhaps a form of WP:IAR). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOREVOKE clearly applies to this image. It's freely available on cc-by-2.5, and I can post it with captions proclaiming the subjects to be anti-Mormon. Feel free to add it to open source image libraries. It's still around. Perhaps they misunderstood the license. However, it's not encyclopedic. This is not a snapshot repository. As such, endorse deletion (as a speedy/IAR deletion, "consensus" was not relevant). Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Unfair vote, the decision to keep the image was unanimous and fair. It is not fair to delete an image even when everyone was obviously going "KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP!". This shows how even though Wikipedia is trying to turn themself into a democracy, it still seems more like that our government doesn't care. I want it back, but under the promise that it will ONLY be used to represent positive Mormon ordeals and events. Not in the Anti-Morman article. Period. ViperSnake151 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cry Shenanigans! This is BS. The author of the image gave up the rights to the image, and when he finds out that it is being used in a way that he disagrees with, it suddenly is fit for deletion? What about when it was originally posted? Why were there no complaints then? This is a POV decision, and the arguments presented are a smokescreen. Strong KEEP!!! Not to mention you had one whole day of "debate" and then deleted it? Total Bullshit! Bytebear 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Should have been left to another admin to close the discussion after ravis had contributed to the IFD. I don't think there was consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone reviewing the IfD should also look at this thread on BLP/N, where FCYTravis gives his reasoning (IMO) more convincingly and in more detail. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Father Vernard Poslusney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please note that aI am not the user requesting the undeletion (I am one of the deleting admins), but apparently User:Example555 is struggling with the process. This is the text he was trying to paste: -- lucasbfr talk 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) A lot more notable than some other pages I’ve seen here. He has three main memorial websites, one with 5,559 hits in its one year of existence. I contacted the Webmaster, who is willing to supply a statcounter log showing multiple hits from 24 countries. He says the log would pop your eyes out. If you do a search on google or yahoo, about 20 pages come up on him.

2) Did it ever occur to Karanacs that the blog posting was copied from one of his memorial web sites? Does anyone do research anymore?

3) All Wikipedia links were copy and pasted, who types out http://www etc. anymore? - 4) Was my page deleted by a child? This is why I concluded the article is being toyed with by young children: Lucasbfr: “Hi mom. I don't expect anyone else to come here anytime soon so hello to you. Yeah I know, I need to keep my room clean.” Wikipedia should set some age requirements for editors, an on-line encyclopedia should not be a playground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Example555 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 October 2007

  • Lucasbfr's comments on his userpage was intended as a joke (and he's an adult). Also, I endorse deletion. The subject does not meet WP:BIO, and none of the sources used at the article meet our reliable source policy. Most of these websites are self-published sources, and I could not find any detailed works on Vernand Poslusney in newspapers or books. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Example555.

I am bewildered as to why someone keeps deleting this article. Every reason given so far makes no sense.

The first deletion was over notability, this contention could not be more untrue, and there are countless examples of articles with less notability.

The second deletion was a claim that the pic was copyrighted, which is untrue.

The third deletion was because Karanacs found similar information in a blog. The blog was copied right off one of Father Vernard memorial sites, which there may be more of than sites attributed to Brittany Spears, again neutralizing the first notability contention. And who has any control over what someone cut and pasted into a blog. Furthermore, if people are proliferating this information, that is a positive sign of notoriety.

Someone was deleting the links on the site for days claiming they were spam sites, totally untrue and unsupported. Then this Lucasbfr, whose childish dialog grammar led me to believe that I was dealing with an adolescent. Can anyone blame me for questioning the rational of these unreasonable judgements? No one has pointed out one indubitable contention yet, and every time I attempt to dialog I am beleaguered with threatening messages of banning. This is enough to make anyone’s blood boil, particularly paging through some articles that did somehow get okayed.

Just looking at the next deletion; Sky_Eats_Airplane, Andrew Lenahan writes: “million trillion gazillion”. Yes, it must be true, this articles can be deleted by gradeschoolers. Why do I feel like an adult trying to reason with 2 year olds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Example555 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its mind boggling.

Example555


Take a look at the AfD again and even my endorsement of deletion above. The article does not meet WP:BIO, our policy on notability. Also, there are issues with WP:RS and WP:NOT. If something is covered on the Internet, that does not meet it's notable for Wikipedia. Certain policies must be met, and many editors have agreed that these policies aren't being met for this particular article. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I just did, show me where I'm wrong. And yet there are articles in Wikipedia that Howard Stern with have second thoughts about reading on the air.

Example555

I already did. For one thing, the article fails WP:BIO. There are no reliable sources to support the articles. All the links are self-published sources. These cannot be used because they are not reliable sources. I searched, but I could not find any reliable sources. So, the article fails the third criteria at WP:BIO. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the problem, how about some valid rational than threats?

Example555

He's saying you're the one making the threats, not the other way around. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm having trouble seeing anywhere that you are right. For one thing, you haven't even remotely established notability. You've been told to see WP:BIO. Let's examine your argument...:
      • 1. You argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then state that because a nonverifiable, nonreliable source has a low number of hits in its entire existence, it is proof of notability? I'm sorry...but a hit counter is the furthest thing from notability. And - 5,559 hits is an extremely low number of hits for a website. And google hits? Come on...even if you were going to use this...20 hits is not notable. I have 700 hits on my own name (and they are all me). I'm not notable.
      • 2. You are claiming a source that was used from an nonreliable source was actually a copyvio from another nonreliable source. Blogs and "memorial pages" are not reliable sources.
      • 3. I don't even understand this argument.
      • 4. A personal attack is not going to help your case.
The AfD was done correctly - it was unanimous and it was open for the required amount of time. You have not been able to remotely establish notability for this person. In addition, if you continue personal attacks, you will probably get your account suspended. And a lack of civility is probably going to keep anyone from wanting to help. Strong Endorse. Smashville 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you can show a proof that this person is notable, we may reconsider the deletion but for now your rationale does not cover this part. For the record, this article was deleted 4 times: The two first times with our deletion process, the 2 latter because you were reposting deleted content without any discussion. The copyright violation was never discussed, as fas as I can see. Finally I am not a child thanks (which explains why it took me so long to write these lines, I am at work). I am sorry if my poor grammar disturbed you, I am not a native speaker and I ocasionally make mistakes. But I'm always happy to learn from my spelling and grammar mistakes. (and I know the joke on my userpage sucks, I'm too busy/lazy to work on it). -- lucasbfr talk 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unanimous deletion, the argument advanced by the appellant seems to be an attempt to forum shop at best and specious at worst. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD, no process flaws. Article, and nomination here, do not evidence encyclopedic notability. 6K web page hits in a year is nothing. 600K hits a day would also be nothing as that isn't what we are interested in. What we need are independent and reliable published sources. The article demonstrated none. The AFD demonstrated none. The DRV nomination and comments to date demonstrates none. If they exist, and I've been given thus far no reason to believe that they do, any recreation should be done in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test and written as an encyclopedia entry, Not as a memorial or obituary. GRBerry 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the third time wasn't because of any of the nonsense you said, but because it was already deleted the second time through the AfD process. Gaming the process by acting like you didn't understand the difference between proposed and speedy deletion didn't help. You also aren't winning any hearts through your tactic of insulting Wikipedians. You might as well just leave and whine to everyone about how unfair Wikipedia is. JuJube 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example555 In the process of compiling information, I was again alarmed at many of the shocking articles traversed. From a plethora, I’ll only quote one as a reference, found while researching celibacy: Ruined orgasm. It was then that I realized that I would be doing a severe disservice to the memory of Father Vernard. As it is becoming very clear at the type of articles accepted, respected and sought. Hence, I withdraw my efforts to have this article associated with this encyclopedia. It would be prudent to pursue a more reputable encyclopedia medium. I apologize, as I was obviously barking up the wrong tree.

Example555

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

This band has a last.fm page with 278,900 plays scrobbled on Last.fm http://www.last.fm/music/Sky+Eats+Airplane so the band has a folowing Zombi333 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion please see WP:MUSIC. Just like we don't keep websites based on number of visitors or people based on number of Myspace friends, we don't keep bands based on number of plays on a particular website. Besides, even if they'd had a million trillion gazillion plays, we'd still need reliable sources to create an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Dan Jacobson (Taiwan) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Dan Jacobson (Taiwan)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

for discussing proposed page! This was for discussion of my proposed page. Restore the page and see what links to it. Jidanni 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thomas H. Chance is the author of the preeminently authoritative analysis of Plato's dialogue Euthydemus. larvatus 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

  • Uh, I get 12 cites for his "Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy" on Web of Science, or for his whole academic output for that matter. Any evidence for its authorativeness? Endorse until then. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion No new information. His analysis was mentioned in the article, and didn't sway the AfD commenters, who voted unanimously to delete. In other words, nothing's changed, valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Unanimous AFD, no new information or arguments here, no procedural problems. GRBerry 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unanimous deletion. Deletion review is a place to explain how the deletion process was followed, not to run to the other parent for a better answer. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Unanimous AFD. In reply to the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) quote, if a Wikipedia reliable source doesn't say it, you can't include it in a Wikipedia article. Even if he is important, you can't write about it in a Wikipedia article without the information being based on independent reliable source material. Comment - The H.W.Wilson Company's Ancient Philosophy (Waterfield, Robin; March 1995; Volume 15; page 191) reviewed Chance's book "Plato's Euthydemus." Also, there is Google book search and Google scholar search. There might be enough reliable source material for an article on Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy (book). -- Jreferee t/c 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it make sense to cover the book but not its author? Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
      • I can never make sense of what reliable sources choose to cover. You would think they would write about the author. If they don't there's isn't much Wikipedia can do to force them to. Also, violating WP:V, WP:OR, and other article standards to cover Thomas H. Chance in Wikipedia does not make sense. -- Jreferee t/c 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For academics to qualify as notable, reliable sources have to cover their work, not their personalities. Do you deny that University of California Press is a reliable source? What about the scholarly journals that reviewed Chance's book on Plato's Euthydemus or published references to it? What exactly is unverifiable or dependent on original research in covering this matter? Larvatus 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
          • Notability is necessary but not sufficient to have an article. Quoting directly from the guideline you seem keen on linking to in every other sentence: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." Sources about this person, as opposed to his work, don't seem to exist; David Eppstein's remark in the afd are particularly troubling. Unless I start seeing a lot more sources and a lot less ruleslawyering, endorse. —Cryptic 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry about gratuitous legalisms. Please see the sources identified below. Granted, they pertain to the book and not its author. Do you think it would make sense to cover the former but not the latter? Larvatus 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
          • Are you claiming that the University of California Press has no relationship with Thomas H. Chance? Only reliable source material that is independent of Thomas H. Chance and those associated with Thomas H. Chance counts towards meeting WP:N. The general notability guideline is clear on this. If the University of California Press has a relationship with Chance, then their material does not count towards meeting WP:N. The independence requirement is one way Wikipedia separates itself from the rest of the Internet. The independent scholarly journals that reviewed Chance's book on Plato's Euthydemus or published references to it may have material that could be used in a Wikipedia article on the book. If the independent book reviews included biographical information on Chance, then that could be used in a Wikipedia article on the person. Book reviews do not usually include biographical information, but if you have information to the contrary, please post it here. As for academics qualifying as notable, I think you are confusing importance/significance notability with reliable source notability. If there is not enough reliable source material for the Thomas H. Chance article, then the biography will not meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If a Thomas H. Chance article cannot meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, then it is deleted. A Wikipedia article is not a reward for being important/significant. A Wikipedia article is a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. -- Jreferee t/c 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here are some previously written, verifiable factual references to Thomas Hugh Chance and his book on Plato's Euthydemus:
            • In The Blackwell Guide to Ancient Philosophy, Blackwell, 2003, p. 69, Christopher John Shields cites Chance's book as the only authority on Euthydemus among 13 commentaries and discussions of Plato’s individual dialogues, authored by internationally renowned scholars that include John Burnet, E.R. Dodds, Terence Irwin, Richard Kraut, and Paul Woodruff.
            • Michael Cormack credits Chance's analysis of Euthydemus in his discussion of that dialogue in Plato’s Stepping Stones: Degrees of Moral Virtue, Continuum International Publishing, 2006.
            • In Plato’s Introduction of Forms (Cambridge University Press, 2004), at p. 318, R.M. Dancy argues in regard of Euthydemus 301a-b, that Socrates engages in a sophistical spoofing of a straightforward question by Dionysodorus, misreading it as a trivial self-predication, against Chance's analysis of Socrates' reading as a self-identity, at pp. 181-182 of his book.
            • In Acts of Hope: Creating Authority in Literature, Law, and Politics, (University Of Chicago Press, 1994), James Boyd White writes on p. 41: "In the Euthydemus, the effort is to distinguish Socrates from others who are similar to him in a different respect, namely the teachers of eristic argument, who succeed in confusing their auditors, as Socrates also does, but by logical tricks rather than dialectic. See Thomas H. Chance, Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and What Is Not Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), especially 13-21." White repeats this reference verbatim in "Plato's Crito: The authority of Law and Philosophy", published in The Greeks and Us: Essays in Honor of Arthur W. H. Adkins, edited by Robert B. Louden and Paul Schollmeier (University Of Chicago Press, 1996), on p. 133.
            • In Platonic Questions: Dialogues with the Silent Philosopher, Penn State Press, 2000, on p. 189, Diskin Clay discusses "the extreme case of the Euthydemus" as treated by Rosamund Kent Sprague, Plato's Use of Fallacy (1962), and Thomas H. Chance, Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and What Is Not Philosophy (1991). As far as I know, these are the only book-length treatments of Plato's Euthydemus published in the XXth century.
            • In Plato’s Craft of Justice, (SUNY Press, 1996), on p. 81, Richard D. Parry writes: "Now there is an ambiguity in the notion of good fortune in this passage. [Euthydemus 279d-280b] Good fortune can mean the chance occurrence that results in something good happening to one; it can also mean the good result itself." In a note to this comment on p. 118 Parry credits Chance's discussion of the relevant passage on pp. 57-65 of his book, wherein Chance makes the distinction he is exploiting in subsequent discussion.
            • In the Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, Blackwell, 1998, at p. 13, Charles Taliaferro writes: "Thomas Chance and I discuss various uses of the adversary method in philosophy in "Philosophers, Red Tooth and Claw," Teaching Philosophy (1991). Chance has published a superb study of philosophical method in Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy."
            • Chance's book is cited in Ann N. Michelini, "Socrates Plays the Buffoon: Cautionary Protreptic in Euthydemus", The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 509-535, Richard D. Parry, "The Craft of Ruling in Plato's Euthydemus and Republic", Phronesis, Volume 48, Number 1, February, 2003, pp. 1-28, and Sara Rappe, "Father of the Dogs? Tracking the Cynics in Plato's Euthydemus", Classical Philology, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 282-303
            • C.C.W. Taylor, editor, From the Beginning to Plato: Routledge History of Philosophy Volume 1, Routledge, 2003; Chance's book is cited by G.B. Kerferd in the chapter on the sophists, on p. 269, and by Hugh H. Benson in the chapter on Socrates and the beginnings of moral philosophy, on pp. 347 and 349.
            • The Greek Sophists, edited and translated by Tania Gergel and John M. Dillon, Penguin Classics, 2003, cites Chance's book on p. xxviii, as one of two recommended discussions of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus.
            • Gerald Alan Press, Who Speaks for Plato?: Studies in Platonic Anonymity, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p. 192, singles out T.H. Chance as continuing the tetralogical analysis originated in 1630 by Samuel Petit and extended in the XIXth century by A.W. Winckelmann and F.G. Welcker, into the present century.
            • Some reviews of Chance's book:
            • Christopher Kirwan, The Classical Review, 44, 1994, 400
            • Stephen Allen Stertz, The Classical World 88, 1994-1995, 224
            • Rosamond Kent Sprague, Journal of History of Philosophy 32, 1994, 127-128.
            • Robin Waterfield, Ancient Philosophy 15, 1995, 191-199.
            • Hélène Perdicoyianni, Les Études Classiques 63, 1995, 179.
            • M. Meulder, Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, 1995 73 (1): 175-176.
            • The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1993, p. 240
            • Bibliographic references:
            • Luc Brisson, Frédéric Plin, Platon, 1990-1995: bibliographie, Vrin, 1999, p. 113, entry 7639.
            • Luc Brisson, Benoît Castelnérac, Frédéric Plin, Platon, 1995-2000: bibliographie, Vrin, 2004, p. 111, entry 9479.
            • Andrew D. Dimarogonas, Synopsis: An Annual Index of Greek Studies, CRC Press, 1999, lists reviews of Chance's book on p. 79, entry 2779; p. 123, entry 3978; p. 130, entry 4195.
            • I hope that this list will suffice to establish academic notability of Thomas Chance and his book on Plato's Euthydemus.
            • Larvatus 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
Again, what you have shown is that the book may be notable. But from which of those sources can you write a biography of the author? Corvus cornix 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your wisdom. Can you cite an instance of Wikipedia covering a book but not its known author? Larvatus 06:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
It's not relevant. Notability is not inherited. -- 68.156.149.62 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability of a book does not always imply the notability of the author. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Microskope‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

dont know what is above article, nominated to speedy deletion --Avinesh Jose 10:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


29 October 2007

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

I don't even know where to begin with this one...This may be the most out of process speedy deletion that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Speedy deleting an article of a Minor League Baseball team as A7 is bad enough, but add to it the fact that the admin stands by it and has gone through and deleted all evidence that the page has ever existed. Every other professional baseball team in North America has an article on Wikipedia. It's the Cardinals rookie league team that has been in continuous existence since 1937 - information I got from the cached page, so it was there. It wasn't new or poorly written or in a weird format...it looked like every other minor league baseball team article on WP. Smashville 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a likely mistake. Some may not understand that a rookie league team is a professional team... it is a bit counter-intuitive, eh? — xDanielx T/C 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but I did bring the same point up that every professional team in North America had one...and was told it was short, unreferenced and made no assertion of notability (I don't know what kind of assertion of notability was to be made...the page listed the league championships and the Cardinals affiliation, which for this sort of organization should be the only assertion that needs to be made...listing Major League alumni in all Minor League articles would be good, but that's a WP in and of itself). Smashville 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore possibly speedily. Being a professional sports team (even if not major league) is certainly an assertion of notability and thus it was an invalid A7. Indeed I would be very surprised if this was deleted after an AfD and so do not recommend listing at all. Eluchil404 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - As a minor league farm club of a major league team, it should have at least gone through the AFD process, or had notability tags added first. Also, was it instantly deleted without even allowing time for a hold to be added? That info is not accessable to non-admins, so I don't know. The whole deletion seems to be a lack of good faith, esp by an admin, who ought to know better. - BillCJ 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Articles on minor league teams clearly make an assertion of notability, but the level of notability can be debated. The article should be restored, and if necessary, sent to AfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The particular circumstances of this case suggest that the article deserves more discussion or a chance to be improved. That said, I think that the original A7 deletion was valid. The article stated that the team is "affiliated with the St. Louis Cardinals", but didn't state what the affiliation is. Also, although it did state that the team is a "rookie league team", the phrase is counterintuitive, as it brings to mind an image of a neighbourhood baseball team for local children. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those issues could have been easily fixed by anyone with a passing knowledge of US major and minor league baseball. A notability tag would have given a knowledgable editor the cahnce to fix it, which by the way, is what I understand notability tags are actually for. If an admin doens't know anything about baseball (not a bad thing in any way), I would think he'd at least ask for an opinion on the Baseball project talk page. But simply jumping in with an apparently-instant deletion is not really a well-thought out decision, and while it may genuinely be good faith, it is reckless. I am OK with taking it to AFD, while giving the article a chance to be improved. - BillCJ 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, of course, and I was commenting from my perspective, as someone whose knowledge of baseball is essentially limited to the understanding that it involves diamonds, bats, and balls of sufficient weight and rigidity to cause bodily damage traveling at high speeds. (OK, so I may be exaggerating slightly.) :P ... I feel that the article should be restored and was only trying to suggest that the deleting admin should not be accused of having carried out "the most out of process speedy deletion ... ever seen on Wikipedia" (quoted from the nomination). The deletion probably was somewhat hasty, but the article didn't really give much reason for pause (at least to those editors unfamiliar with baseball). As for your final point, I do not think that an automatic AfD listing is necessary. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, gotcha. Also, I wasn't proposing or suggesting an automatic AFD nom, just that I was OK with it happening. I'd rather just see the article restored, as I believe its issues can and will be fixed. - BillCJ 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and do not submit to a further AfD. Minor league baseball teams are notable. The issue with the phrase "rookie league" could be addressed by writing it like this: rookie league. By the way, Black Falcon, that same page explains what is meant by "affiliation" in this context. --BlueMoonlet 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - "A rookie league team based out of Johnson City, Tennessee" conveys no importance/significance and the bit about the General Manager was written in a way to give the General Manager importance/significance, not the team. The team plays its home games at Howard Johnson Field ... yawn (excuse me) ... conveys no importance/significance. The criminal conviction of their General Manager was not specifically sourced. On the other hand, they've been around since 1937 and play with the Appalachian League, which seems to provide enough importance/significance. I can see where the deleting admin was coming from and don't see any need for such DRV nomination drama. -- Jreferee t/c 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore only if the BLP violation is removed seems close to a WP:COATRACK to get at someone; while notability is probably asserted (barely, given the weasel words - they play with so & so; well I study with Green Day, suddenly, I'm notable too?) the BLP issue needs to be resolved or removed; because it appears in all versions from the start, it may be best to have this re-created from scratch. Carlossuarez46 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can live with the BLP restrictions and a clean page history. Having access to the rest of the article's content would be a great help though (copied onto a clean page would seem the best way, but I'm open to any other method). I can do some clean-up and editing, but again, I've never even seen the page, and I'm better at editing, not writing from scratch. - BillCJ 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Palma.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a public photograph obtained from the United States Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act [13]. It was listed on the page as such but was deleted by a bot as having no source information. It is since been copied over by a completely unrelated picture. The source was the service record of the veteran and the image is PD per the release law of FOIA. Independent verification of this can be gained by calling 314-801-0800 as military service record photographs are public and can be published without restriction. I will be the first to admit I have had problems with images in the past, but this is not one of them. This was legally obtained and is public and I ask it be undeleted. OberRanks 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ober, you can just upload it under a more expressive name once your injunction on uploading images ends on Nov 16th. It is definitely public domain, per http://www.archives.gov/faqs/index.html#copyright. Alternately, give me the original link and I'll upload it for you. Neil ☎ 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ottawa Panhandlers Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was falsely deleted because one admin said we didn't have enough references. I had about 12 good references in local Ottawa press about this article. This article has also previously been attacked from Ottawa City Hall and any deletion process should not have been hasty because of this. When asked how many references were needed Nishkid64 never specified. He just told us that none of our references were good ones. It was a kangaroo court as User:SmashtheState has said. There were no clear guidelines on how to improve the content of the article or keep it. All that was said was that our references didn't make the article notable even though we had DOZENS. I believe this was a bad faith delete. Yes. The vote is not a majority but dozens of people who do have experience in activism, specifically poverty activism and organized labour have voted to keep this article. User:Nishkid64 on the other hand has no experience in this matter. Which makes it even more obvious that this was a bad faith delete. A google search of Ottawa Panhandlers Union shows that there are many articles on this topic. Those are just a drop in the bucket as there have been many television and radio interviews. Apples99 (talk · contribs · logs) 09:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Blnguyen" is none other than Dr. Chi Nguyen, a criminologist in Ottawa who has repeatedly underplayed police vs street people crimes in publications like this one http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2002/patternsofcrime.html.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.108.240 (talk • contribs)

Blocked the user for trolling. FYI, Blnguyen is a college student in Australia. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Having read the discussion on deletion I am surprised that the final decision was to delete the article. It would appear that there were enough references online to support the article, and particularly given it's very unique nature (in how many countries have 'panhandlers' formed a union?) it would appear worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Although many references to WP:N were made against the inclusion, it was also pointed out that WP:IDONTKNOWIT isn't a valid argument - and states that just because something is only quoted in local publications it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Whilst the article itself was probably somewhat POV, this should be dealt with in the usual (and more appropriate) manner of correcting the article, not simply removing it entirely. It's uniqueness, coupled with the sources that were provided should have provided enough to give it a 'keep' result. Seajay 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - With respect to Seajay, I'm not at all surprised that the final decision was delete. Sure, there were lots of keep !votes, but they seemed to be primarily sockpuppets. The arguments for notability were based on publication in local papers, but the arguments against pointed out that such publication was actually scarce -- the 12 citations turned out to be almost entirely non-substantive (e.g. blogs, etc.) Through all the sockpuppetry, accusations, and other...junk...no one stepped forward with the supposed hundreds of other citations that the keep supporters claim exist. Notability having not been established, deletion was appropriate. (That the "owners" of the article keep personally attacking established, respected editors and accusing them of bad faith doesn't weigh into the merits of the article -- but it's counter-productive and should stop.) --TheOtherBob 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having slogged through that disaster of an AFD, it would appear that the close is appropriate; established editors stated that the sources present in the article were not of the quality that would satisfy verifiability and prove the notability of the organization (which, with the 34 members that one debater pointed out, would seem to be pretty small in the grand scheme of things). It's incumbent on the creators of an article to ensure that it meets the guidelines, and there seems to have been sufficient time for improvements to be made - the deletion suggests they weren't made prior to the deletion debate ending. Endorse deletion Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As a frequent user but relative newbie to the behind the scenes editing of articles, I was stunned to see how this process was handled. I've seen countless articles in Wikipedia "that need better sourcing". Clearly this article could have used more thorough sourcing, but I was appalled to see the credibility of editors given more weight than real-life Ottawa residents who clearly know way more about the issue and the local media scene. Three sources were completely and utterly misconstrued and it would be sad to think that the editors gave credence to those who know more about editing than about the actual facts of the situation. The op-ed piece written by a panhandler was in response to "news" article so skewed (and given national coverage) that the editors of the local paper of record (The Ottawa Citizen) was forced to allow a rebuttal. It would have been ideal to cite the original Citizen article but it appears those who had a political motive for discrediting the union were not interested in an impartial review and/or attempt to improve the article. The second critique of sources was in regards to the Hour. A claim that this is a tiny publication and very alternative is laughable to anyone living in the Ottawa area. It is one of several mainstream free dailies. The Express is a mainstream free weekly. Hardly tiny and hardly very alternative, unless you consider arts and culture extremely alternative. The two big talk radio stations have featured the OPU: CBC (the national public broadcaster) and CFRA (the corporate right-wing shoutfest). Had this article not been so speedily deleted, I might have succeed in digging up an archived radio interview from the CBC. Yeah, that's right, a politically motivated speedy deletion may have cost wikipedia a future editor. And we still counted all the other smaller local press coverage this union has garnered. So, in the final analysis, if this hasty decision isn't overturned you've lost a potential new recruit, tarnished the reputation of wikipedia and flushed down the memory hole an article that could have been improved (like so many other wikipedia articles) with more thorough referencing. 64.230.16.35Ottawa Resident —Preceding comment was added at 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — 64.230.16.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy deletion? It was up for five days as called for under the AFD process. If you have links to this coverage you're referring to, provide them for consideration. As for "politically motivated," you might want to prove that too, because I saw no "political" issues in the discussion. Assume good faith is a tenet here; a lot of the arguments for keeping failed to do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samir and I were targetted for having political motivations because we wanted the article to be deleted. We were repeatedly accused of having ties with Ottawa City Hall, and being police officers. One editor (who I blocked for self-admitted meatpuppetry) kept claiming that Samir was "Samir Bhatnagar", a police officer who had arrested him in real life. This editor then said he had Wikiscanner evidence which proved that relationship. Wikiscanner only examines anonymous edits, and links them with their respective institutions. Someone from Ottawa City Hall did vandalize the page, but it makes no sense that this editor connected the vandal with Samir, who lives hundreds of miles from Ottawa. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus was that the topic did not and would not meet WP:V and the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The bad faith accusations in the above DRV nomination seems to confirm that the article would not have met WP:V had it been kept since those who have an interest in the article seem to lack the experience to bring the article into meeting Wikipedia article standards. Comment The article name should have been Panhandlers Union of Ottawa, since that is what the press calls it. There might be enough relaible source material to create a WP:V article, but present efforts were clear that would not happen in the foreseeable future. Please consider creating a draft Panhandling in Ottawa article in your user space to present to WP:DRV, which may include information on the Panhandlers Union of Ottawa. As for sourse material, try limiting the content of the article to material contained in (1) Globe and Mail. (June 17, 1999) City withdraws panhandler charge Defendant laments missed opportunity to contest. Page A6; (2) Canadian Press. (May 1, 2003) Three years after federal push to ease homelessness, progress tough to see.; (3) Edgar, Patti. (June 10, 2005) Winnipeg Free Press Begging bylaw battle looming. Law firm, anti-poverty group await new city plan. Section: City; Page B1. Use search; (4) Industrial Worker. (May 1, 2006) Brooklyn warehouse workers winning with direct action. Volume 103; Issue 5; Page 3. (5) Industrial Worker. (June 1, 2007) Ottawa May Day scrambles lobbyists. Volume 104; Issue 6; page 9. (6) Generally see Aainfos.ca search; (7) Generally see Google book search; and (8) See generally Google scholar search. Publications by court judges are fine, but don't use filed complaints and responses for factual assertions. The Dominion Paper has some information, and it seems like a legit source. However, I didn't seen a editor listed and its reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight are not clear. -- Jreferee t/c 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse well reasoned close of a non notable group. The AfD revealed only one op-ed piece in a national newspaper, written by a member of the union, and several pieces in local newspaper of limited circulation. Sources for media reports elsewhere were not provided, beyond the statement that they may have not been archived. To "Ottawa Resident" above: The hour is a small publication, The express is a free weekly of limited circulation, CBO Ottawa does not equate to the national CBC and Lowell Green talking to Andrew Nellis does not equate to a CFRA piece on a panhandlers union. The Dominion is not mainstream and I have no idea of the quality of citations from there. The article was written as a soapbox and the carnival nature of the entire AfD (with wild conspiracy theories left, right and centre) cements the mudified nature of the keep arguments which were trying to make mountains out of very limited sources. Good close by Blnguyen -- Samir 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no clear consensus, regardless of what people may feel of the justification. Deletion is supposed to be based on consensus decision; the administration have chosen to find consensus by ignoring every contradicting opinion. And just a note that Samir here is the original source of the deletion request, and that he has revealed an obvious and personal grudge against the Panhandlers' Union. In particular, he is deliberately spinning material presented. For example, the CFRA interview references was not "chatting with Lowell Green," it was an hour-long, in-depth debate between representatives of the Panhandlers' Union and representatives from the local business lobby. We have good reason to suspect, based on his comments, that Samir is part of a current and ongoing campaign of harassment against the OPU and its organizers. The fact that Samir here is even aware of the Lowell Green discussion reveals his intimate knowledge of the OPU, something a casual editor would not have. SmashTheState 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:DGFA, Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. Blnguyen disregarded the votes of single-purpose accounts and the IPs who were told to vote keep on the page. Also from DGFA, Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Blnguyen clearly felt these policies were not being met, and as a result, he closed the AfD as delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew is right. It is obvious that "Samir" is Sgt Samir Bhatnagar of the Ottawa police and he arrested Proshanto at the May Day protest last year. He has been targeting Ottawa street people for years and years on the streets of Ottawa and even here on the Wikipedia. You can tell from this change that he made that he has a profound knowlege of Ottawa even in March of 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottawa_ankle_rules&diff=43402072&oldid=41852766. The wikiscanner confirms it. Bhatnagar has used the Wikipedia for years to subjugate the views against Ottawa panhandlers. Nishkid64 blocked me also just because Andrew and I put multiple votes down. That is not fair. I have had to go to the library on Laurier to use the computers now. Also how else would he know about the Lowell Green show? Also the picture on his page is from the police service box at the Corel Centre. It is bullshit that he is a "gastroenterologist" and Nishkid64 is taking us for fools when the evidence is obvious that he is a crooked cop and a puppet of Mayor O'Brien.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.108.240 (talk • contribs)

I blocked you for meatpuppetry. That is a blockable offense. We have rules here on Wikipedia. And yes, Samir is a gastroenterelogist. Look at his contributions. How would a police officer be able to make medicine-related edits? Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I will acknowledge that the article is POV and needs a rewrite. That said, I do think it is notable. The Panhandlers Union has made a big splash in Ottawa. So what we have here is a flawed article that's being deleted -- when it should be kept and repaired. While I do not want to summon up insane conspiracy theories, there is no denying that the article was vandalized TWICE by an IP address that traces back to Ottawa City Hall. This was reported in the media -- CBC, specifically -- and makes the deletion of the article at this time seem... well... weird. You know when people at City Hall take the time to vandalize your article, something strange is going on. Anyway, restore the article, and I'll try to rewrite it to take out the heavy POV political bias contained in it. --Nik 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per others above. Also, the article was a wreck and made no sense whatsoever. Forget the Ottawa Panhandlers club.. who has even heard of a panhandlers club anywhere?! No good faith attempt was made to establish notability in spite of being asked and the refs were less than acceptable. Article sure belongs deleted. Sarvagnya 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per WP:ORG, notability needs to be more than local, and no reliable sources seems to have been presented indicating that this organization is known outside Ottawa. I also note that Nishkid64 did reply to Smash's question about sources (contra Apple99's assertion in the nom). It's not about quantity of sources, but quality. Many of the "keep" !votes were directly criticizing the policy of verifiability, asserting that we should trust instead the direct knowledge of people who live in Ottawa. --BlueMoonlet 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per BlueMoonlet. - KNM Talk 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I stand by all my reasoning from the AfD. I think BlueMoonlet put it best; the notability of the union has to be seen beyond a local level. The only reliable sources (there were maybe 1-2) were from community newspapers. I likened the newspaper coverage in Ottawa to something of a similar nature in my town. I said that if there was a union that was heavily publicized in my local newspaper, or even my county newspaper, I still wouldn't think it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a list of of Ottawa Roads and Ottawa Parks on Wikipedia which are primarily notable for their "localness". Surely, the OPU is of at least similar notability? Or has my mentioning of them doomed their entries to deletion? For those who are genuinely interested in following wikipedia guidlines on notability, the complainants should have had a "notability" tag on the article to alert other editors or a "expert-subject" tag, so interested editors could have corrected their concerns by citing articles like the following: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/story.html?id=5616fec4-3ed8-461a-ac2e-290d876229b2&k=30424 with a little bit of genuine research I'm sure the criteria of notability could be satisfied, if editors were genuinely interested in showing good faith towards the claims of numerous Ottawa residents who have claimed the OPU is a phenomena in Ottawa. Show some good faith and undelete this article, as I'm sure more "reliable" sources will follow. And please don't dare claim that the CanWest News Service is a tiny, very alternative, and biased news source because it paints the OPU in a negative light. 70.49.134.161 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Ottawa Resident[reply]

Yes look at the CanWest News report!!! I can give you a quote that they talk about the Panhandlers Union, "But, for the past three months, a cloud has hovered over his corner in the form of two men claiming they represent the Ottawa Panhandlers Union. Repeated demands he pay union dues of $100 a week to the men who said they were organizing a strike were too much...He plans to move his business elsewhere because he said the men threatened to beat him and the police told him there is little they can do to protect him from harassment." This is notable news and it is all over Ottawa!!! Andrew and I were the two men collecting the $100 from that scab. Pro Smith 207.7.108.240 02:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I heartily support anyone with the requisite experiance closing XfDs regardless of their admin-or-lack-therof status, John254 (talk · contribs) made an error in my opinion in this one. Of course, I was the proponent for deletion so I might be biased, however:

  • Several clear policy reasons were given for it's deletion,
  • The keep arguments not only explicitly invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they
  • Failed utterly to provide sources supporting the article, and finally
  • No commentary was provided in the close as to why core policies should be ignored.

I won't repeat the quotes from policy I made in the AfD, go look at them there if you'd like. Short version: While countering systemic bias is a wonderful thing, it is entirely possible for something to be a reliable news source without us being able to verify it is reliable. No sources about something (as opposed to referencing that thing) means no article.
CygnetSaIad 05:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - csd request was correctly overturned, as the article asserted the notability of the topic. The AfD reason was just "contested csd". When you later expanded on your reasoning, your interpretation of policy was challenged and discussed. I know AfD isn't a vote, but you need to realise you are the only one who thought the article should be deleted. Others made valid arguments, and the closing admin clearly did the right thing. Mark Chovain 05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the arguments raised were:
  1. "this site is invaluable"
  2. "It passes WP:WEB by being syndicated by Google News"
  3. "should actually be a speedy keep"
  4. "I read the Sudan Tribune often"
It may very well be the case that the site is invaluable, and that it does important work in the region. But in the absence of sources that speak to its reliability, etc, we can't write an article about it. These aren't "my" interpretations of policy, they are chapter and verse, mate. Noting that the article still has not source one in it, those provided in the AfD are as follows:
  1. [14] A Google search
  2. [15] A listing on Barack Obama's website, and
  3. [16] A reference made within a House Committee on Foreign Affairs' document
None of these provide any information that would allow us to write a neutral verifiable article on the topic.
CygnetSaIad 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 October 2007

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

Should not have been deleted as spam, I was not the one to create the page but I've just come back from Kibera where I visited this organization which is a valid non-profit registered community base organization in the Kibera slum. If I had been on Wikipedia I would have place a hangon tag on the article to dispute the deletion. The reason was spam, but if the article needs improvement with external references, etc. I'd be happy to provide them. If you are not willing to restore the article in mainspace, please restore it in my userspace and I will improve it. Thanks Brian 13:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion - Specifically and on the whole, the article did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. For example, the article did not specify any membership number for this newly form, year and a half old organization or any specific involvement or impact on the community. There was nothing in the article from which to determine an important or significant about the topic. Speedy delete was appropriate under WP:CSD#A7. -- Jreferee t/c 14:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, that as written, it's not a great article. If an admin will kindly move a copy of it to my userspace, I'll improve it. I can add references that support the importance, notability and verifiability and it will be easy for me to get membership numbers and examples of specific projects that have made a difference in Kibera. Thanks Brian 14:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)btball[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Itmfa-flag.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedy deleted because of I9, copyright infringement. I don't remember, but I thought I had quoted the creator on the image page as saying "And to the folks who want me to create and sell bumper stickers: Please. The button and lapel pin business is killing me. I'm not adding any more crap to my line of ITMFA merch. But, hey, feel free to create your own ITMFA merch. Much to the consternation of my business-minded pals (Democrats, one and all), I didn't copyright “ITMFA.†I'm not in this to profit, I'm just in it to spread the meme." The creator of the image specifically disclaims copyright and encourages distribution. Is that not explicit enough? SchmuckyTheCat 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The license on the image was PD. Don Savage has not released the image into the public domain. Despite what he said, he did copyright the image, automatically, at the time of creation. Schmucky was not the copyright holder, and barring an explicit statement from Savage saying "this is PD", he has no grounds to release it into PD. I'm more than happy to undelete if there is a statement of permissions from the author; simply saying "you guys can use this image to make stuff with it" is not sufficient for Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that the blog linked to above says "I did not copyright ITMFA". Savage is saying that he did not copyright the statement ITMFA.(probably meaning trademarking) He says nothing about the image ITMFA-flag.png. Even without this, there is no license for usage on Wikipedia, but this further shows that there was no explicit license. As I said before, I'm happy to help Mr. Savage and Schmucky through the permissions process for this. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the creator saying he wants the image spread, and that he did not copyright it, is not enough for you? I'm sorry, but I think this was a bad faith deletion, expressly done in retribution for a critical comment I left on your page. I would hope other administrators look at this and other administrative actions you have made lately. Jeffpw 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. No that is not enough. Schmucky does not get to put the image in the public domain. Only the copyright holder can, and his statement is actually not enough. Releases into the public domain have to be an explicit and irrevocable release of all rights. Jeffpw, you need to take your vendetta against me elsewhere. This was a valid deletion. Please, show me on the blog link where Savage says "I hereby release irrevocably all rights to this image." You won't find it because it's not there. His statement does not meet the bar of a valid public domain release. Therefore, Schmucky could not validly upload the image under PD, and the deletion was correct. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vendetta against you???? Swat, you continue to tell me to assume good faith while simultaneously assuming bad faith on my part. Please be consistent. When you engage in a series of controversial admin actions you should expect that there will be a response and questions as to both the action and motivation behind it. That's the Wikipedia way. If you don't like it you may relinquish the tools at any time. Nobody is forcing you to be an administrator. In any event, I disagree with this action, and would hope another (uninvolved) admin would weigh in on the matter. You've already made your position clear. Jeffpw 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the image was also in the SavageLove article, illustrating a section specifically about the image. It seems that it would have been usable in that article, at least, under fair use rules. Jeffpw 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be so hard on the speedy deleter. Since the source website alread is selling products using its copyright material, it doesn't seem likely that the source website will give out a free license. In otherwords, it doesn't seem likely that anyone at Wikipedia can successfully follow When permission is confirmed to have a valid {{PD-release}} image tag. Had the image been tagged differently, it probably would have been deleted anyways. -- Jreferee t/c 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems possible. I think the image deleters do get tired of seeing one misapplied free use tag after another. It is a difficult task and it is made more difficult by being jumped on. The uploader did not seem to put much thought into the assertion listed on the image page. Images licensing review takes time, so the more cooperation the uploader provides, the easier it will be for those who review the image licenses. Hopefully, this DRV discussion will help everyone move towards cooperation. -- Jreferee t/c 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
HobbyZone Millennium PTU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as non-notable and/or an advertisement. I was in the middle of adding external links since I'd done this at another wiki when it was deleted. I maintain that this is a notable product given the fact that it is the first model of this type to utilize two extremely sophisticated technologies. Furthermore, it's manufactured and distributed by the second-largest hobby company in the world. Other examples of R/C models I did under a previous username include:

-- PMDrive1061 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have any secondary sources for it? There's no point in restoring if it'll just get deleted more slowly through AFD.--chaser - t 08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:CSD#G11 Blatant advertising applies. The article presented marketing phrases such as "first low-cost helicopter", "A great many other inexpensive indoor helicopters depend", "Another unique feature", "which may be ordered through any hobby dealer", "As with all HobbyZone products, the Millennium PTU is sold as a fully assembled, ready-to-go package which includes four heavy-duty carbon zinc "AA" batteries for the transmitter/charger." "Suggested retail price: US$59.99" Comment - Providing examples of other unsourced articles you did under another Wikipedia name is a reason to expect that this article also will be unsourced and not meet Wikipedia's article standards. Also, no reliable source independent of the product's manufacturer has ever written in their publication that the HobbyZone Millennium is first model of this type to utilize two extremely sophisticated technologies. Fantasies of notability do not make something Wikipedia notable. -- Jreferee t/c 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, kindly do not accuse me of having "fantasies of notability." This is a major commercial product by a major manufacturer. Three original articles of mine under my previous screen name were built into featured articles and I have a total of six features to my credit. Second, I made it clear that it had been written on another wiki. Actually, I added it to Wikia's own Radio Control wiki along with Helipedia.com and Eflighwiki.com before bringing it here. Third, it was blown out of the water so fast that I didn't have the slightest chance of cleaning it up. It was late when I wrote it and I was planning to return this morning to make it more formal and to add the third party sources. When I was an administrator (de-adminned by my own request), I extended the benefit of the doubt to a lot of users, especially the established ones. I speedied quite a few stubs for lack of content without first seeing who the heck wrote the thing. In every instance, I restored the stub without question. At this point, please don't bother to restore the thing. It isn't worth this hassle. More energy is being spent discussing this than is worth expending.  :( --PMDrive1061 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for my flip comment, which did not help the discussion. Also, there was no reason for me to address Wikipedia notable in this discussion, since it's not relevant to speedy deletion. I think the topic was sufficiently important enough to overcome WP:CSD#G7, but the wording of the article did not overcome WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising. I have no prejudice against recreating a sourced article minus the blatant advertising. I think that can be done even during this DRV, so long as the recreated article does not meet any of the speedy delete criteria. -- Jreferee t/c 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - the very best option would be for the editor or others to fix these articles that have problems with notability and advertising wherever possible, and then remove any of them that they're unable to satisfy the proper criteria. Arthur 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article was created at 06:41, 28 October 2007, tagged for deletion at 06:42, 28 October 2007, and deleted at 06:43, 28 October 2007. Reading the deleted article, I fail to see how G11 applies; there may be some unfortunate "brochure phrasing" but it was by no means a blatant advertisement. In the 2 minutes from creation to deletion, PMDrive1061 was not given a chance to place {{hangon}} or explain why the article should be kept. Overturn, userfy if necessary, and move on. Let's give our editors the benefit of the doubt. - auburnpilot talk 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that PMDrive1061 didn't have time to add his external links, as he suggests. Looking at the other samples he gives, it's clear that notability will not be established. He maintains that the text he wrote itself establishes notability. Simply adding external links to hobbyist sites and forums wouldn't have helped. The editor seems not to understand that verifiability accompanies notabililty. Of the other samples given, only Interactive Toy Concepts Micro Mosquito seems to have the possibililty of being notable, and it isn't properly referenced for example where it claims it was covered in the New York Times, making it difficult to verify the claims. Arthur 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)
I disagree. New page patrol should not be approached with the same "shoot to kill" attitude that vandal reverting requires. With the exception of pure vandalism, utter nonsense, and test pages, editors should be allowed some appearance of an ability to write an article. Had I reviewed this request, I would have declined the speedy and swapped the template for {{underconstruction}}. When an article goes from creation to deletion in two minutes, we have a problem. The correct course of action here would have been for the deleting admin to restore the article, userfy it, and allow the author to improve it to Wikipedia standards. I'd do it myself, but I'm sure somebody would cry "abuse" since I've commented here. - auburnpilot talk 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But to reitereate, if the sources he would add would establish notability, that would be fine. However from his statements and example articles, it's not clear that this would happen. Note that his original comments were that the notability was already inherent to the article. Also note that his further work he didn't do was NOT to establish references, but to add external links. I agree he didn't have time to do this, but it's pretty clear that they wouldn't have made a difference. You can overturn the deletion, and then we'll just take it and the rest of the unsourced non-notable articles and run them through afd, but in some sense it's just prolonging the inevitable. I'd be much more comfortable if he was making efforts to establish notability and reliable sources rather than arguing they are already there, when clearly they are not. This article and most of the examples given are not in line with WP:RS, WP:VER and have serious issues with advertising like quality per WP:NOT and WP:POV. There are NO sources in any of the articles, only external references. The external references tend to be sales links, hobbyist groups, and forums, none of which really qualify as reliable sources, let alone establish notability. How will "under construction" help when the editor shows no willingness to establish notability, and previous articles appear to be prime candidates for deletion, and no other editors step in to clean-up the article? Arthur 04:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)
It doesn't much matter now, as it seems this was the final straw in a long line of disappointments for the author of this article. S/he has since retired. [17] - auburnpilot talk 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S/he unretired in the past.[18] -- Jreferee t/c 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation with a total rewrite if notability can be proven. Unless "first low-cost helicopter of its type to utilize both 2.4 GHz radio technology as well as lithium polymer battery technology" is an assertion of notability, it fails A7. And the tone of the article is overly promotional, it could say that same thing with 5 about fewer words, just "lithium batteries" will suffice for "lithium polymer battery technology," even the edit summary of the first edit: The most fun you can have for forty bucks. New article on new model helicopter. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, Needs links to a few third-party reviews/sources, but a decent stub verging on start class article. Taking this to AfD or prodding it for sources would have been reasonable, but to speedy delete it so quickly was rude.-gadfium 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthurrh tagged the article for speedy deletion. To address this, I placed a note on Arthurrh's talk page regarding taging articles for deletion so close to creation. The actual speedy deletion was done under the believe that the article had been created an hour before he looked at it (see below). WP:CSD#G11 was a valid reason to delete the article and a note on the talk page is a way to address the tagging so close to creation. -- Jreferee t/c 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from speedy deleter. It was me who deleted the article, picked more-or-less at random from those tagged for speedy per A7. At the time, I didn't see anything in it to claim or demonstrate any notability for that particular product over and above any others of its type, or that such products are individually notable in and of themselves. The edit summary provided was not helpful to signal any future intentions there may have been for the article, and together with the 'copywriting' format it seemed therefore eligible for CSD.
    In retrospect, it probably was a little harsh to have done so, and considering it for AfD might have been more appropriate than speedy. Unfortunately since I had neglected to update the time display in my user preferences after the switch to daylight savings time locally here the night before, it appeared as if the article had been created an hour before I looked at it, rather than two minutes before.
    I did neglect to review the creator's prior editing history in any detail, and considered only the article's merits; no slight was or is intended. PMDrive1061 did leave a message on my talk page asking me to reconsider the deletion, but this was after I had clocked off for the day and by the time I saw it, this DRV was already in progress. Would be happy for the article's creator (or anyone else) to have another go at establishing the article, if undeleted through this process. In looking for any independent, informative commentary on this product, I was unable to find anything outside of sales notices, generic product reviews, and the like. These didn't seem to be promising or appropriate materials to build a valid article from; but perhaps there's other material out there which was missed, or in some other form. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Pure brochurespeak. ~ trialsanderrors 06:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as advert. There could be an article at that title, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Best of and one.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was removed for no FUR, I can give one Keith D. Tyler 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 October 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fogen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

1) no consensus to delete was ever produced (one delete vote vs a bunch of my counter arguments). 2)"CFD regulars don't understand it" is not a valid deletion criteria. 3) it is part of a copyvio screening mechanism and it's loss would potentialy leave wikipedia open to haveing more copyvios missed (this type of copyvio doesn't appear to be picked up by NP patrol very often.) Geni 12:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - As indicated in the deleted category heading, Fogen refers to the fogen system and images listed in the Fogen category were uploaded through the fogen system. For those Fogen category images that do not appear to be copyvios should have their tag replaced with {{MultilicenseFogenviewed}}. Others should be tagged for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - There is a related discussion at Category:Fogenviewed CfD, which indictes that "Fogen" is an abbreviation of From owner general. -- Jreferee t/c 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I would be happy to overturn the deletion if there were a reasonable copyvio need for this category. I've read both CfDs. I have to agree with BrownHairedGirl. I can't make an sense of the purpose of this category or the documentation you developed to support it. The CfD explanation for the category was given as

    "It tells us that there is a fair chance of the image being a copyvio. The upload process is described here. Since most of the uploads are from new users but at the same time will appear to be correctly formatted our normal copyvio detection process break down. Thus another process is needed. The cat is part of that process."

    It is fair to have one category dedicated to helping identify a few copyvio images, even if that category is only used by one person. But I really can't figure out what is going on. Until the purpose for the category is clarified and the process explained in a way that others generally can understand it, I think the category should remain deleted. The is what the CfD consensus to delete brought out in the CfD discussion. The keep reasoning never overcame this, so the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 14:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It assumes that people have limited understanding of wikipedia copyright policy and copyright law. Significant experence (my Genisock2 account that deals with this stuff has over 3000 edits) suggests this is a reasonable assumption.Geni 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of get a sense that there might be a use for what you are doing, but I think everyone is turned off by your circuitous and obtuse responses and the lack of initial consensus to go forward with the Fogen effort in Wikipedia space. If seasoned Wikipedian's can't figure out what is going on, implementing the Fogen effort on new users would not seem to have an overall positive outcome, even if copyvio content is deleted as a result of the Fogen effort. New users especially will be turned off from Wikipedia if they do not feel they are being treated fairly. That is why it is important that all aspects of the Fogen effort - the process as well as those implementing it - be straight forward and clear. -- Jreferee t/c 15:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in a way that makes sense to a new user how the current system of AFD templates work?Geni 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. When you are explaining why you want it kept, and you say the following two things, it doesn't lend credence to your argument: The Cat is important because the form of image upload produces a lot of copyvios that get missed by the new image patrolers. As a result it is useful to have them all in one place and New image patrolled are an irrelevance. They missed another image today. Your arguments were not as solid as either Carlos' or BHG's. --Kbdank71 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that "does not have an unrealisticaly high opinion of new image patrolers" was a deletion criteria. The shear number of problem images that turn up in Category:Fromowner without haveing any PUI nsd or db-copyvio tags added them strongly suggests that new image patrolers are not very good at spoting such images. please feel free to provide evidence to the contary.Geni 16:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I can't provide evidence to the contrary, that means somehow that my reasoning for wanting to endorse isn't valid? And honestly, I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence. --Kbdank71 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means it was uploaded through [this page]. Which part of this are you haveing a problem understanding?Geni 16:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would Category:Images uploaded using the Fromowner system be an accurate description in that case? --Metropolitan90 04:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion this is not defining, is apparently not used for any maintenance - how an image is uploaded is of little interest, actually. Something along the lines of Metropolitan90's idea may make sense, but those get uploaded other than through the fogen subpage as well. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is of significant interest when certian methods are more likely to contian copyvios.Geni 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? you have proof of that assertion? Methinks many people probably don't even know that it exists - little wonder that there were so few pages in the cat. Carlossuarez46 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pyroterrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was was nominated for AfD. The nominator stated that the term appeared to be almost unused off Wikipedia mirrors. Only a total of 768 Google hits even included all mirrors. The article had no references. I checked 2 dictionaries and did not find the term. Therefore, I speedied it as a hoax. The original author recreated the article. The new version had 5 references,[19] but two were non-notable blogs and two did not even contain the term. The other one appears to be a book which may or may not be a WP:RS. Someone else marked it as a prod. The original author removed the prod. I have redirected the article to Arson and protected the redirect. I am posting here to get more opinions as to whether this is a suitable course of action or if we should allow the recreation of the article. Johntex\talk 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion/protection. If sufficiently reliable sources appear an author can come to DRV, but as of now this is just an unnotable protologism. It's possible to stick a prefix on terrorism for any number of imagined scenarios, but this really doesn't have much significance if there isn't anyone actually doing it and nobody is really studying it as a distinct thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - There is no hoax speedy delete and hoax is specifically listed as a non-criteria in the speedy delete policy. None of the other speedy delete reasons apply. Pyroterrorism, pyro terrorism, and pyro-terrorism seem to be made up terms, which seems why no reliable source information is being found on the topic. However, merely because the article is misnamed is no reason to speedy delete it. The topic obviously is a legitimate topic (see for example Google search for arson+terrorism), but mis-named. A search of Wikipedia for arson terrorism shows that they usually burn objects (e.g., trucks), not large tracts of uninhibited land as claimed in the deleted article. The topic might attract original research claims (e.g. Southern California recent fires were terrorism), but that is an AfD reason to delete, not speedy delete reason. Information about the topic might best fit in the arson or terrorism article (neither of which even mentions the topic), but that not something for which speedy delete is designed. Removing a prod is merely a disagreement that the prod is appropriate and a proper response would be to list the article at AfD, not redirect it. Also, I do not see a reason to protect the article. The article had been around two months - since 28 August 2007 - so there does not seem to be a reason to speedy delete the article even in a general sense. -- Jreferee t/c 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD - google scholar produces a result for example, and this could probably be transwikied to Wiktionary. Addhoc 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist Speculation about arson and terrorism goes quite a way back [20]. As sad of an indictment that is of our media, it potentially makes for a feasible article (finding a proper name is a different issue). ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist Here is a citation to (and opportunity to buy a copy of) a journal article on the topic and using the term. Here and here are a pair of related New York Times articles about convictions for using arson as terrorism. This FBI testimony to congress is also related. GRBerry 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Studies in Conflict & Terrorism article ends up being our main ref for this, we should probably move the article to pyro-terrorism, which is how that writer (who appears to have coined the term for his article) spells it. No vote from me; just wanted to get the move suggestion in there. Heather 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/protection like it or not Wikipedia is now influential enough, thanks to its ranking on Google searches, and mirror sites, that it can easily create a neologism by creating an article on a subject that is not notable and we should avoid creating neologisms. There is no reason why the article on Arson, to which the page has been redirected, and wich is not very large, should not have a section on the use of arson as a terrorist method (the IRA often used firebombs that fitted in a pocket to burn out department stores, along with torching buses and cars) and this could use the given source to mention the potential of bush fires being used as a weapon. This allows the information to be included in Wikipedia without creating a neologism --Philip Baird Shearer 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AFD and leave it have its 5 days. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 October 2007

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

I created this article on October 23. It described web.py, which is a web application framework for the the Python programming language. There were already articles for nearly ever other Python framework that I know of, so I wanted to make an article on web.py for completeness. I believe I established the notability of web.py by referencing a couple of major sites and projects that use it (namely Reddit and YouOS. I know that there aren't any up-to-date software notability guides, but I believe that software which forms a major part of some high-traffic website's infrastructure is notable. I could certainly find other articles and references to web.py to establish notability, if this is insufficient. This article was speedy deleted, apparently because it was a recreation of a previously deleted page. (I wasn't aware that a previous page had ever existed.) I'm asking for it to be restored based on the subject's notability, which I will certainly be able to document more fully given the opportunity. For the record, I'm not affiliated in any way with the creator of web.py, Aaron Swartz... though I am a web programmer who appreciates having Wikipedia articles that cover many of the major web frameworks. Thanks. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seeing as how this already went through AfD in May 2006, and given that no evidence has been presented that this has become more notable now than it was then, I 'm going to endorse this deletion as a valid G4. Heather 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heather, I don't know what the previous contents of the article were... they may not have established its notability at all. The AfD mentions that it was considered non-notable. In my recently-deleted version, I believe I established the notability of the software. And can add more notable uses on top of those. That's why I'd like it reinstated. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin here. No versions of this article have ever asserted any notability, including this last one. I don't count a mention that some website uses this code as an assertion of notability. There's no reason to restore this article before references to multiple substantial coverage in reliable sources are provided. Sandstein 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that media coverage should be the only grounds of notability for software. For example, we have an article on Googlefs, the distributed database filesystem used internally at Google. It's notable simply because it's an interesting piece of technology used to power a prominent website. I'd argue for web.py's notability on similar grounds. Another reason for its notability: Philip Eby (creator of WSGI, an important Python web server interface) suggested [21] that web.py is the most pythonic web framework. There's been a lot of debate among Python developers on whether to choose and promote one particular web framework, and web.py helps to inform that debate. I'd say that's a notable issue since it concerns one of the major languages used to produce dynamic web pages. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure you meant well, and I'm sure this software is notable to certain people, just not to the readership of a general purpose encyclopedia. Under our generally agreed-upon rules of notability, forum posts or the perceived interestingness of a topic do not constitute notability. Coverage in reliable sources (not necesssarily in the media) does. The software might be covered, however, as part of a wider article about this general type of software. Sandstein 21:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All righty. I'm aware of the general notability guidelines, but I guess I've seen (and edited?) more than a few articles on software that don't seem to meet them. However, I know that one bad example shouldn't foster another. I may try to write a broader article on Python web frameworks, perhaps as a subsection of web application frameworks. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD seemed to reach a fairly strong conclusion. Do you have any evidence to present to support the undeletion of this page that was not brought up in the AfD. If not, then I endorse the deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My argument for notability is based on the use of the web.py framework by a couple of high-profile and high-traffic web sites. It seems like this isn't sufficient according to others, though. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 04:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is, the same could be said of bits of PHP script that I've written that definitely aren't notable in and of themselves. We need sources demonstrating that the code is itself notable, not simply that it is used on "a couple of" sites which get heavy traffic. Heather 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete - No substantial new information has been presented to overcome the reasons the article was deleted at AfD. As for notability, the fact that Reddit and YouOS use the product but have failed to tout it's importance to the media shows that Web.py (or Webpy or Webpy.org) lacks notability. Seriously, if Web.py is that important, why has no one ever written about it in a reliable source independent of Web.py? The topic also does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards since there is not enough reliable source material to support a Wikipedia article. You have the opportunity to create a draft article in your user space, so there is no reason to have the article recreated in article space without any referenced material. -- Jreferee t/c 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy Deletion considering that this already went through an afd TonyBallioni 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quantum fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Non-admin closed as "Keep", saying that "the consensus is clear and the article has sources". Without getting into details about the validity of the sources (which I dispute), the consensus was not a clear "keep" by any stretch of the imagination. Despite likely SPAs, about half of the !votes were delete, and the debate suffered from some of the same problems as the related article on Vanna Bonta (deleted, but also on DRV). Itub 16:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. As the non-admin closure of this afd discussion I believe the consensus was clear (else I would have left it alone); but I understand fully that my actions in doing so are open to review. If others feel that the consensus was not as clear as I thought it was then I will, of course, accept this and learn from it. B1atv 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but no objection to an admin reclosing the AfD differently - The closer seems to have interpret the debate correctly, but the discussion was not so solid that a delete close would be out of line. Non admin AfD closes can be reopened by any administrator, even during this DRV. See Non-administrators closing discussions. So any admin thinking about posting overturn in this DRV should just reclose the AfD as delete and close this DRV. In the future, just post a note at WP:AN and request an admin reopen the non admin AfD close. If that doesn't bring satisfaction, then post here. Comment The term "quantum fiction" seems to have originated in April 1996 by Vanna Bonta's novel, "A Quantum Fiction" which is said to be the first work of "quantum fiction" in recorded history. The trouble is, it seems to be the only work of "quantum fiction" in recorded history. On the other hand, the term "quantum fiction" is being used by others, but perhaps not enough. See Google books and Google scholar. On balance, there probably is not enough reliable source material to support an article on the term and the information might fit better in the Vanna Bonta article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vanna_Bonta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not_Self-Published 65.19.53.5 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Just though you should know there are libelous claims on which the deletion requests are based, specifically that her novel is self-published. Vanna Bonta's novel is not self-published. The publisher is on an earlier book: A Janigan; and the publishing house that published her novel Flight which pioneered quantum fiction (and which I see was not deleted but kept) is not a POD, it's a small but legitimate publisher. Bonta and the novel and their popularity is biggie thorn in the side of some science fiction people. The book was published by Meridian House and it is not a self-published novel or a vanity press or a POD house. How do I know? I have an earlier book from the same publisher and it lists the publishers names. Black and white since 1989. There is also record of an advance they apid to Bonta.[reply]
Another claim that isn't true FYI is those claims that she's just into self-publicity. That is as far off as possible. How do I know? I know someone in the Space community (science journalist Laura Woodmansee) who had to talk Bonta five or six times into agreeing to be interviewed in her book Sex In Space. When she then agreed to do a panel for her also at a conference, newspapers in every country repeated what Bonta had to say and she did not even want to grant interviews. Bonta is known and respected for her advocacy of Space and literacy and she is like family in the community. She will support causes she loves but she is all about promoting ideas and not herself. That is from people who have dealt with her if you can't figure it out by reading her.
Just saw those very glaring points. One is a potential legal liability since you seem to have taken action (page deletion). OK so you cover yourself saying "alleged" self-published isn't notable. But you are acting on the fake claims. So there are my two bits for Wikiwise.
Was wondering also how it is that self-published bloggers and science fiction fandom people (mostly all self publish themselves and each other) or MySpace and YouTube personalities who are self promoters qualify and a novel and person such as Bonta that got serious reviews does not. Just for Wikiquality this should all be reviewed by a Senior administrator if not already being looked into. Not necessarily to reinstate that article it seemed way too long but for the points mentioned and fairness and Wiki honor. 65.19.53.5 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse my deletion, whether she's self-published or not doesn't make her any more notable. Despite all the SPAs (including the nominator here), the AFD was valid and consensus was clear. --Coredesat 12:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (and rewrite) The AfD was a disgrace.--as was the unbelievably spammy article. The most self-indulgent personal bio I've seen here, which is saying a lot, considering the strong competition But one of the people arguing admitted to a strong personal dislike for her fiction. The fans arguing for keep made similarly personal comments. Among all the bickering, the true argument for keep was not considered, which is the multiple reviews for her fiction. Not all were actually cited, but if they are all real she just might be notable. The argument at the Deletion Review similarly misses that point and is as far off the mark as the arguments in the AfD. Poetry awards were also specified, but I doubt their significance. The movie roles were clearly trivial. Self-published was not used as a reason in the closure. But it is amazing that opportunity was not taken during the AfD to rewrite the article into some semblance of objectivity and proportionate weight--its nature undoubtedly affected the decision. Orange Mike properly said that if rewritten it might actually establish some notability. I wouldnt oppose a "permit recreation on talk page," as the best chance of getting an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While the issue of the biography meeting WP:N can be debated, AfD consensus seems to say that it is not and it is clear from the AfD that the article itself did not meet WP:A and would not likely meet WP:A anytime soon. The multiple reviews for her fiction may make her fiction meet WP:N, but of those reviews do not include biography material, they do not help the article meet WP:N. My own search shows very little reliable source biography material for Vanna Bonta. The Los Angeles Daily News (October 8, 1995, "Strangers no longer. Women bonded during Valley bank robbery ordeal." Page N3) article goes into detail about a Vanna Bonta who was a customer in a bank during a robbery, but it is not clear that the Vanna Bonta of that article is the author Bonta. There some smattering of other reliable source information, but maybe not enough for a biography. I think that if all the available reliable source material were added to the Vanna Bonta article and only referenced material were used, I do not think that the article would meet WP:N when looked at as a whole. That may explain the need for an unbelievably spammy article (a way to disguise an inability to meet Wikipedia's article standards). The established user at the AfD seemed to recognize this in their delete consensus. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. I wouldn't oppose permitting a draft article in user space that uses reliable source material. Once that draft is done, please return to WP:DRV so that the draft may be reviewed and the issue of recreation decided. -- Jreferee t/c 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Notability was never proved satisfactorily despite the ramblings of some of the fans. I've likewise nominated the closely-related Quantum fiction for review, as it was incorrectly closed as a "keep" IMO. --Itub 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The AfD was such a mishmosh of confusing and longwinded comments from multivoters that it's difficult to determine what, if anything, the consensus was. Needs more opinions from people not involved with the article in order to generate a consensus. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it was quite easy. There were several arguments from uninvolved editors, including a(n unsubstantiated) keep argument that was just a vote. All the long-winded SPAs just call those arguing to delete "vandals", and no one presented anything concrete that could show for notability, based on the original nomination reason. --Coredesat 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD ran fine and was closed appropriately. Nothing new that needs to be considered, nothing to suggest the consensus would be different. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valid AFD, valid consensus after following the valid, usual procedure that comments from accounts appearing to be single-purpose, sockpuppets, or recently created are discounted. DRV isn't a place to have a second bite at the cherry hoping for a different outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse After sorting through the SPAs the consensus was clearly delete and Coredesat closed the AfD properly. TonyBallioni 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - valid AFD, proper close. Otto4711 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-list (and Re-Write) - Article not good, needs to be re-written, but some very weak arguments to endorse deletion, far too much personal opinion. John B Sheffield 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)JBS[reply]
  • Endorse valid afd, clear close. Carlossuarez46 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The idea that we need to relist an AfD because it contained a "mishmosh of confusing and longwinded comments" is bollocks. There is no evidence that Coredesat's reading of the discussion was lackadaisical or biased, so there is no reason to reopen the circus. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Comment: I would like to note that I am not a SPA even though I did not respond to my email in time, and I apologize if I am new to Wiki and make an error. The following is important to have For the record on the AfD, which I also agree is a disgrace:

Since we did due diligence in contributing to this entry about the Italian American author Bonta and other Italian writers for Wikipedia, and citations of newspapers, books, publishers and publications satisfied guidelines, we were curious and wanted recommendations on how to improve our contributions to Wiki and checked this out.

The Bonta in the article about the robbery is the same author Bonta. There are multiple other biographical sources, to mention a few: Articles by Vanna Bonta where biographical info is cited by the publication's editors: 

   * http://www.thespacereview.com/article/252/1
   * http://www.spaceandsociety.org/cgi-bin/long-list.pl?000099

Additional verifiable biograpical info on author Bonta: 

   * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14002908/
   * http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03y.html
   * http://www.space-frontier.org/Events/NewSpace2006/NS2006speakersbios.html

While the acting sources were trivial and the article was spammy, she is a reviewed author. I'm amazed there was not a request to rewrite and Wikify.

at is amazing is that this AfD was concurrent with simultaneous vandalism and comments which, when compared to this link I provide here, are identical and clearly originate from this small fandom science fiction forum that formed this blog page (link below) coincident with the AfD request on author Bonta.

They may be Wiki users but an agenda to spread fabrications as fact is not per Wiki guidelines or purpose.

The multiusers chiming in for Deletion are from this forum; further, their comments are very personal and emotional, and fit the profile of cyberbullying, defined as: --distorts, twists, concocts and fabricates criticisms and allegations, and abuses the disciplinary procedures - again, for control and subjugation, not for performance enhancement --uses gossip, back-stabbing or spreads rumours to undermine, discredit and isolate

This consensus is worthy of investigation: the source of rumours, vandalism and allegations made about author Bonta in this archive should be sourced; they are identical to the Delete comments in AfD. That is because this forum generated the AfD as well as the AfD on Quantum Fiction, a genre associated with author Bonta, because they do not like the author's fiction. See them here, some even have the same usernames as Wiki names: http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1115650.html http://kytha.livejournal.com/522007.html

It's my opinion that cyberbullying and generic internet grudge material by Wiki users in this case was given license to veto referenced national and international newspapers, publications, publishers, accomplishments and organizations accrediting the Vanna Bonta entry.

Coredsat asks for speedy deletion on this article and cites a "flood of SPAs" yet doesn't also weigh the flood of Delete votes from the above clearly biased source with definite biased agenda. Several of the Keep votes were also not SPA, and this is overlooked. I'm amazed and believe the matter should be evaluated for biases. I also welcome pointers on how to improve my contributions. Italianstudies 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has thus been modified and is still in the process of modification.Dleewh 08:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, nothing here. --Coredesat 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, although the DRV nomination is pretty confusing, he seems to be correctly pointing out that the article was modified a good deal from when all but one of the AFD participants had commented that there weren't enough sources. The sources in the last version of the article may not have ultimately passed muster, but I'm not sure they got any consideration from the AFD participants. --W.marsh 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close; relist Endorse close; Keep deleted - Endorse the close since no other way to interpret the AfD debate. As for the new information not reviewed by the AfD participants, it may be substantial new information and that is what this DRV can review as well. See DRV Purpose #3. The article was well referenced, but the references were press releases. Thus, keep deleted in view of the new information. Comment - Press releases contain little, if any, Wikipedia reliable source material. A press release can be used to source the claim that the company's name is "Boon Software", they were founded in 1993, and they are in Singapore. The rest of the press release material contains information that no reliable source independent of Boon Software has found reason to publish. If independent reliable source do not find the material interesting enough to publish then there is no reason Wikipedia should include the information in Wikipedia. Boon Software Consulting Pte Ltd. is mentioned here as a key partner to Oracle, but that's about it. Its in a press release, and not really significant enough to mention in the Oracle Corporation article. On the other hand, the company is in Singapore and has been around for fourteen years. It seems likely that someone with access to Singapore print media can locate some reliable source material independent of Boon Software. Until someone actually locates that material, keeping the article deleted seems appropriate in view of the AfD consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised my position based on W.marsh's 19:33, 26 October 2007 post below. The were many new references that like were not considered at the AfD (although the closer probably saw the article before it was deleted). Given so many new references, it is possible that within all that information might be found enough reliable source material for the article. Someone can recreate a deleted article using reference material and they can create a draft article. However, the issue is whether AfD would be appropriate. If it were a few references, I'd say no. If it were merely a data dump of references, I'd say no. But given the effort to both list the seventeen references and use them to footnote the text of the article, I think another review at AfD is the best way to get a consensus on the new material. -- Jreferee t/c 15:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is significant new information to establish notability and otherwise rehabilitate the article, why not simply recreate from scratch? If the flaw was notability and you've overcome that based on new sources or new developments with the company since the deletion debate, the new article will then get evaluated on its own merits. Wikidemo 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bunch of sources, 17 actually, were added to the article, at the tail end of the AFD. So what you describe has already been done, it's just not clear that the sourcing-improved article got a fair shake. --W.marsh 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Yes, new sources were added, but most were from Boon software or non-noteworthy sources. I see no sources in the later revisions of the article that assert the company's notability than were in the revisions considered at the start of the AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting seems appropriate if debate worthy, with userfication the reasonable alternative. I'm not sure that there is an independent source in the lot. But the AFD doesn't evidence that the additional sourcing was considered (it certainly wasn't discussed). The subject might be notable and giving it another shot is worth the time. But I do think the article needs further improvement using sources independent of the subject and its partners. GRBerry 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per AmiDaniel - the new sources do not show significant coverage in reliable third party sources. It's press releases, business partners saying that they're a supplier/vendor, what have you - but where is the real coverage from uninvolved sources? Exactly. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rickroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was last deleted June 2007. Since that time, the Rick Astley article has been modified to include a section on RickRolling that this page could redirect to. Poobslag 03:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Damn! I followed your link, but was only routed to Astley's video of "Never Gonna Give You Up". I guess I was Rickroll. On the bright side, we now have more content for the notable examples of this meme entering the mainstream:

    During a deletion review of the notable Wikipedia article Rickroll, a notable editor Trialsanderrors enticed many unsuspecting notable Wikipedia contributors to Astley's notable video with the dynamic link tag, "You must check out this awesome Youtube video!!!"[citation needed] Although not confirmed, many of the Wikipedia rickrolled victims notably were red faced.

    -- Jreferee t/c 15:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 October 2007

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

Notable and relevant, wikipedia-worthy Jeffmcneill talk contribs 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC) This article's deletion was discussed with the administrator NawlinWiki on their talk page, without reaching agreement. The administrator recommended starting this process. There does not appear to be clear information in terms of what would make this article notable. Please see discussion. I am open to supplementing the article, but I don't want to put in the effort if the article is only going to get deleted again. --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My suggestion is to wait. If you recreate the article now it would likely be deleted for the same reasons. What you likely need to do is wait for the game to get some coverage (if it gets some) to establish it as being notable, and then the result could come out quite differently. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'm not being clear on this. It seems to me that there has been enough coverage for notability, based on both the notability of the designer Justin Hall as well as following (and more).
--Jeffmcneill talk contribs 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to clarify that I am assuming that notable does not necessarily have to mean popular. There are many wonderful wikipedia articles which are about notable things, but aren't necessarily known by a large audience, yet still remains faithful to the mission of an up-to-date encyclopedia. --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 05:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, work on it in userspace and wait for reliable secondary sources (that is, not blogs) demonstrating notability of the game to show up. Notability isn't inherited, so the creator of the game doesn't make the game notable. --Coredesat 06:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Coredesat. No evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - The article itself did not reasonably assert an importance/significance, so WP:CSD#A7 speedy delete was correct. Comment I did find two brief mentions in reliable sources, so reliable source material can be added to some existing Wikipedia article. Without actually seeing a draft of the article, it is not clear that there enough information to create an article on the PMOG topic. The references listed above are not from dead trees, and need more scrutiny through their actual use in a draft article. For example, the usc.edu link (USC Interactive Media project) is not from a thesis, but a summary of a USC thesis by USC. It might have reliable source material, but the self interest in USC summarizing a USC thesis makes it difficult to know what might be usable from the source without seeing how the material is used in a draft article. Does the USC site have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight (see What is a reliable source?) or is it essentially a blog of what USC is up to? USC's Justin Hall created Passively Multiplayer Online Game and wrote a thesis on it. Even if the USC Interactive Media project reference is a reliable source, it is not independent of the topic "Passively Multiplayer Online Game" so it does not count towards meeting WP:N. Here are the two references I found: (1) U.S. News & World Report August 14, 2006; (2) American Political Network August 30, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information Sorry, I neglected to link to the location of the current version of the article in my user namespace: User:Jeffmcneill/PMOG. Thank you for the link on reliable sources. Since academic works are seen as the pinnacle of reliability, a Masters' thesis should be given some sort of weight. In any case I accept the comments on this and will continue to work on the article in user namespace. The game is being rewritten under a startup mode at this point and has gone dark in the meantime. I expect there to be much press as soon as it is re-released and at that point will be able to meet the need for more reliable/verifiable references that have been indicated here. --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Saaphyri_Windsor‎ – Deletion overturned; Sjakkalle states a sound reasoning to support the consensus below. "Arguments from precedent" are simply arguments; they may succeed if they are reasonable, may fail if they are weak. They are neither conclusive, nor worthy of discounting entirely. (For, although Wikipedia is not a court of law, Wikipedia respects logic and reason, and "arguments from precedent" are one method of logical reasoning.) As this currently a redirect, the history will be undeleted, with further action left to editorial processes. – Xoloz 13:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Saaphyri_Windsor‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Once and for all the question of what to do about reality TV winners needs to be determined. As can be seen from the deletion discussion, there is precedent that reality show winners, not just contestants, are notable enough for their own wikipages. I ask that many moderators review the relevant documentation. To start having some articles survive due to this precedent and others ignored when such precedent is presented does not leave Wikipedia in any more stable an environment. Gamer83 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion, precedent isn't binding (WP:OUTCOMES is neither policy nor a guideline), consensus can change, and there was consensus to delete. --Coredesat 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Where was consensus reached on that page? Both sides debated their points until the AFD expired. AFD isn't a vote so just because a few more "Delete per nom" statements were in the mix, doesn't mean a consensus was reached. If consensus change is your rationalle, then I say Overturn. Gamer83 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The word "precedent" was used a dozen times by various keep !voters in the afd, but anyone who reads afd discussions regularly will know there are no precedents regarding deletions. This isn't a court of law, just because one (or more) similar afd has resulted in "keep" doesn't mean every single similar afd must also have the same result. If that were the case, let's just close WP:AFD immediately and base all future decisions on previous results for similar articles. Crazysuit 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I read AFD discussions regularly and precedent is often considered and often used for keeping an article, considering that it shows a consensus about a particular subject by the larger community rather than what is taking place in that one particular AFD. I don't have much more to state on this subject than what I stated in the deletion debate about this article: "I don't see this article as being any less notable than Adrianne Curry when she won America's Next Top Model (the first winner in that show's history) and got her own article here at Wikipedia. Only difference now is that Adrianne has gotten notable work since her win. Who's to say that this woman won't do the same? Yes, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but seeing as she did win this show, first winner at that, deleting her article now, when people may want to know about who this winner is and possibly not too long from now she is more notable, seems like a waste of time. And, CelticGreen, I must watch (a lot) more television than you, because I surely heard of this television show, as it was a spin-off of an even more highly popular show...Flavor of Love. Shows like this or A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, when on VH1 or MTV, hardly ever go unnoticed by me. Perhaps you don't watch VH1 or MTV that often, because this show was all over VH1. I still stand by my decision to Keep this article, though it seems that it will be deleted. As for previous deletion debates where the argument was how the person is a winner or the first winner in the show's history, I don't have any links to provide to that, but I'm certain that you can find them on Wikipedia. In any case, just the list of articles on models from America's Next Top Model, as shown above, is hint enough at some kind of precedent concerning this matter...even with some of those models not even being as notable as this person.
  • I'd like to point out that a deletion debate just closed as Keep on this same rationale of precedent, as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Holland. I don't feel that every reality show contestant who wins the show that they were on needs to have their own article on Wikipedia, but in this deletion debate about Saaphyri Windsor, given everything that I've stated above on this matter, I state again that I feel that this article should be kept.
  • It is silly that one deletion debate should survive on precedent when another deletion debate of the same subject matter is deleted in the face of that precedent. To start having some articles survive due to this precedent and others ignored when such precedent is presented does not leave Wikipedia in any more stable an environment."
  • All that said (again), I also see the closing administrator's point, of course, about this article, in how it isn't in too good of shape. However, I feel that it would have been best to allow this article to be fixed up than to delete it. As for sources, aside from just being on this show, she has had notable exposure by winning this show and is not only limited to her win on this show. I'm not sure whether to state to overturn this outcome or just comment, because I won't endorse the decision to have deleted this article, and it can always be re-created in better shape at a later time, as the closing administrator of this article suggested on my talk page, preferably once she has had more notable exposure/work. Flyer22 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (and relist if so desired). Some of the comments here have deprecated the value of the precedent-citing keep arguments. However, remember that there are also precedents favoring deletion. If there were an AFD for a reality show loser, for example, where the keepers argued that her role on a nationally-broadcast show made her notable, and the deleters cited precedent that mere contestants are non-notable, would you scornfully declare that it should be kept, since the delete arguments relied on precedent? Precedents are not a bad thing. They reduce the arbitrariness of XFD outcomes between similar topics. Accepting precedents also allows editors to move on, rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over. I don't agree with every precedent and guideline, but I don't constantly argue my positions like Badlydrawnjeff.

However, the reason I think the result should be overturned is that I feel the debate was corrupted by the nominator's statement, which portrayed the subject as a "disqualified" reality show contestant, without noting that she was brought back for a second show that she won. If the nominator had said, "OK, she won, but we're not talking American Idol here; I don't think Flavor of Love: Charm School is important enough to keep its winners" (or "I disagree that reality show winners are notable, and I'd like to revisit that precedent"), and gotten the same result, I would accept that. But editors who relied on the nominator's statement without reading the article carefully could think she was just a losing contestant. None of the first five recommendations, all deletes, says, "she won, but delete anyway," so we can't assume they picked up on that. I believe these comments should be discounted. (One of these editors, fond of terse rationales, was commenting in nine AFDs in nine minutes.) Once it was pointed out that she actually won the second show, only two new contributors argued for deletion, one of them an account that had only been registered the day before. This suggests that fuller information had shifted the tide. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Since people are playing the "precedent is not an argument to keep" game, I think that we can mention that all the "deletes" were either "per nom" or simple assertions of "not notable". In fact, "she won a reality show on television" is a reasonable argument for keeping an article, since that indicates a fair amount of attention directed towards the subject. This is a no consensus case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and start trying for some consistency. It was actually closed as keep and redirect, and there is not presently an article on her, just a redirect--to an article which has exactly one sentence about her. I don't think of redirect as a keep, although it is technically. But it succeeds just as well as a delete in removing the article. I recognize what I think this way is not really the consensus here, but it's time it were. Time we started recognizing that a merge may or may not be a delete, depending on what is done with the article, but a redirect is almost always a delete, unless there is substantial coverage in the target article. (I really can not see the reason for bringing the DRV, because the goal of eliminating the article was achieved). And especially that it is a sign of immaturity and lack of seriousness to have a system for deciding anything which does not aim for consistent decisions, but allows and accepts incompatible decisions and sees nothing wrong with that. Time we accepted some responsibility for running a major information resource in a more reliable manner. DGG (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dammit, Janet! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1|AfD#2)

In discussing the AFD with the closing admin, he acknowledges that he believes the keep arguments are weak but that had he deleted it, "enough people think AFD is a vote that it would likely be sent to DRV and overturned." I don't believe this is within the discretion of the closing admin. It's not up to the admin to contemplate what would or wouldn't happen at DRV and use that as a basis for the close decision. The keep arguments, while numerically superior, were as the closing admin noted weak and those wanting the article kept failed to answer repeated challenges to the reliability of the sourcing and the faulty notion that trivial mentions of the song title meet the requirements of WP:N. Note that one keeper switched sides in the course of the debate. Otto4711 18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the link above is to a previous AFD. The most recent AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Second Time)!
Note to closer - One of the editors who has opposed this article in the AfDs, DRVs, and on various talk pages has now opened up a request for comment to address issues that the AfD#2 resolved. In addition, claimed original research evaluated during AfD#2 was removed from the article and then the article was tagged as having original research. On closing this DRV, would you please comment on any existing consensus that have already addressed any of the issues raised in the a request for comment and take any appropriate action (such as by removing the Articleissues tag from this article). Apparently, a purpose of all this is to keep this matter "in the swamp" to teach me a lesson.[22] -- Jreferee t/c 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm just trying all avenues to get someone that understands the concept of what it takes to pass WP:N, which requires that sources have direct and detailed examination of the topic, to look at this thing. People seem to just be counting the references instead of evaluating them.Kww 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and delete (or possibly relist) per nom. I know my remark does not assume good faith, but I was being realistic when I did the close. Most of the references were passing mentions and don't work per WP:RS. Most of the keep arguments were very, very weak ("there's much less notable stuff on Wiki..."). However, despite AFD not being a vote, their sheer number is what made me end up closing the AFD as keep (though we'd likely still end up here, but with someone proposing the article be undeleted). The article should have been deleted by strength of argument. --Coredesat 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as keep (or no consensus) and also per my reasoning in the discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: One of the most mindnumbing AFD discussions I've had, with editors that refused to understand the concept of direct and detailed examination of topics. Even more frustrating is that the article uses nearly exclusively paper references to articles that obviously do not have a detailed examination of the song, possibly to allow the author to demand that I prove that articles titled The Indie 50; The essential movies and Celebrate Independence Day without leaving home don't address the song directly and in detail.Kww 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Otto4711 himself said a redirect made sense in AFD2... so why is he still trying to turn the article into a redlink? It's pretty bizarre. I think people here are too concerned with getting a deletion to "win" the debate... a redirect at the absolute least is clearly supported by policy. Otto and Kww made their argument in AFD2, the people who read it overwhelmingly disagreed, the forum shopping is getting a bit tiring. The argument doesn't even make sense any more, considering Otto's inconsistency over the redirect. Why is this DRV even necessary? --W.marsh 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism isn't bashing... and everything I said was about the content of the DRVm some of it indirectly since mentioning past discussions was necessary. If you can't answer a question about why you're filing DRVs or even arguing for deletion still, you probably shouldn't be doing those things anymore.--W.marsh 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've answered your questions already. You may not like the answers but that's not my problem. The DRV is open because I believe the admin went outside of his discretion in closing it, a position for which the closing admin has expressed support. Otto4711 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where you've countered my argument about a redirect to an article on the soundtrack. WP:MUSIC says "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article", WP:REDIRECT says a perfectly good use for a redirect is "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text". Common sense suggests that since we can have a WP:N-meeting article about the soundtrack and the movie, that we should redirect the songs there so people can get information when searching for or linked to those song titles. And yet you argue for deletion still. I've yet to see you counter that, and Kww even seems to agree with redirection, and only proposed deletion when his redirect was reverted. --W.marsh 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as Keep per the Keep comments on the AfD, which are sufficiently reasonable (even excluding mine) that a solid majority of comments in favor of keeping must be respected. In general, where a sizable majority of independent, non-conflicted, non-SPA editors support keeping an article, requesting a DRV will rarely serve a useful purpose unless there are BLP or similar concerns. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Newyorkbrad. Any action besides keeping this article would be a blatant violation of consensus. — xDanielx T/C 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - there is a clear consensus here. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Current article asserts notability for WP:MUSIC. -- Sander Säde 04:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep, current article is notable and should not have even been up for deletion in the first instance, all it required was cleanup. It's a little hard attempting to WP:AGF here because the reasoning of the delete votes are not in line with Wikipedia policy, and so the only other conclusion is that it must be forum shopping or a vendetta of some kind, I don't know, nor do I care. What is clear though is that consensus was reached, and the closer was spot on with their interpretation of the debate. DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You did notices that he said Most of the keep arguments were very, very weak ("there's much less notable stuff on Wiki...")... The article should have been deleted by strength of argument. Or did you miss that part?Kww 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The keep reasoning was clear and focused in that the article met Wikipedia article standards. The article itself provided the very evidence that supported the keep reasoning and that clearly was brought out in the discussion. The delete arguments had no basis in Wikipedia policy and guideline and failed to provide any evidence to support their conclusion. Starting off with the AfD nomination, the AfD nomination stated "non-notable" without linking to any Wikipedia policy and guideline. The only evidence the nominator provided was "the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep"". The nominator did not provide any reasoned arguments based in policy that would support deleting the article. As for the remaining delete arguments, they included unsupported conclusions not based Wikipedia policy and guideline and unsupported conclusory statements about the cited references. Not one of the delete reasoning even claimed to have read over the cited references much less provide any specific comments about any of the cited references in the AfD. With the keep reasoning strong and based on policy/guideline and the delete reasoning based on personal beliefs whose conclusions were left unsupported by evidenced based reasoned argument, it is clear that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was correct, judging by the AfD. I can't judge this sort of subject myself and didn't join the debate, but i can see that the only extended argument for delete was made by one ed., who kept accusing his opponents of misquoting policy as requiring exclusive coverage for acceptable sources, and then accused the people who correctly called him on it of "bullshit" and "dishonesty," "stacking lies on top of lies on top of lies". I do not know why the closer thought that was "strength of argument". Reading the debate as even no consensus would require judging by frequency of repetition. DGG (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Clear consensus. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep The number of current calls for deletions is going to bring the good name of Wikipedia into question. In a Democracy the Few who going around asking for deletions should not be able to control Wikipedia. The majority of users of Wikipedia each and every day would never think of getting involved in debates to delete, Unless it was Libel or Offensive, it is time that this problem is looked at seriously. John B Sheffield 09:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)JBS[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Borer Data Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have created a draft article as advised on my page: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Missingspace/Borer_Data_Systems

The previous deletion review can be seen here, back in Sept: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7

Please review and advise of whether the article can be considered for an article or whether further amendments would be needed, Thanks. Missingspace 09:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't allow. The sourcing is totally inadequate, and I don't think better soucing exists. A bunch of references are listed, but the ones that I could look at aren't about Borer systems at all, rather, they are articles written for an industry publication by someone who works for Borer systems. Even if those references were really about Borer systems, they're inadequate, I would expect to see information from sources well beyond industry-related micro-interest newsletters if the company were truly notable. Mangojuicetalk 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion but Allow Recreation and Speedy Close because we're not being asked to review my prior deletion, we're being asked to review a rewritten article. Speedy deletion is not a bar to recreation of an article in a way that addresses the reasons for the speedy deletion. The new article is not so spammy that it couldn't be fixed. The original article was not speedied on notability grounds. I think Mangojuice's concerns are valid, but they should be taken up at AfD. Please note that I had to delete the entire history section as it was copied from this page, with a few words changed. It will have to be rewritten. Finally, I hope the author has read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. -- But|seriously|folks  17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, this is a normal type of request. The user was told to come to DRV before reposting the article, so that its appropriateness can be considered, so we should consider it here, not at AfD. Mangojuicetalk 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the author, the portion I removed as a copyvio included that sort of information. Also, I don't understand what "carbon footprint" has to do with the subject. -- But|seriously|folks  02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The draft article isn't even adequate to qualify as a stub, the "references" are neither references nor sources, the "carbon footprint" bit that constitutes half of the proposed article text is confusing at best and seems completely irrelevant, and the whole mess reeks of WP:COI. Heather 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jamie Szantyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

She announced she has been signed by TNA wrestling, and I created an article on my userpage that is sourced and ready. Its at User:ThisDude62/sandbox. If Austin Creed can have an article, why not her? Thanks a lot. ThisDude62 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) -->[reply]

Overturn deletion Your article is great and you are right if austin creed can have an article, why can not talia? she is signed to a major wrestling promotion, and is the champion of the largest women's promotion. give her an article. ShyGuy69 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be at Talia Madison though. That is what she uses in wrestling and what she has as her website (http://www.taliamadisonworld.com/). So Talia Madison should be unsalted also, and have this redirect to Talia Madison. TJ Spyke 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whatever, bro, its all good. I could have the article at Talia Madison and have mentions of Szantyr changed to Madison maybe? ThisDude62 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She was in the first match for the TNA women's title, thats some noteriety. I think that you need to provide reasons she is NOT notable. Articles on Wikipedia are not about storylines. ThisDude62 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof lies on the people trying to prove she's notable, not the other way around. Nikki311 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and Close. I highly doubt she's become that more notable since the last DRV closed on this less than 24 hours before you posted this one. You can't keep DRVing until you get the result you want. Smashville 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has been new news since then. Nobody is going to be released from a written contract in a week. Average Wikipedia editors don't know how this stuff works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisDude62 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atlanta Boy Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This morning 25th October the entry/page for ATLANTA BOY BAND was deleted, this was after yesterday we stated all citation/evidence was now ready to be posted. This we did in good faith this morning, less than one hour after we posted our entry was deleted without any explanation. I can't trace the monitor who deleted now as the page is on longer active, only in archive. All evidence had been produced as requested even from HRH Prince Charles. Our entry is not for promotional purposes this has been accepted, but demonstrates the Notability achieved by Atlanta (Boy Band) - The required evidence to us comes from Most reliable sources such HRH Prince Charles private Secretary and the BBC. We have contacted parties who supplied the evidence posted and they are most disappointed at the deletion in this way. We trust it will be reviewed and restored fully. Many Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 11:50, 25 October 2007 (Evidence posted at http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/ UTC)JBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)JBScontribs) [reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The latest draft was much shorter but still entirely without sources or evidence of notability. JBS claims to have the sources now but still has not shown what they are, and in any case this unsigned band still does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. We've been promised the sources for quite some time now, but still they have not been produced. Mangojuicetalk 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: thanks, DGG - I hadn't noticed the technical error in the last deleted version of the article. I can't view the links that are posted there, but I believe they must be the images the creator of this article has now posted on Myspace. Those sources are not acceptable. Only one of them is actually a publication, and they don't even say what the publication is. But even if they had, the coverage is a tiny blurb with basically no usable info. It was not necessary to post a scan of the article, a simple citation would suffice. However the other materials are not anything like secondary sources, and posting scans of them does not make them acceptable. I think enough is enough: this is a former manager/producer of the band trying to promote his former project, which is a conflict of interest, and this has used up enough community time already; Wikipedia is NOT a free webhost. Mangojuicetalk 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask if you are saying that the correspondence from The Private Secretary to HRH PRINCE CHARLES is not Evidence and are you still saying that HRH did not take a personal interest and they were not Young Ambassador's for The Prince's Trust?

Are you also still claiming that Atlanta did not appear with BBC Radio One the UK's Number 1 National Radio Station, when you have been shown evidence of the event poster/flyer and artist backstage pass, the same with BBC Children's TV show "THE BIG BASH" at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, again photographic evidence and an artist back stage pass is not proof.

We still have much more evidence to post, what more though is still required?

Someone changed our entry/page just before deletion this morning, that is why it is shorter, we still claim the full original entry stands. The evidence has been produced and was this was stated prior to the deletion:

http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/

The Prince's trust do not keep evidence such as this on their website, that is the same with BBC Radio One and BBC TV, as they have far too much archive history, that is a decision they make. The evidence does prove ATLANTA (Boy Band) did exist, the HRH Prince Charles letter from his perosnal secretary mention RCA Records who we cut the track "One More Chance" with. All that was asked for has been produced.

For an unsigned band in the UK, this is all notability and does meet the notability criteria set out.

It would be of interest where the readers who still endorse the deletion to stand are from, do they understand British heritage and our culture completely?

This matter has been put to Wikipedia to decide and it is now an important decision for them to make, what messages it sends out to the British public. We trust that WIKIPDEIA will look fairly on our appeal - thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta

  • Technical comment Looking at the last deleted version, most of the article is not visible unless one looks at the edit window. (the text was erroneously inserted within the brackets of a fact tag). Is the version on the user page now the intended material in the article? DGG (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that technical information, the full original article submitted is intended. Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion. An article consisting of statements that could reasonably be referenced with citations to the sources presented at the link given by User:Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band would, I think, still run afoul of WP:MUSIC. The sources support very little of the information contained in the article the user is seeking to restore, and the deletion of that article therefore seems the correct decision. Deor 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us what is not qualified by the information that has been produced and published, we are willing to produce anything that is needed, we still feel we do meet the criteria set out, it is clearly stated you do not have to qualify with all points but some of. Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta

Both myself and Denny Mahoney from the Group are doing everything possible to meet what information is required. All we ask is for some readers we will see our honesty and help us in any way they can with helpful advice. Many readers/contributors have been given awards on this website, I wonder how many Rightful AWARDS we will be able to give to those who in a genuine way are willing to stand up and assist us, that is all we ask - Please - John B Sheffield 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

In the opening paragraph alone, "toured the UK during 1993-1997," "appearing on all major Commercial Radio Stations," and "supported the likes of Boyzone, Backstreet Boys, Take That and Ant & Dec" cannot be verified from the sources you've posted. And it goes on from there similarly. Deor 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and strongly encourage the creator to read the guidelines on conflict of interest. This is not the place to push your band. May need a dose of salt if it keeps getting recreated. As for advice, my advice is stop editing the article, it's not appropriate to edit or create articles on subjects one has an interest in promoting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Seraphimblade. The legal threats made during the afd properly demonstrate why COI articles should be viewed with special caution. These editors cannot write this article - even were the band notable - in an unbiased dispassionate NPOV way. Salt is appropriate because due to the non-notability of the band the only people likely to recreate the article are those with COI. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what self promotion of the Group or myself I am making, the group have not performed for ten years and the lead singer is in another band now. In my case I had serious surgery recently and will not currently unfortunately be able to return to work. So there is no self promoting interest I can assure you. The Group were asked to make the entry as it demonstrated the good works and achievements made by "The Prince's Trust" and the notability of Atlanta as an un-signed band also to mark ten years since there last appearance. Is it not please time that the decison was now left to the powers that be at WIKIPEDIA. Some mention is made of salt, why? - this should not be personal. Wikipdeia is a Free Encyclopedia not just for the few and not just the USA but the World John B Sheffield 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

The project may be finished, but your reputation and theirs still exists. The community might have a different reaction if this article was created by someone truly independent, but it wasn't. It was created, and championed, only by those intimately involved in the group. When you have a conflict of interest like that, you aren't strictly forbidden from editing, but you had better stick to Wikipedia practices thoroughly and completely, and if this band really does meet WP:MUSIC (1) you haven't shown that, and (2) even if it's borderline acceptable, better to delete the article and let someone truly independent write it if anyone has an interest. See WP:VANITY. Mangojuicetalk 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mangojuice, your comments are most appreciated, personally just as their ex manager today I feel really "kicked in the teeth" by a few here. Some of the UK media are taking an interest in these debates and perhaps one of those will kindly make the entry for us, but they will only have the evidence we have produced, but we are still willing to obtain anything further that is needed. Personally I may be close to the matter, but it is from 1997, I do believe stronly in principals though and some things the group have been accused of have been proved wrong. John B Sheffield 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion, clear consensus to delete in spite of the group's promoter's constant hounding of those arguing to that effect. --Coredesat 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the notability of this band was never asserted and/or verified. Every request to do so was met with a lot of beating about the bush, including at least one indefblockable legal threat. AecisBrievenbus 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. With regard to the media coverage of this band, the article creator claimed early in the AfD discussion that "Video evidence is available of all TV appearances, cuttings of all magazine appearances are also kept". Yet for the next five days, he made no attempt to cite those television or magazine appearances in the article, despite being requested to do so. This made verification of the article's claims impossible. This deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if an independent editor with no direct association with the band wants to rewrite the article with proper sources. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a loss why these personal attacks persist and that is how I see it. I was never the promoter of Atlanta and I have not seen members of the group for nearly ten years now, I was their Ex Manager. People state we have been beating around the bush, but we have published evidence, someone said no magazine articles have been published, again we have from MIZZ Teen Magazine, which is still published today, in the article you can read it states ATLANTA Toured with Mizz Magazine last year and will again this year, the only un-signed band. Stating truth and facts is not hounding, that is something I would never wish to do.

It was never my intention to upset anyone and the perceived threat of legal action, this was only we asked for advice, and was withdrawn with an apology. I have worked all my life in Commercial Radio in the UK and then in the later years in Artist Management, so I only will make statements what my trained background is. Through sickness I have not not worked since 2001 and recently had to have serious surgery, so it is not for any self promotion.

We are trying to get permission to put up some of the documentary from TV on "youtube" but we would do nothing without permission. We have published the Mizz Teem Magazine Article, which is clear enough to read. Also poster and artist backstage pass from BBC Radio One Tour, this is the UK's Number One Music Radio Station, and a photograph of Atlanta on stage with BBC TV at the "Big Bash" and again the artist backstage pass, also the letter from the office of HRH Prince Charles, which again is clear to read, these are all available for inspection at:

http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/

These achievments are beyond doubt in the UK seen as notability for a band through circumstances that remained unigned and travelled 93,000 miles in UK Touring.

All concerned have stated we will produce anything else that is requested, some assistance/advice here at Wikipedia has been given, and that means so much to all of us. Regards John B Sheffield 06:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

  • I stated in the AfD discussion, "Keep in mind that what many Wikipedia editors will be looking for is specific citations -- which would include not just the publication name, but the date of the article, the title of the article, the author's name, and the page number. This will make verification of your sources much easier." The article creator never did that despite his claim to have cuttings of all the band's magazine appearances. The band supposedly were featured in a documentary for Granada TV, yet the title and airdate of that documentary were never provided either. Note that the article creator was not asked to post those magazine clippings and videos on the Internet, just to identify them sufficiently to enable other people to look for them. The latter could have been done in a matter of minutes, but never was done. The article creator also failed to use good faith, in that he said he had no problem with withdrawing his legal threats, yet never actually did so. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Metropolitan90 for your most balanced response and also the advice give. The creator did not have all the cuttings and informatio , this was sourced and then permission was requested to publish them on the internet. The programme broadcast by Granada TV was titled "NWA" which stands for North West Arts, a very modern look at art including music. The date will be sourced, Granada TV also then owned LWT London Weekend Television and we were told that the Atlanta Boy Band item was broadcast in the southern region as well.

The creator and myself have always used good faith, I can sincerely assure you and I myself and on behalf of the creator completely withdraw fully any legal threats that may have been made without reservation. The creator tried to reply but is no longer allowed to post?.

In good Faith I still feel the matter can be resolved, that is what Wikipdeia should be all about, I understand deletion quickly over anything "libel" or "lies" and the press in the UK have mentioned cases including professional footballers person lives, but with music it would have been really good to see more help, when you are new to WIKIPEDIA working around it is like a minefield and a lot of information rules to be taken in - thanks once more John B Sheffield 07:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

What you have here is evidence that they once played on Radio One, and that they had a tiny splash blurb in MIZZ Magazine once. You claim they were part of a documentary, but (1) you still haven't given that a full citation and (2) what you have described leads me to believe that their role in the documentary was tangential, not central, and probably contained very little information about the band itself. All that just doesn't add up to enough, not by a long shot. Look at Monovox for an example of the kind of secondary source coverage that would suffice. Mangojuicetalk 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks "Mangojuice" for your constructive comments, as always. I have looked at the entry for Monovox, I notice the first citation/reference was to their own website, which Atlanta got attacked for as not relevant.

The main difference in opinion with regards be it BBC Radio One or Mizz Magazine is the culture difference here in the UK, to achieve this ffor an unsiogned band is unknown, many bands try everything but never make this high level. The TV Documentary I stand by what Atlanta says this is the truth and it will be fully proved when we have permission to post some of the footage. It does hurt when you have had a good name and repuation all your life in Radio and Music to be doubted like this.

But we appreciate the advice and help you are giving us, we will still continue to publish on the website any further evidence required, we hope to have more to be posted early next week. We still Trust our entry will be allowed and restored, any help assistance anyone feel they can give will mean so much. John B Sheffield 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

This is not a cultural issue as you are trying to make it. Playing Radio 1 or BBC branded events is not special. Checking just the Radio 1 events in just this year over 40 unsigned bands have played, if you extend that to BBC the number soars past 200. The majority of bands who appear do not go on to become notable, I've played two events. The core issue is still that you need to provide reliable third party coverage of the band. The only thing you have so far supplied is a scan of a Mizz piece, but even if this were properly cited I doubt this is enough to meet WP:MUSIC requirement of 'been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works '. Nuttah68 16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 40 unsigned bands have played on BBC Radio One and that is not significant? - I'm sorry but I can't agree, working in radio for 21 years, on a bad week we received 200 plus new release singles and up to 1,000 some weeks, out of those we had to choose 5 to be playlisted as new each week and you mention the figure of FORTY over NINE MONTHS! - if you are in that FORTY that is most significant and all those bands that did not make it will be sick. The procedure you have to go through on BBC Radio One to be accepted can take 6 weeks and you go through the eye of a needly to prove you are worthy.

Again you say the only item we have produced other than the BBC Radio 1 material and BBC TV material is MIZZ Magazine, what about the letter from Kensington Palace from HRH? which made reference to going to see ATLANTA in concert for "The Prince's Trust" and reporting back to HRH? - agai not every band/group gets to appear in events they organzie in the UK, a cts are chosen, you do not request to appear.

I know many colleagues friends who are Artist Managers here in the UK and they would give anything to achieve what ATLANTA did and many of their acts were signed. I do not see the work published so far as trivial and the TV Documentary was not.

In the past twenty years I have seen Three programmes on UK TV about Boy Bands, one of those as "Take That" - once we are given permission, it will be posted on "YouTube"

I have today checked many music group/band websites here on WIKIPEDIA many of them in the USA and so many only cite their own websites for information.

I keep repeating we will produce anything asked for. John B Sheffield 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

No, 40 unsigned bands have played at Radio 1 events. On average Radio 1 play 50-60 tracks by unsigned bands each week: roughly 3000pa. I say the ONLY source you have come near to producing is the Mizz piece, if properly cited. You may want to read WP:RS again. A flyer and a couple of back stage passes come nowhere close to be substantial coverage.
As for the leter from Prince Charles secretary, no that is not an indication of notability. It is not reliable coverage by an independent third party and hundreds, if not thousands, of Trust volunteers recieve those every year. Posting footage on YouTube will not help your case either. What has been explained a number of times now is that you must provide citations of the media coverage stating the source, author/producer, publication/broadcast date. Ideally these need to be interviews with the band or extensive coverage of them.
Finally, as has been pointed out, the poor state of other articles is no reason for this article to remain. You can always nominate articles you feel short of the Wikipedia notability requirements if you want. Nuttah68 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but thousands of supporters of "The Prince's Trust" Do Not receive letters each week like that with the content the letter included, and to state it is not "Reliable" coverage by an independent party, for me just "beggars belief". We were asked to produce the video of the documentary DVD, again "YouTube" is the best souce, but that is not good enough. The list of citations you list it is clear 95% of Group/Artists WIKIPEDIA do not meet that. Then lastly the "poor state" of articles, your personal opinion! - I'n not clear what would ever be good enough. Thanks John B Sheffield 19:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

The Atlanta article is truth, proves notability and is accurate, meeting clearly without doubt many of the "criteria" needed, it is stated all criteria do not have to be met, we are just going around in circles on these points. We stress will produce any further proof needed if people will ask for some particular form of evidence.

Yes I could nominate articles that fall short, but I admit I don't know sufficient about the music industry in the USA and how it works, what is seen as notability in the States or Canada, to do tha in this case would be wrong, but I do feel I know about Great Britain, that is said in a most sincere way. John B Sheffield 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

No one so far on this deletion review agrees with your assessment of the notability criteria are met. Without that you are fighting a losing battle. As for further proof, you have been asked and told many times what is required, we need dates, publications, authors of articles/shows that have featured the band. Nuttah68 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated we will produce further proof early next week, cuttings etc have been sent to the creator today and on receipt will be scanned and posted. Authors of articles in press and magazines are not always credited, that is format in the UK, but dates should be no problem.

"No one so far on this deletion review agrees with your assessment of the notability criteria are met" - if every piece of information needed or required is published, will or would it be still sufficient? - I do hope so.

  • It is so difficult for me to understand why the information produced so far, including the letter, which is significant, is totally still ignored. I'm at a complete loss and are many here in the UK who are monitoring this debate - thanks for you imput John B Sheffield 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
For the last time. Scans of cuttings are no use. You must provide the correct citation. And please, give up with the 'we in the UK' bs. You're not the only Brit on Wikipedia and the 'sad' stories of how the UK is so different don't wash. As stated earlier, I've played a number of Radio 1 events and had a few tracks played on Peel, Kershaw, Da Bank etc. Nuttah68 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see them as "sad" stories it is stateing fact, which you have the right to disagree with. I feel stronly the UK music indusry and life is diferent to the USA and I am allowed my opinion. One person says scans of cuttings are no use, when others say publish and let us see magazine cuttings etc, this seems to be a very mixed message. You do not give your name or the group name as an artist, so I can't make any professional judgement, but I do know shows like the great John Peel and Andy Kershaw where only specialist music evening programming (mostly late night).John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
Direct answer: Will it be sufficient? No. There's a disconnect going on here, I think: you think when we say "publish" we mean that you should make your clippings and whatever available: we don't care about that. What we care about is how much reliable, independent information about the group has already been published, such as magazine articles, newspaper reviews, books, academic papers, TV or radio broadcasts, et cetera. What you have described is not sufficient, so don't bother showing them to us, it won't help. We get dozens of articles about unsuccessful, non-noteworthy bands all the time and delete them routinely. Normally bands like this that never even have record contracts or put out any albums don't make the cut, even if they exist, even if they had some concerts, even if they've been on the radio a few times, even if they have fans. It would be very rare for such a group to be legitimately noteworthy but not impossible. This group is, apparently, not an exception, so there's really not much you can do. Mangojuicetalk 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mangojuice, we will continue to source more of what is required, I think it would be most wrong of Wikipedia to say "never" to any entry, otherwise it will never develop fully and be "The Free Encyclopeda" it claims to be. John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

We will provide the further detailed informed you advise, this has been passed to the creator by email this morning, thanks John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Show me the money". Well, show us the sources. List them right here. No more promises, no more delays, just do it now. --DachannienTalkContrib 10:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's disappointing the "tone" including language and insults you have to use in your comments, it does no good for the name and reputagtion of WIKIPEDIA. Atlanta Do meet most of the "criteria" of "notability" - it states so clearly that All Points do not have to be achieved. It was made totaly clear that legal threats was not and ne ver was our intetion in any form or way, we just took advice on what we were being accused of at the first calls for deletion. "Any perceived Legeal Threats Where Withdraw Withpout Reservation" for this to be be comtinously raised shows some "systemic problem" with those who post these allegations. The majority of my Friends are American, but I do not understand all of your culture and ways, and I have made over 20 visits to the USA, to claim that talkling about differences in our way of life and culture is "bias" is well absurd I'm sorry to say. The letter you make reference to from "Kensington Palace" states in clear English that HRH Prince Charles "has asked" to compare this to favourite bar bands is an insult. The creator of the Atlanta entry and myself have been polite at all times to everyone, even if we may not agree, posts like this do nothing for the good name of Wikipedia and the comments should be withdrawn. Thanks John B Sheffield 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the consensus at the deletion discussion was to delete due to lack of WP:RS and ultimately violation of WP:V, and nothing indicating that such reliable sources exist has been provided. --Kinu t/c 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note with regards your "allegation" of a "Violation" of WP:V

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious;

  • We can only say we have met nearly all the points to meet the criteria of notability we have and are producing information a requested, this not seem grounds to "delete" even with the endoresements so far. I wonder how many who read our entry agreeds and had no problem with everhything truthful we stated, looking through any deletion/appeal thread names appear over and over again wanting deletions, but they are the few. John B Sheffield 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
  • I still call for the "full withdrawal" of the comments made against the good office of "HRH Prince Charles" in this Country "The Royal Family" are held in high esteem still by the majority, even if you may not agree, you can show some "respect" at the very least, it was uncalled for. John B Sheffield 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

Comment Deletion - Question: Can someone please advise me if anyone has the right to delete a comment that I have made, if so should it be stated that is the case, would this show in a log or archive. A commment made last night seems to be no longer on the thread? Thanks John B Sheffield 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

There are certain circumstances when other editors' comments can be deleted, but I checked the page history for the past two days and nothing of yours was removed by anybody else. -- But|seriously|folks  08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your quick response and help John B Sheffield 09:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

  • Mizz Magazine - We can confirm the article on ATLANTA in Mizz Magaizine was from the issue dated MAY 1996, the writer of the article was the Mizz Features Editor, Marie Claire-Giddings. Mizz Magazine was then published by IPC Magazines one of the UK's then major magazine producers.

BBC TV - CBBC(Children's BBC)"BIG BASH" - The "Big Bash" took place at the NEC(National Exhibition Centre) from the 28th November - 2nd December 1996 - ATLANTA were part of the event appearing and performing each day, links and live interviews live on TV took place every day(see picture of Atlanta being interviewed live on TV stage)

We have also added 2 more ATLANTA tracks recorded to master standard to the player on the Atlanta site. "Let's Go Round Again" which was writteb by Alan Gorrie of "Average White Band", Alan also came into the studio and did a mix with his voclas on as well. Also "One More Chance" the version we orginally recorded and took to Simon Cowell RCA Records, RCA still hold the master of the version they recorded with Atlanta. John B Sheffield 08:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

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

24 October 2007

[edit]
  • List of snowclones – Deletion endorsed. The closing admin reasonably made a case that policy compelled deletion, supported by a consensus below. As suggested by GRBerry, this decision would be more difficult -- though not impossible -- to defend if the article were new. As a matter of common practice, if it is felt that reliable material should be easy to find and cite, AfDs sometimes result in a consensus to allow more time for an article's sourcing. Without commenting on the wisdom of that practice, it is clear that such lenience is inappropriate at a 3rd AfD. Having said that, merging is not an unreasonable outcome for the minimal information that was properly sourced. Upon request, a history restoration and redirect for GFDL compliance is permissible. – Xoloz 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of snowclones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3)

no body voted for it to be deleted, his main reason for geting red of it seemd to be that that it was OR becouse he had never herd of it and he did not give his reasoning until he deleted it. Also it survived a AFD just 2 mounth before being renominated Rafff18 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Closer's reason clearly states that he deleted because no one could prove that it was not OR. Unless it can be proven to not be OR (and given the nature of the subject, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't be). Smashville 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close of AFD3 (alternatively, overturn AFD2 and close it as delete). WP:NOR is non-negotiable. More than 90% of the list was unsourced, of the sources I tested 100% supported only "X said phrase Y" not "Y is a snowclone" - they don't even use the word "snowclone". With almost a year from AFD1 to AFD2, the article should have been deleted in AFD2 for failing to comply with the WP:NOR policy, so any potential flaw from renominating too soon is irrelevant. To show that this isn't inherently OR, we need reliable sources for "Y is a snowclone", preferably at least one containing multiple examples. GRBerry 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Rough consensus was (and always has been) to keep and do our best to improve the sources, not to give up and delete. Neil's closing statement was a rather partial attempt to belittle perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping, hardly an objective summary. — xDanielx T/C 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Our core policies trump "Uh, maybe some day someone might find something that kinda looks like a source" arguments. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I wish all closes were this thoughtful. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per xDanielx. Closing as delete when there are two deletes among a sea of keeps seems like an end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep in mind that AFD is not a vote. It's the weight of the arguments that counts, not the number of votes. And our policies are non-negotiable, regardless of the discussion in an AFD. AecisBrievenbus 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, DRV isn't AfD #2 (or rather, #4), either. It would unreasonable to suppose that we've reached a point in policy crafting where consensus can be evaluated objectively without considering !votes on a particular AfD. — xDanielx T/C 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. None of the keep arguments hold water. Even the best: "wait, we can clean this up" doesn't argue against merging, and is growing very thin at the 3rd AfD. Let me point out that although there were 18 or so references, there was really only two entries that were properly sourced - that is - only two that had sources describing them as Snowclones (the one about Eskimos, and "X is hard. Let's go shopping!"). That said, there's no need to have deleted this when it's pretty straightforward to merge the two good entries into Snowclone, so I wouldn't object to an overturn with an immediate merge (and I can do it, if people want.) Mangojuicetalk 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment My opinion is divided. There was no consensus to delete at the AfD, and the closer simply chose to close on the basis of his own opinion, which is not the role of the closing admin. He should instead, have joined the discussion. But his opinion was in fact in my opinion correct -- and better explained than any of the actual delete arguments. DGG (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse here we are again, Can those who say "improve it" show us some sources here or are we taking it on faith. This has had 3 go-arounds and now DRV and still no sources are found, therefore it is reasonable to assume that they cannot be found per WP:DELETE and this must go - we're an encyclopedia not a repository for everyone's unsupported original ideas and research - take it to a university, get it published, then come back. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There certainly is not enough reliable source information on the topic Snowclones to support a Wikipedia list, so the closing admin interpreted the delete reasoning correctly. Snowclones originated around December 2003 (see The Times, December 3, 2005), so the entries in the Wikipedia article before that time appear to be original research. There might be enough information to support a Snowclones article. See, (1) The Times, December 3, 2005; (2) New York Times June 20, 2006; (3) NPR Talk of the Nation June 28, 2006; (4) Columbia Journalism Review July 1, 2006; (5) New Scientist November 18, 2006; (6) The Mercury (Hobart) March 24, 2007, Annie Warburton, "I mean, what's it mean?" (7) Globe and Mail May 31, 2007, "Do you speak kitteh?"' (8) New Scientist August 4, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why not just merge the content and trim it over time? Seems more appropriate to go through list items individually then to make these generalizations about what should be kept and deleted. I'd be happy to help. — xDanielx T/C 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but I gather that the merits of an article are irrelevant in DRV, just the procedure. And procedurally I'm not comfortable with an admin deleting an article because of his own opinion, justified as it may be, contrary to the actual discussion. Said discussion here does seem to have enough dissenting voices for the doubt that brings lack of deletion. --Kizor 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion though make available if anyone wants to merge some verified examples - Re-examining the sources (which I believe is an appropriate function of DRV, no?), almost none of them use the word "snowclone". It seems like a lot of disputable and not directly verifiable stuff crops up if we attempt to create an original list of formula-based clichés which uses an old idiom in a new context. Very few things have been described by reliable sources as snowclones, so temporarily undelete if anyone wants to scavenge for any verifiable ones, but looking through most of the sources listed, I haven't seen any yet. The consensus seems to have been merge and I would have no issue if it was closed as such, but not too much information should have to/be able to be merged. Wickethewok 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore due to lack of consensus. Problems with the article itself may result in the list being scaled back dramatically, but that's not what we're discussing here. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; DRV is about procedure, not article merits. On the topic of merits, however, I would say that the original article (having seen it before it was deleted) should be at a minimum be massively scaled back. —Dark•Shikari[T] 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of you who are commenting based on procedure need to read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, 3rd paragraph. "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." I added here emphasis to the clause in the deletion procedure that made deletion mandatory, not optional. GRBerry 02:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Lists can be tricky in terms of original research. I think they can (and particularly in this case) be edited to comply with the no original research policy. The closing admin failed to take this fact into account in the close. IronGargoyle 03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) closure. The article was nominated for deletion as being original research, nobody was able to prove otherwise in the deletion discussion. Asserting "no, no, it can be cleaned up" would be great if that hadn't already happened in the first AFD - nothing changed, which is why someone re-nominated it. I will revert my closure and undelete this article if someone can cite just 10 "examples of snowclones". Not ones you have decided are snowclones - ones that are described as being snowclones, in the reliable, non-blog, reference. And if, as you say, DRV is about procedure, I refer you to GBerry above, and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. WP:OR and WP:V are non-negotiable. Neil ☎ 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page [[23]] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here [[24]] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article [[25]] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs)
    Note Rafff18 has already argued for overturning the decision as nominator. One of those sources (wisegeeks) is a blog. But there's two references, each with a handful of overlapping examples. Still not ten. Neil ☎ 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you asked for examples not sources and combined the two you except sight over ten examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • OiNK – "Keep" closure endorsed, though non-admins should still not close controversial AFDs; naming of the article is editorial and should be discussed on its talk page. No prejudice against relisting in a sufficient length of time. – Coredesat 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
OiNK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD snowballed after several hours because of "consensus", where most keeps were basically ILIKEITs or failed to address the nomination's concerns. Will (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. 20 keep votes and it was only open for 4 hours is as much of a snowball close as you can get. There was also no valid reason given for deletion given..."Notable for only one thing" means that it is notable. I mean, lots of people, places and things are only notable for one thing. Smashville 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, discounting the IP's and the SPA's (of which there seems to be at least one), yes, most if not all of the Keeps were "I like it"! or "It's really really notable, I read an news story about it today", (but they didn't say where) or "It's really really notable and that's that" or "It's notable within the Bittorrent community". I think that we should Overturn the keep, because it clearly is notable for only one thing, which is not enough for WP:N and violates WP:NEWS anyway. The AfD was a complete mess, with basically all of the Keeps coming straight from WP:ATA and posted by users clearly unfamiliar with WP:N. "It sounds notable" (an argument which was used in several comments), "It's notable to me" (WP:POV, perhaps?), "it's very popular" (WP:BIGNUMBER), and "The person behind the site got arrested and the site got shut down" (wow, how many times has that happened) just aren't enough to be notable. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I don't know where this "only one thing" is coming from; BLPs have a presumption of privacy, but even if corporations are a legalistic person there's no moral obligation to preserve the dignity of an entity. This was a significant closure with international legal repercussions and this is reflected by the sourcing. The nomination interpreted WP:NOT#NEWS too broadly. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While the AfD was tainted by a few questionable anon !votes, there are also several longtime editors who also !voted to keep the article. Multiple stories by BBC, the Telegraph, etc. adequately assert notability. Caknuck 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of those days that makes me really wonder if WP:NOT#NEWS actually is policy, or is just something lacking community support stuck in a larger document that actually does have policy support. I think it is, and that the nomination was completely appropriate. There is no evidence that this thing was notable before the news, nor that it is notable apart from the news - exactly the sort of situation the policy is meant to address. What sourcing? The article cites one media report and one press release by one of the raiding agencies, and simultaneously links (pretty obviously inappropriately) to a number of other contemporaneous media reports, either copies of the wire service article or thinly disguised copies of that wire service article. That is all it had when the AFD was closed, and all it has now. This pretty obviously had no chance of being deleted currently, let's revisit in while after the article either meets standards or by failing to meet standards demonstrates that the subject is not and never was notable due to lack of reliable sourcing. Postpone consideration. GRBerry 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure even though it seems the AfD was infested with SPAs (this will only get worse if it runs the full five days). If the nominator had actually taken the time to read WP:NOT#NEWS it should have been clear that it has no bearing on the article. The Oink case has the potential to become a relevant footnote in the ongoing fight over downloadable music, and as such it is a meaningful, secondary-sourced article on a topic of ongoing relevance. ~ trialsanderrors 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn non-admin closure, reopen and hold for the 5 days. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The subject of the article is clearly notable. The close was a snowball keep. This is one of those bizarre things that seems to be happening on Wikipedia these days. People seem to have a novel, but growing, in terpretation of WP:NOT whereby anything relating to current events, pop culture, or newsworthy events is automatically assumed to be non-notable. That isn't what WP:NOT says, if anyone would care to unerstand it. I can't help but think people are making WP:POINTs about notability and non-administrative closures. If so, the proper place is the policy pages, not contentious AFD and DRV nominations. Wikidemo 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-admin closer comment I closed this debate and I'm going to abstain between overturn and endorse. Please judge based on my judgment, not the fact I'm a non-admin. Computerjoe's talk 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Snow close seemed appropriate. The keep consensus seem to think that WP:NOT#NEWS did not applied. It might be too soon to determine whether the topic is of historical notability and there seem to be no showing of the harm our work might cause. Google news seems to bring up a lot of information, but it is from two days ago (October 23, 2007 to now). There seems to be little coverage prior to October 23, 2007. OiNK's Pink Palace (www.oink.me.uk) barely has any news coverage and the only thing I found was Boulder Daily Camera, March 2, 2006, "Don't try this at home" as a one sentence mention of "British site OiNK's Pink Palace." (search Camera archives for BitTorrent). The website (www.oink.co.uk) seems to have little information as well. See [http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1779471.0.0.php?act=complaint&cid=710789 this. The website (www.oink.cd) receives some hits. There seems to be enough reliable source information for the topic, but it may be difficult to locate since the OiNK's Pink Palace website kept changing. Then there are the similarly named websites that are unrelated: (1) www.oink.com, (2) www.oinke.com, (3) www.OinkRadio.com, (4) www.oink-oink.com, (5) www.oinkbaby.com, (6) www.oinkao.co.nz, (7) www.oinktoberfest.com, (8) www.oinkster.com. Give the article a month or two, then relist it at AfD so that the historical notability can be better judge and the SPAs a chance to move onto something else. -- Jreferee t/c 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep due to obvious consensus, although the article name should be revisited due to article naming conventions. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jamie Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Jamie Chandler page should be undeleted because he has played for England U19's Jamie Chander plays for England U19's against Romania Sunderland06 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Dale Hample – Keep closure endorsed. John254 provides sound reasoning to support the consensus below. Although WP:V requires independent sourcing according to its letter (and this requirement is normally very firm and indisputable), it is within closer's discretion to apply a "reasonableness test" in any closure. The argument between "eventualism" and "immediatism" is tension at the core of Wiki-policy debates, never firmly settled in favor of either. For "eventualist" arguments to have any force at all, it must be permitted, at the very least, for sourced articles (not yet conforming to the strictest reading of WP:V, but still sourced) to be given some time and latitude to allow for further work before deletion is compelled. Although this article does not conform to the strictest reading of WP:V, it is sufficiently meritorious (and such sourcing is sufficiently likely to exist) such that its retention is not offensive to policy. GRBerry's point is interesting, and very possibly correct; however, the special cases of academics (if they do deserve special treatment) would be a subset of the reasonableness test applicable to all articles in equal measure. (Hence, no undue discrimination, to mollify Jreferee.) – Xoloz 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dale Hample (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Dale Hample AfD was closed as keep. Wikipedia's policy requiring that articles be verifiable is not negotiable and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. The delete reasoning brought up early in the discussion that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The keep reasoning responded by saying that Hample wrote books and journal article, which obviously are not independent of Dale Hample. A Wikipedia article is not a reward for producing scholarly works. A Wikipedia article about Dale Hample needs to be a compilation of reliable source material that conveys what others write about Dale Hample, not what Dale Hample writes about himself. The delete reasoning that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy was the stronger argument. Looking at strength of argument and Wikipedia's underlying verifiability policy, it appears that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and the close should be overturned to delete. -- Jreferee t/c 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was there a reason why you didn't discuss this with me before opening the DRV? I know it seems to have gone out of fashion but admins at least should try and show some courtesy. Concerning the close, Meh!I couldn't care less. It looked like a clear keep to me and I'm hardly shy about deleting articles if they don't meet policy and I have never counted heads. Then again, I went and helped out with a back log and cleared a half dozen unclosed AFDs at one go so its more than possible I got it wrong. If anyone wants to redo the close as a delete feel free - I'm really not bothered and I'm sure that we have better things to use our time at DRV considering. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. Instead of posting a notice on your talk page about the close, I should have attempted to discuss the matter with you first. I apologize. Since it appears that you agree the close should have been delete, it may be appropriate for someone else to speedy close this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying I couldn't care less not that its definitly wrong but any independent admin is welcome to redo the close if they feel like it. I think DDG's comments on notability in the AFD are persuasive and it may be that stubing the article to the verifiable bits is the best way forward but... whatever... I'm not fussed either way and I'm always open to external review. By the way, I wouldn't normally be this sensitive about the notification but I'm still feeling very bruised by the events at ANI over the weekend. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't discovered what the most thankless job is in Wikipedia, but I think AfD closer is in the top three and in my personal experience it is number one. Again, I really am sorry for not discussing the matter with you first. I won't repeat my mistake in the future. -- Jreferee t/c 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to be really big on V but since I got the shiny buttons, I find less and less people seem to take it as seriously so I really only considered notability in my close. You have a good eye for policy in deletion discussions and while I don't always agree with you, I certainly agree with you far more often than not. Lets just leave this for some passing admin to revisit the AFD and let us know what the correct answer was. I think we can close this then. No need to beat yourself up about it. We have plenty of other people to do that for us. Spartaz Humbug! 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability does not require independence of the reliable source, see the WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB sections of WP:V. Notability normally requires independence. However, for academics as academics, the most significant indicator of importance is the publishing of papers in independent and peer-reviewed journals, not independent publishers of biographies. (See the WP:PROF guideline.) We thus sometimes end up, quite appropriately, with highly important and Wiki-notable academics where all that we can talk about is their work, not their life. The article could be better cited, but the discussion was reasonable and the close was correct. Endorse closure. GRBerry 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't thing we should be in the business of judging value of someone's intellectual contribution. To say that some academic's work is important but some rapper and cartoonist work is not important may cause discontent in those who contribute to Wikipedia and may eventually will lead us down the path to censorship. It is the discord and censorship that I am concerned about. Judging a topic only by the amount of reliable source material available seems the best way to have everyone feel that they are being treated fairly. However, I can appreciate this issue being a fundamental disagreement on how to implement Wikipedia's polices. -- Jreferee t/c 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Jreferee is deliberately confusing WP:V and WP:N. It is incorrect and misleading to say that WP:V is not met when clearly we can verify that so-and-so has published x, y and z. Even if the publications are non-independent, if they can be verified through independent means, which journal articles certainly can be, policy is sufficiently covered. WP:N is a guideline, however, and consensus on interpreting guidelines is more flexible. Personally, I considered a !vote of delete here but ultimately chose not to participate. But if consensus is, for now, that WP:PROF is satisfied, I see no procedural issue with the close. Feel free to revisit the article in a few months, but the urgency of using DRV to get last-ditch shots at deletion is something I just don't see for this article. Perhaps if there had been a serious misunderstanding about the sources, but that does not appear to be the case. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure It can easily be verified that Hample has published numerous articles in scientific journals. The consensus was at AfD that Hample did in fact meet the notability guidelines set forth in WP:PROF a such the closing admin was correct. TonyBallioni 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete based on strength of argument. Nominator's reason seems straightforward unless someone can prove the subject meets WP:N. This could have been closed early, but it can't be now. --Coredesat 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At the very least there was no consensus at the article, and as Spartaz noted DGG's argument for keep had some extremely good points; either way the article would have stayed. As such the close as keep was fine procedurally, and we should not overturn to delete when that was not the consensus reached in the AfD discussion. TonyBallioni 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have closed as no consensus reflecting the strength of argument, but as keep has more or less the same effect, endorse closure. However I fully expect this to show up on AFD again in the near future. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The majority of the delete arguments were on the unrevised version of the article, which as submitted to AfD did not show notability because most of the content had been removed--not in bad faith, the original content was absurdly excessive, but the removal also removed the part that would show notability . After I restored the relevant portion, the other people there--almost all supported the article. The exception was one ed. who insisted on arguing that the editorships and journal publications were not significant despite explanations to him by several eds. that the comparisons he was using were not valid. I improved the article enough to pass, and can probably improve it further. As Dhartung says, the notability of an academic is proved by their accomplishments, and the publications are a matter of record and thus V is satisfied. Frankly, I am a little puzzled at the degree of vehemence shown at AfD and here about this particular article. DGG (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete one claim in his article was apparently overstated: he is not the editor of Argumentation and Advocacy, Randall A. Lake is according to the publication's website [[26]], he's just one of numerous editorial board. I won't go through the rest of his bio to ferret out other misclaims, but that's the problem with unsourced BLP's - a reasonable reader may (perhaps reasonably) think that the professor had inflated his position - academic fraud has been known to occur and we'd be making it seem as though this guy was party to some. Bleh. Better to delete it and get it right rather than this unsourced problem. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure -- While Wikipedia:Verifiability does state in relevant part that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", this does not imply that any article which lacks such sources at the time of an AFD closure must be deleted. Rather, where it is reasonably believed that such sources exist, the article may be retained, unless deletion would be warranted on other grounds. John254 03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Those participating in the original AfD seem in agreement that he meets WP:PROF. He is verifiably Editor-in-Chief Elect of a major journal (see my note regarding this above), which seems to meet the requirement for 3rd party sources. Espresso Addict 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ramona Moore – There is a consensus below that the article should not be deleted; there is also strong consensus below (reading in a "bipartisan" fashion, beyond the boldfacing) that a non-admin closure was inappropriate. To reconcile these two widely-accepted points of agreement, it is best to adopt the suggestion offered and supported below to mark the debate as "no consensus", but to otherwise sustain the outcome. – Xoloz 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ramona Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AFD was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by John254. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion here. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course. (See also WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore.) shoy 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right end state, wrong close The proper close for this was no consensus, as the participants did not agree on whether she is notable by our standards. The closer should have offered their thinking in debate, especially as it is partially correct and partially not. In particular, the closer doesn't understand WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. It is not a summary of the notability guideline, it is policy with higher standing and addressing different issues. (It was also forged, if I understand the history correctly, as part of deciding what to do about otherwise articles on non-notable victims of the 9/11 terrorism attacks, a notable event if there ever was one.) However, with DGGs argument unresponded to, the right close was no consensus. The difference between keep and no consensus is immaterial for DRV's purposes. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL appears to require further editing of the article to conform with the policy. GRBerry 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, close as no consensus, and hand a WP:TROUT to John254. There obviously isn't a consensus whether WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL beat WP:N#General notability guideline. Personally, I think they do, but I appreciate that some other people think they don't. However, the closer allowed his personal opinion to supersede the apparent mixed bag of the community's opinions; the closure, as stated, clearly favors one side of the debate. Mind you, the difference between no consensus and keep can turn crucial in the potential future AfDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 and WP:NOTAGAIN. Duja► 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD ran for six days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The news has run from April 2003 (the kidnapping date) to at least October 2006[30], so WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't support the deletion argument. Stories about kidnappings/crime victims eventually include biographical information to gain sympathy for the victim. Given the significant coverage about this topic, WP:BLP seems misapplied in the discussion and does not provide support to the deletion reasoning. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to attempts to fondly remember a person by summarizing in Wikipedia their obituary, which this topic does not. The deletion reasoning lacked strength. The keep reasoning was clear and focused on the availability of sufficient reliable source material for the topic. The closer was correct in the interpretation of the discussion and even provided cogent summary of the closing thoughts. Trout whack to the non-admin for closing a mixed view AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and mark as no consensus a non-admin closure of an AfD discussion that was not an obvious keep. No consensus was reached one way or the other the editor should not have closed this as Keep. TonyBallioni 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and mark as no consensus. There was plenty of time for one to develop, so a relist would accomplish little, and renomination in a month would be unsurprising, so there's time to improve the article as well as incentive. But John254 is again overreaching with his non-admin closures, teasing a consensus out of none and adding a dollop of his own interpretation. I've got one, too, but I wouldn't presume to base a false consensus on it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and mark as no consensus. While this has the same effect, non-admins simply shouldn't close controversial AFDs such as this. If there is no consensus (which looks to be the case to me), it isn't non-controversial, and it should only be considered by an admin at that point. --Coredesat 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: A thoughtful and well reasoned closing argument in my opinion. But opinions do differ. Personally, I have no problems with experienced non-admins closing difficult AfD's provided they are knowledgeable of policy and the result does not require the deletion button -- Samir 23:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure per Jreferee and Samir. John254 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Six deletes, two keeps, one of which was without a reason - I can't draw any other conclusion. Agree with Coredesat insofar as he suggests that it is not non-controversial. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as non-consensus which I think would have been the right closure. I do not think NOT MEMORIAL applies to articles like these, but I recognize that there is probably not consensus about how to handle them one way or another. I support the closers view about the article, but he should not have been the one to close it. DGG (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete crime victims and crime perps get the usual headlines demonstrated here, that doesn't make them notable - of the thousands of homicides in the US (and multiply that round the world) - this isn't a notable one. This article is a memorial. If you think otherwise, then you'd be glad to keep articles on her murderers, because they were party to the same notable events, and further ones such as trial, an apparent escape attempt and other things making them certainly more notable than she is. WP is not wiki policeblotter. This ought to be deleted and that was the consensus at afd, improperly overrided by the closer. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think most such cases are appropriately handled by a single article, and when there are more, which way the merge should go is an editing decision depending on how the matter is commonly known. A few such cases will justify more than one article--I don't think this is one of them & anyway the problem doesnt arise here, since this is the single article. I really dont think we're on a slippery slope to multiple articles for each murder--that's a straw man entirely, no one would defend that. DGG (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, edit, and keep. In the continuing discussion of which criminal victims get media coverage, Moore's name is still cited. I believe that makes her notable (think of Kitty Genovese). However, this notability has been edited out of the article, so it needs to be re-edited. Oh, and complete agreement with DGG's point that the multiple-aticles argument is strawman. --Kayobee 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chanel Petro-Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AFD was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by John254. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion here. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course. (See also WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore.) shoy 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right end state, wrong close The argument is the same as for Ramona above, here somewhat stronger due to the lower participation in the AFD. DGG's argument that this individual case is notable was not responded to, nor is it contradicted by the article. (This one definitely needs to be rewritten, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not currently written in an encyclopedic style.) GRBerry 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, close as no consensus. See the reasoning at #Ramona Moore above. Duja► 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD ran for six days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The news has run from June 2006 (the crime date) to at least September 2007[31] and there appears to be no reason to believe that new reliable source material won't be generated in the future. The deletion reasoning citing WP:NOT#NEWS is unsupported. Stories about crime victims eventually include biographical information to gain sympathy for the victim, particularly in a case such as this with widespread media coverage. Given the significant coverage about this topic, WP:BLP seems misapplied in the discussion and does not provide support to the deletion reasoning. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to attempts to fondly remember a person by summarizing in Wikipedia their obituary, which this topic does not. The deletion reasoning lacked strength. The keep reasoning was clear and focused on the availability of sufficient reliable source material for the topic. The closer was correct in the interpretation of the discussion and even provided cogent summary of the closing thoughts. Trout whack to the non-admin for closing a mixed view AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, mark as no consensus per my reasoning in #Ramona Moore above TonyBallioni 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure per Jreferee. John254 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and mark as no consensus per reasoning in the Ramona Moore DRV above. --Coredesat 06:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and mark as no consensus. This one has fewer in support of deleting, but there are insufficient keeps to be considered a keep result. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as non-consensus just as above. I would have supported an non-admin close as non consensus, which was clearly the debate. Personally, my own view is that the article is a definite keep--somewhat different from some of the others, as there was evidence of the case being used as a matter of significant debate my major political figures reported in a great many RS newspapers sources over a period of years. Jreferees comment about why NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply is correct, and he understand that policy correctly--if others misunderstand, we perhaps need to adjust the wording. If there is going to be a policy about this type of articles, we need to develop a consensus on them, not have this sort of argument about each individual instance. DGG (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Justine Ezarik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

This AFD was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by John254. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion here. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course.(See also WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore.) shoy 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - AfD#1 was close as no consensus on 18 September 2007 and AfD#2 was listed on 15 October 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urk, this one has two AFDs with closes of debatable quality. My first instinct was to award the closer of the first AFD a WP:TROUT as they had participated in the discussion prior to closing it. Their close, however, was correct for AFD1, and probably helped still the sockfest, so I think we should endorse the close of AFD1. I'm tentative on the close of AFD2; I'm not sure what the proper close was, but I'm sure that it wasn't delete, so the outcome is good enough for AFD2. GRBerry 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't think the consensus was to keep the article, I find substantial arguments for both sides sufficient to have closed the AfD as "no consensus". However, seeing as an "nc" defaults to "keep", I endorse this AfD's closure.

    Full disclosure: I !voted to keep this article in this (and the previous) AfDiscussion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-evaluate AfD The second AfD has shown more points to policy that this article should be kept. The AfD did serve the five-day debate period, but due to the revolving door of AfDs on this article, as well as the subject of the debates, I feel it needs to be closed by an experienced, non-involved admin. --wL<speak·check> 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-evaluate. Decision seems to have occurred against consensus, and non-admin closures in such situations are questionable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was against consensus? Only SPAs were generally endorsing deletion. • Lawrence Cohen 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mofidy closure The wording needs to be endorsed that it was a firm "KEEP". The wording as used was a bit too open-ended, which can lead to further disruptive AfDs because some apparently dislike this person. The close was within consensus relatively, but there were ample sources demonstrating notability for three factors in chronological order: 1. her videos, 2. followed by the iPhone bill mess, 3. followed by her lifecasting as "iJustine". All the "Deletes" typically were SPAs.
Also, both AfDs were brought within one month of each other by User:Dr Tobias Funke, and his AfD nomination itself was a gross WP:BLP violation and attack (I had been considering blanking the AfD because of this). Did anyone read what he wrote?
"I am nominating this as I want to point out that this is nothing but a vanity page of what I called an one-trick pony of an attention seeking wannabe somebody, plus like the livestream according to somebody who informed me, the hype over that bill has died down and so has the amount of google links. Like I always said, this subject has nothing but the iPhone bill to show any other form of notability.
My perdiction of this nomination are, like the previous nom, the outcome of this nom will always come out as keep because that Justine woman is a attractive young woman and therefore it attracts deluded fanboys who will always vote keep for that reason. Plus excluding all blog hits, the number of google hits for her has dropped down to 9,000.
If this stays as keep, well next time, I think we will start an article of some NN attractive young woman as that is what internet always favors, source it and see how long that will stay, which will be forever. Dr Tobias Funke 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)"
There are over two dozen sources. As I said in the AfD, we have CNET News, BizTechTalk, San Francisco Chronicle x2, Sydney Morning Herald, NY Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Manila Mail - Phillipines, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review x2, Computerworld, USA Today x2, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, WTAE TV news - Pittsburgh, NPR news, WPXI - Pittsburgh, Yahoo! News, TG Daily, and the Wall Street Journal. That is 22 distinct sources. That's just today, and there is no reason to assume more won't come. WP:BLP1E certainly doesn't apply. Does that qualify under WP:N? • Lawrence Cohen 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD ran for five days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. This one was not even close. The article included an overwhelming amount of footnotes. The delete reasonings were "a vanity page" and that this topic was not important enough for Wikipedia even though it was important enough to numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored and finding a topic objectionable as being beneath a personal standard is not a basis to delete the article. The non-admin close was fine given the very weak delete reasoning and strong keep reasoning. -- Jreferee t/c 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-evaluate AfD per WikiLeon and Starblind. -- Craigtalbert 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure -- Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Justine Ezarik has been the subject of massive coverage in a number of the national news media, as detailed at Justine Ezarik#References, clearly meeting the standard of notability articulated in the general notability guideline. Now, let's consider whether anything in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination) would justify deleting the article anyway. Consider the statement by the user who nominated the article for deletion: "this is nothing but a vanity page of what I called an one-trick pony of an attention seeking wannabe somebody..."[32] Naturally, the personal attack against the subject of the article didn't constitute a compelling rationale for deletion, nor did the large number of single purpose accounts who supported deletion, using largely the same argument (and I use that term very loosely). By my count, 10 established users supported retention of the article, while only 6 established users supported deletion. The established users who supported retention of the article employed largely policy-based rationales in supporting retention of the article, citing the massive media coverage of Justine Ezarik as evidence of notability, while the established users who supported deletion employed purely subjective assertions of non-notability, bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. One user actually suggested that the article should be deleted, in part, "because I have never in my life heard of this person" [33]. There wasn't a snowball's chance in heck of finding a consensus for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination). John254 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- What is the WP:POINT of this review? Even if the closure were modified to no consensus, the result is the same. It's hard to see good faith in the timing or the content of the nom, the delete votes were mostly novel interpretations of Notability and personal POV, and the close was clearly following the WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines, so the AfD in no way supports deletion. Dhaluza 09:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not thrilled with the allegation that this is a WP:POINTy DRV. There was consensus at AN that John254 had closed some AFDs controversially. Please don't shoot the messenger, all I want to happen is that we make sure we get this right for the sake of policy, not to mention the RealWorldTM people involved. shoy 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are asking for a third AfD, which would be pointless. If you just wanted to set the record straight, you could have asked for a change to no consensus, but the result would be the same, so that is pointless as well. Dhaluza 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse / My reevaluation: I'm an independent admin, and my take on the closure is that it is correct. Almost every single delete comment was fundamentally "I don't like it" argument, which really can't counterbalance that with so many independent, reliable sources, this person meets WP:N. The one exception was the comment about WP:NOT#NEWS - but I don't think that holds water either, because this is fundamentally not news coverage of anything. There used to be the notaion that notability is permanent, and some arguments were along those lines, but (1) I don't think that notion is as accepted as it once was, and (2) all these people are assuming that this person's fame is ephemeral, and that just isn't clear. Rather, I think based on how she has managed to get so much attention so far, she probably will continue to do so. Mangojuicetalk 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse unlike the two items above, i did not express a view on the article at the AfD--this is not one of the usual types of subject that I watch for at AfD. Reading the article, it seems unimpeachably sourced, and notability demonstrated for a range of things extending over time. The AfD clearly showed it, and there was consensus to keep. John254 got it right this time. The deletes seemed to be that her accomplishments were not the sort of thing that is intrinsically notable, and that's totally against WP:N policy, which does not have that sort of exception for things individual people arent interested in. DGG (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete per my discussions above. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I was a bit surprised with all this action {{oldafdmulti}} was not on the talk page, but I added it. The discussion was so ridiculous. The woman has been noted in almost every media outlet and people want to debate her notability. She is so notable. People were trying to argue that her 15 minutes of fame were up on a Monday after her picture was in the Wall Street Journal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG and Mangojuice. Also (and this is slightly-off topic), these types of nominations should ideally be speedy closed as soon as they are posted. The nomination statement was filled with violations of WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT, and a more civil and reasoned nomination statement would have set the tone for a more productive discussion. However, I endorse the keep closure and do not think relisting is necessary. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adrian Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This shouldn't have been deleted, the subject is notable enough as it is. Whitmorewolveyr 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD. No evidence in the deleted article, the AFD, or the nomination here that anyone independent of the subject has ever thought it worth recording anything about them in a reliable source. Without such independent sources, the subject is not notable by Wikipedia's standards for articles about people. GRBerry 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion nothing new here... if you had sources, we could pretty easily overturn such a low-participation AFD. --W.marsh 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly and no substantial new information has been brought forth as a basis to restore the article. Adrian Clarkson (per the deleted article) is a 36 year old radio broadcaster in England. An October 6, 2004 Bristol Evening Post article reads, "Adrian Clarkson, operational manager of the NHS CFSMS in the South West." I'm not sure if they are the same person. There also is a Canadian Governor General Adrian Clarkson and there is the Adrian Clarkson public school in Ottawa, Canada. There seems to be no information on the Adrian Clarkson that was the subject of the deleted Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD was unanimous and I highly doubt she's become that much more notable in the last 10 days. Smashville 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse & recreate as a redirect to Adrienne Clarkson (the former Governor General mentioned by Jref). Good call on the deletion, per the discussion this was a borderline CSD A7 case. Caknuck 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion unless the nominator or anyone else has sources. The redirect can actually be created right now by anyone, so that shouldn't be an issue. --Coredesat 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nominator, please note that DRV is a place to note when an article has been deleted improperly, i.e. proper process has not been followed, or (if the title has been protected), when additional sourcing or relevant information has come to light. It is not a place to take a second bite at the cherry to try and get a favourable result. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This article could not reasonably be supported on the current material.DGG (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
DLM AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was deleted without allowing time for discussion and despite a Hold On request. Page was under construction and was marked as Stub. There was no need for such hasty action because page was not libellous or copyvio. Biscuittin 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh boy, what a laundry list of offered CSD criteria by the deleting admin. They cited WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A3, WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. I note first that it is impossible for all of them to be true - if there is no context, it can't be spam, because the spam would provide sufficient context to allow expansion. Looking at the deleted article, it is reasonably certain that WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3 didn't apply. WP:CSD#G11 also doesn't apply in my judgment. WP:CSD#A7 does apply, but if someone wants to continue working on the article, as was stated on the talk page and in the nomination, they should be allowed to as they might produce the required assertion of significance. Tagging for speedy deletion doesn't require immediate action, it is OK for an admin to leave the page tagged for a while to see what the expanded state of the article is. Userfy or overturn. WP:CORP is the standard the article will eventually need to meet. GRBerry 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy, that was really hasty deletion; it wasn't either of the cited CSD criteria. It's difficult to tell whether the article would survive an AfD -- there's even a Google Scholar hit, (except that it's written by the company's CEO). Plenty of GHits, but it's difficult to tell the reliable sources from fan pages and business listings, and many are in German. It should be given a chance though. Duja► 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - DLM AG, Dampflokomotiv- und Maschinenfabrik, is a Swiss manufacturer of modern steam engines for railway and marine service. For a company to manufacture engines, the need a lot of money and important clients. Even so, WP:CSD#A7 does apply since the article itself lacked an assertion of importance/significance. Recreation of the article using reliable source material would be acceptable. -- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of English Americans – Deletion overturned. At least for so long as the parent article English Americans continues to exist, it is presumed that a list of such people is a useful aid to reader comprehension and is encyclopedic (as established by the consensus at the latest German American DRV and those following.) While the agreement on this particular list found below is not as strong, an "argument for consistency" in treatment of the lists is offered and is reasonable. – Xoloz 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of English Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1|AfD#2)

Overturn and undelete. This article-list was deleted for the same incorrect reasons that the since overturned List of German Americans was subsequently deleted. The deletion of this article was the 'trigger delete' leading to the subsequent deletion activity. This list is for a notable American ethnic group as evidenced by its having an article and having a category. There is no valid WP reason why this list was deleted. There is nothing in WP that says lists cannot also exist when categories exist. The list readily provides information for the reader that categories only provide by lots of work, reading one article after another, It provides names, dates of birth/death, and occupation/reason for notability--in other words why one might want to then read an article on a person. The list serves as an index to the category articles. Is the list perfect? No, but the job of WP editors is to improve articles (including lists) on notable subject matter, not delete them. Hmains 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I created User:Jreferee/Lists of Ethnic Americans to give everyone an overview of where we regarding List of <x> Americans and where we might be headed. -- Jreferee t/c 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion, nothing in the nomination is a reason for overturning a deletion. --Coredesat 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - Our users have suffered over the past month or so from not having the sourced, annotated information about individuals of English American background contained in this articles, and their research has consequently been hampered. As seen by the spate of similar deletions that followed, the deletion seems to have been conducted solely to make a WP:POINT and the case that our users should not be permitted to have well sourced, annotated lists of individuals of this notable ethnic group was not convincingly made. Neither was the case made that a category "does the same job," as a category is clearly not sourced and properly annotated, organized by occupation and date of birth and death, etc. Further, the argument used by previous "delete" voters that editors should not be the arbiters of who belongs to a particular ethnic group was not valid, because our lists go by the individual's self-definition/ethnic identification, using sources that state they are a member of that ethnic group (the same process we use to cite any information in WP). Badagnani 04:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, the List of <x> Americans debate rages on. Until AfDs start sufficiently discussing these lists in the context of (1) Wikipedia is not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, (2) purpose of lists, (3) list membership criteria, (4) adherence to that membership criteria, and (5) categories vs. list, we won't get any meaningful AfD results. The demotion of list membership criteria from a guideline requirement to an essay seems to be a significant blow to our ability to discuss these matters at AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is an "English American"? Someone who identifies as both English and American? Someone who is English but happens to have an American parent? Someone who is American but who happens to have an English parent? Is it simply someone from North America who claims some ancestry from England, in which case they would not be considered ethnically English by an English person actually from England. Is an English American simply an American who has culturally assimilated to the English way of life, and so identifies as English? Or is an English American simply someone who has some vague connection to both England and America and who some Wikipedia editor decided arbitrarily to place into the article (this seems the most likely scenario to me). Obviously this is not about citizenship because it is impossible to be a citizen of England. Alun 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correctly closed as far as I can tell. Neil ☎ 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid deletion. DRV is not a place to relist the same arguments in the hope of a more sympathetic reception. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think consensus has changed on this sort of article, and there is a reasonable chance the a new afd would give a different result. Consensus can change is usually given here as a reason for deleting somethingthat has survived multiple AfDs, but it works just as well the other way round. DGG (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct close. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Seems like the correct close to me as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While it was probably reasonable for the closer to presume consensus to delete based on the appearance of a majority opinion to delete this specific article, that was it—it was just opinion, not backed by policy or wider consensus. Consensus seems to be better represented by support for a number of ethnic-American lists, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans. The similar List of German Americans was recently restored per DRV; so even if there was once a consensus to delete, it appears that consensus is changing towards keeping such articles. The specific reasons given for deleting this list, e.g. "this is what categories are for," "too broad and unmaintainable," "loosely associated," "trivial intersection," "how English must one be to get listed here?" have all been considered in other AfDs and DRVs have been, or are now being, rejected by the community. Quite simply, it is clear from other AfD and DRV discussions that there is no general consensus to delete lists of notable people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per deletion policy, this list should be restored. DHowell 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The decision is inconsistent with decisions regarding other ethnicities and nationalities. If necessary a strong criterion can be drawn up, e.g. people born in the UK or who are former or current UK citizens who resided in the US. Something like that. But the question of English and other UK men and women and their role in the business and culture of the United States is an important, notable subject. It makes no sense to delete this yet leave Germans, Swiss, etc. Wikidemo 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Most of the delete votes were based on the list being replaced by a category, but this is not a valid reason to delete in and of itself because categories and lists are different things. No one gave a cogent explanation of why a category was sufficient in this case, and since a category cannot contain redlinks, it probably is not. The only other delete argument was that this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, but there are numerous books written on various ethnic groups in America that include examples, so that is sufficient to establish the encyclopedic suitability of these lists. Dhaluza 14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn per Wikidemo and Dhaluza. Although I can't fault the closure, I think that the general fate of these types of lists should be considered outside the framework of 5-day deletion debates. What is needed is a general consensus about if/when these lists are appropriate and how they should be structured. I know there is an ongoing discussion somewhere, but I forget the exact link. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T-Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|1st AfD|2nd AfD)

Article meets criteria 5 and 6 of WP:MUSIC. 5: Was part of Choices: The Album, Three 6 Mafia Presents: Hypnotize Camp Posse and Rock Solid/4:20, all released on Hypnotize Minds a major independent label. Rock Solid/4:20 also charted on two Billboard charts. Hypnotize Camp Posse charted as well. 6: Was part of Prophet Posse and an affiliate of Three 6 Mafia for a few years. This reason was called "irrelevant" and was deleted while in the process of adding sources. Sources: All Music Guide page Album info More album info To show he was on Body Parts T Rex | talk 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have asked the admin who closed the page already, long story short this AfD was not a speedy, nor did anyone, including the closing admin, suggest as much, so it should be given 5 days (not less than 24 hours), especially after the submarine nomination I got, with no notice. Regardless of the merits, this is a matter of principle. It may or may not lose the AfD vote, but this premature closure, after no notice being given, smacks of something quite wrong, and I would like it to get the same 5 days everything else gets. JJJ999 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist Five hours and only six discussion participants is hardly enough to build up a case for WP:SNOW. And while I support relisting the AfD out of procedure's sake, I doubt the article can stand on its own merit. Caknuck 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist SNOW closures are almost never appropriate in less than 24 hours. In a case like this, where the issue is whether reliable sources exist, they are never appropriate before sources are demonstrated to exist. One of the basic reasons AFD is a process that takes time is because, even when sources exist, they are not necessarilly online or right at hand, and the AFD time allows real research to be done. The early closing of this, or any comparable, AFD is a massive flaw that makes the close completely invalid. Award the closer a WP:TROUT for getting this so wrong. (The issue of notice is irrelevant; there is no requirement for notice.) GRBerry 13:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist WP:SNOW is for plowing through unneeded process because no one objects excepts on process grounds, it's not something with which to steamroll objections to ensure you get your way. At any rate, redirecting to The Last Temptation of Homer as a plausible search term seems in order here, as much fun as it is to delete anything related to pop culture. --W.marsh 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Obviously and per above posts. JJJ999, your behavior towards others is causing them to react negatively, and that is impacting Wikipedia, such as by us having to spend time addressing this matter at DRV. Please reconsider my post on your talk page. Comment - There are few reliable sources that even mention Joey Shabadoo. Toronto Star May 20, 2004 writes "Joey Jojo Shabadoo The Friends star hangs out with his new ... friends? Betrayer!" The Memphis Flyer April 21, 2005 writes, "That disc doesn't have its official release party until Shabadoo's mastermind Joey Pegram (Hot Monkey, 611, Joint Chiefs) takes the stage at the Buccaneer on Friday, April 22nd." That's about it. -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite trying to politely engage with him on his talk page, DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there. Can someone more senior please have a word to him? Given I've never even spoken to DF before, nor has he to me, I don't see how this has anything to do with past behaviour. As for searching reliable sources Jeferee, you have to remember, the name is a variant, so it might be "Joe Shabadoo" or "Joey Joe Joe" etc. At any rate, I am glad for the support for relisting.JJJ999 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you keep assuming bad faith? Smashville 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went to his userpage, posted over a day ago, then posted again. He has since been posting other stuff, but has been unwilling to reply to my repeated query in any way, shape or form. That's not bad faith on my part, just the application of common sense to facts. He is obviously not interested in discussing it, and is being rude.JJJ999 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't say you didn't assume bad faith because you straight up said, "DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there." Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to respond, Smashville 01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, what else do you call a 5 hour closure which doesn't even invoke SNOW or speedy, and which he won't reply to. If that isn't bad faith, what is it? Laziness? Contempt? Whatever you want to characterise it as, it all falls under the heading of poor form, which was the gist of my above point.JJJ999 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To JJJ999: There is nobody "more senior" as admins go, we are all on an equal level and answerable to the community (and, nominally, Jimbo Wales. Indeed, we admins are just regular users with a couple of extra buttons. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, six hours isn't enough for a consensus to form. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I haven't put my vote in, but I have no problem with relisting. I do have a problem with the continuous bad faith assumptions. Smashville 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist JJJ is right--there was not sufficient time allowed., considering the nature of the arguments presented in the short period. It was being asserted, and denied, that the article could be adequately sourced, and there should have been a full chance to do so. That's one of the functions of AfD--it doesn't always happen by a long shot, but it sometimes does. I'm a little skeptical about this article, but I want an opportunity to see what is proposed in the way of further sources. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist it wasn't a straight speedy if I recall correctly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per W.marsh. Sarah 09:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist As the original nominator of the article, I'd be fine with a relist for procedural purposes. I'm extremely dubious that this article will actually pass an AFD even given 5 days on strict policy grounds as it totally fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS and every other applicable policy/guideline. but we can at least afford it a few more days to exist. I will say though that the originator has a bit more to learn about WP:AGF.--Isotope23 talk 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

23 October 2007

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

Twice as many delete votes with well argued reasons does not constitute a keep vote under any reasonable grounds, SqueakBox 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The close was well-reasoned, and indeed this was a very rough AFD to close. It's good enough for me. Is this about having wanted him to bold the words "no consensus"? In his rationale he explains that there wasn't much of a consensus to keep as a standalone article, there just wasn't much of a consensus to do anything else, either. --W.marsh 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not my intention to criticise the closing admin (that isn't why I posted here) but no consensus would be the very least I would have expected given the afd results, SqueakBox 15:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He said that in his close... the bolded word "keep" verses "no consensus" is really not that important or worth haggling over, what he said in the closing statement is somewhat more meaningful. There's really no difference between a close that bolds the word "keep" and one that bolds the words "no consensus", that there is a difference is a common misnomer, but it doesn't really matter. They are both decisions to keep the content and article name. --W.marsh 15:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I dispute that is the appropriate reading of the afd. Please see User talk:SqueakBox#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex. I think when twice the number of people want to either delete or merge than want to keep that a DRV is appropriate as a way to overturn the decision, SqueakBox 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just saying changing the bolded word to "no consensus" doesn't accomplish anything meaningful. If you want the article name and content deleted, that's something different. --W.marsh 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The meaningful distinction between keep and no consensus is the period as to when people consider it appropriate to revisit the article at AfD. That always comes down to the actual debate in the first AfD and the reason given for the close, but not necessarily the "keep" or "no consensus" wording in the AfD close. That is why DRV has not, to my knowledge, been used to change a closer's wording from "keep" to "no consensus." -- Jreferee t/c 16:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Hold your noses and cover your eyes 'cause Wikipedia is not censored. Obviously, all "Adult-child sex" anywhere in the world throughout the history of the world cannot be said to be consider "child sexual abuse" by all people throughout time. The Adult-child sex article would seem to be part of Wikipedia's coverage that includes Adult-adolescent male sex. In reality, child sexual abuse is a content fork of Adult-child sex and Adult-adolescent male sex. Child sexual abuse is an article whose subject is a POV - point of view. Such articles are permitted per Articles whose subject is a POV. As for Child sexuality, that article addresses an individual's feelings, not acting on those feelings with an adult. As the closer noted, the article contains useful, NPOV information that is not found elsewhere. This is because the topic - Adult-child sex - cannot be adequately by any of suggested merge articles listed in that AfD. The AfD discussion brought out biased reasons to delete the article and the closer was correct to focus on those parts of the discussion that focused on Wikipedia article standards. -- Jreferee t/c 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse afd is a discussion not a vote and as such the consideration for closing should be based on policy. Child sex abuse would actually be a daughter article of this as its about the various illegal acts such that merging with this would imply that its is/has and always will be solely an illegal act, ignoring the psychological/historical discussions views. The question of no-consensus vs keep doest alter anything except a perceived grace period between potential AfD nominations Gnangarra 16:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think what SqueakBox is arguing here is that this article should be deleted more so than he is arguing for a change in the name of its close. I disagree that this article is a part of Wikipedia's coverage that includes Adult-adolescent male sex. Adult-adolescent male sex may include legal acts of sexual intimacy between adolescent males and adults, considering that the Age of consent is ages 16 to 18 often, and studies have been done that show adolescents of that age can consent to sex with a legal adult without being mentally/emotionally harmed. However, studies across the world widely document that "sex with" children under the age of 12, which the Adult-child sex article focuses more so on, considering that it isn't uncommon for sex between adolescents and adults to be allowed, is extremely harmful to children, and is titled as child sexual abuse...as brought up in Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Adult-child sex. And while the article Adult-child sex may not focus on the term pedophilia, the ages that the Adult-child sex article suggest may not be harmful to children are completely of the ages that constitute pedophilia. 16-year-olds are considered adults in some parts of the world. 6-year-olds are not. And mentally/biologically, 16-year-olds are different, of course. I honestly don't see a reason for the article Adult-child sex and I do feel that it is not that different than the article on child sexual abuse. The Adult-child sex article incorporates mention of Age of consent, even though Age of consent usually does not apply to 12-year-olds and it states that what is known as child sexual abuse may not be that in every case, even though it is known as child sexual abuse in every case... I'm not for censorship on this matter, which is part of the reason I may not have voted to Delete or Keep this article, but at the same time...I cannot see why this article is needed, as it addresses the same topic as child sexual abuse, but mentions how a minority feels that it isn't child sexual abuse. Addressing the minority view may warrant an article on Wikipedia, but this is addressed on Wikipedia in the article Pro-pedophile activism. I have watched the discussion on this topic from both sides and different aspects of those sides...and nothing can convince me that this article is needed. I completely understand SqueakBox's feelings about this, and with how many people either wanted to delete or merge this article, I honestly expected him to bring this to a deletion review, as stated on his talk page. Flyer22 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flyer22, you gave two reasons why there's no need for the article:
  • 1. The article's purpose would be to document the same subject as the article on child sexual abuse. You said that "studies across the world widely document that 'sex with' children under the age of 12, which the Adult-child sex article focuses more so on, considering that it isn't uncommon for sex between adolescents and adults to be allowed, is extremely harmful to children, and is titled as child sexual abuse..."
  • If you read Wikipedia's article on adult-child sex, you'll see that David Finkelhor who is "Director of Crimes against Children Research Center, Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory and Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire ... has been studying the problems of child victimization, child maltreatment and family violence since 1977 ... is well known for his conceptual and empirical work on the problem of child sexual abuse, reflected in publications such as Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse (Sage, 1986) and Nursery Crimes (Sage, 1988)" said that "The belief that sex with adults causes harm to children is often offered as the most compelling argument against such relationships, and is the basis for much current concern about sexual abuse. This paper argues for the importance of a stronger ethical position, less dependent on an empirical presumption that is not firmly established. It is suggested that basing the prohibition of adult-child sex on the premise that children are incapable of full and informed consent will provide a more solid and consistent approach to the problem." We didn't need him to say this, because this is easy to find out just by thinking. It has been done on this section already. No one has proven that it's impossible that there be positive sexual relationsips between children and adults, and no one has proven that a sexual relationship could be inherently harmful.
  • 2.0.You say the article's purpose would be to be able to present minority views on the subject, and this wouldn't be necessary, as "the minority view may warrant an article on Wikipedia, but this is addressed on Wikipedia in the article pro-pedophile activism."
  • The article on LGBT social movements is not about homosexuality nor about homosexuality (the word is used, according to the article, for "both the attraction or sexual behavior between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation"), and the article about pro-pedophile activism is not about pedophilia nor about adult-child sex. The article about LGBT movements is about a movement, and the article about pro-pedophile activism is also just about a movement.
  • Ten percent of Canadians explicitly said that pedophilia (by which they obviously meant sexual relationships between adults and children) is not an immoral behavior. 34% of low income earning Canadians didn't say pedophilia (adult-child sex) was an immoral behavior. 30% of Canadian students didn't say that pedophilia is an immoral behavior. In one region of Canada, there are more people who think that extra-marital affairs is immoral than there are people who think that pedophilia is immoral. There's a tie between extra-marital affairs and pedophilia in another region. Those people are not pro-pedophile activists. Is Sartre a pro-pedophile activist? Are Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman (the authors of Rind et al) pro-pedophile activists? No, and their views and arguments can not be included in the article on pro-pedophile activism unless true pro-pedophile activists use them as arguments. The views are notable by themselves, however, regardless of whether activists mention them or not. A.Z. 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Do not endorse. A.Z., while this article may not be about the topic of pro-pedophile activism, I do not agree that it is not about pedophilia. And I almost (ALMOST) cannot believe that you stated that no one has proven that "a sexual relationship between" adults and children could be inherently harmful. It has been proven over and over again that "a sexual relationship between" adults and children is inherently harmful. And, no, don't ask me to grab some references for that, because, frankly, it can be found anywhere on the internet or in your local library. It has also been well-documented how most pedophiles were sexually molested as children themselves, and that is no coincidence, which is another reason I cannot see how anyone can argue that sex "between children and adults" isn't inherently harmful. The idea that a child can consent to sex is baffling whenever I see it suggested in this debate. A child's mind isn't as developed as a mid-to-late adolescent or legal adult's mind; their cognitive skills are far more under-developed than that of a mid-to-late adolescent or adult, a fact. I've been around children quite often, and know that a 6-year-old cannot consent to sex, considering that they are basically the most gullible age group around, 5 to 11-year-olds, but especially 4 to 8-year-olds. I feel that a lot of people here know that. You tell a 6-year-old to do this or that, they most likely do it. You ask a 6-year-old do they want to do something, you can easily play reverse psychology on them. Not so much with a mid-to-late adolescent or adult. Frankly, any argument made that a child (an actual child) can consent to sex, children who usually want to do anything to please the adults they are around, is going to get a scoff from me. Canadians can state what they will. I mean, their Age of consent is lower than that of the United States (where I'm from), and their feelings will not change my mind on this subject...that I see no need for this article. I've heard your argument for this article more than once, of course, and I simply do not agree with you. Flyer22 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you a lot for replying to my argument. Seriously. I really wish to keep discussing this. First of all, you said above that you disagree with David Finkelhor, since he said there's no firm empirical evidence of harm caused to children. You also disagree with Rind et al.
  • 1.Harm.I am very interested in knowing what kinds of arguments people use to say that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is inherently harmful. Unfortunately, you didn't provide any source. Why should my local library have all the arguments, and Wikipedia not? Why isn't there aný article saying why people think that all sexual activity of adults with children is harmful? I have seen this kind of thing quite a few times on Wikipedia. People say "it's patently obvious that sex between adults and children is extremely harmful! There are thousands of scientific studies showing this! I can barely believe you are arguing otherwise!" But Wikipedia doesn't say anywhere that sexual activity between adults and children is inherently harmful. In fact, I don't think I ever heard an explanation on', if it is harmful why it is harmful. I asked on the talk page of the WikiProject and now I ask here: which studies are those? No one showed me the studies, and Wikipedia has almost no content on this. I want to know which studies there are. I do not intuitively think that adult-child sex is inherently any more harmful or abusive than an adult hugging a child. There are a lot of issues to be discussed regarding whether sexual activity between adults and children is inherently harmful, and there's no discussion about it here, and you, by taking it for granted that it is, doesn't even allow me to take my own conclusions. "It has also been well-documented how most pedophiles were sexually molested as children themselves?" How in the world would a person document that? Did they go out on the street and shouted "who here is a pedophile", or put an ad on the paper? I want the sources. If they are so good, they should be able to convince me. If they are so good, they should just be added to the article on adult-child sex, so Wikipedia can say "scientific studies X, Y, and Z have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that consensual, happy, moral, non-abusive sexual activities between adults and children is impossible. The reson for this is A". Or "the reason for this is unknown".
  • 2.Consent. To what could children possibly consent, if not to sex? Sex seems to be one of the most instinctive activities for me, along with feeding. Yes, children can't consent to get married, because they can't have a clue about what marriage is. But sex is just whether you like it or not, whether it feels good or not. It is immensely easy to abuse a child by thousands of different means, sexual or not, and I feel this should not be our point, because we are arguing over the possibility, not how likely it would be. I also don't think it's important for us to try to reach a conclusion soon on how abusive sexual activity with children is in absolute terms: I think a comparison with other kinds of activities that adults have with children is enough. It doesn't look to me that hugging a child so you can feel all the pleasure of hugging a child (and it is very very pleasurable to hug a child, in a non-sexual manner), and all the pleasure of knowing that the child is feeling pleasure, is inherently any less or more abusive than having sex with them.
  • 3.Canadians. If you think they are wrong, provide the sources. A.Z. 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A.Z., I didn't necessarily state that I disagree with Rind et al. I am simply agreeing with the many studies out there that "sex between adults and children" is inherently abusive. "In one such study in 2001, researchers at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine and University College London reviewed the case notes of 225 male sex abusers and 522 other male patients being treated in a London clinic for sex offenders and sexual deviants. They found that abusers had themselves been victims of sexual violence considerably more often than the patients who had not committed sex abuse."[35] People say, "it's patently obvious that sex between adults and children is extremely harmful! There are thousands of scientific studies showing this! I can barely believe you are arguing otherwise!" because it's all TRUE.[36]
  • I don't have to "entertain" you with the fact that "sex between adults and children" is inherently harmful/abusive, when it can be found anywhere, when, as I stated before, most pedophiles were sexually abused as children, which is proof enough. You ask how in the world would a person document that? Did they go out on the street and shout "who here is a pedophile"... No, they (usually) don't go out on the street and ask the pedophile. They document this by asking the pedophile who is already locked up (or was locked up), and most of these pedophiles stated/state how they were sexually abused by an uncle, a father, or older cousin.[37] And that they hated it. I strongly object to you comparing "sex between an adult and a child" as the same thing as a hug. I have seen more than enough sexually abused children, seen their suffering, seen how they wish revenge on their abuser. Many pedophiles have stated that they wish that they could go back in time and stop what happened to them, as if they are blaming themselves for the sexual abuse against them or wish that they could somehow get someone to stop it (back then). Unfortunately, we cannot time travel...yet. All we can do is try and protect as many children from pedophiles as possible.
  • You say that a child can consent to sex because they know if they like it (sex) or not? It has already been well-documented that the fact that the human body is designed to like sexual pleasure is used against them by pedophiles. When Richard Yuill of Glasgow University challenged the much-accepted stance that sex "between adult and children" is inherently abusive, he was critcized by many child abuse experts. "Andrew Durham, author of the book Young Men Surviving Child Sexual Abuse said victims of abuse sometimes reported positive experiences, but this was often a result of manipulation by the abuser, or simply a coping mechanism."[38] "When I work with people who have been abused it often feels like you're talking to the abuser in the child's head," he said. Furthermore, Liz Kelly, professor of sexualized violence at London Metropolitan University, said: "A lot of young men and almost all young women in our study who had intercourse with an adult when they were a child regarded it negatively."
  • So again I say that a child being able to feel sexual pleasure, which every healthy human body can, even those of asexuals, does not mean that a child can consent to sex...or that it is not abuse. Yes, some of these pedophiles that were sexually molested as children admit to having gotten sexual pleasure during the abuse, which is why they felt/feel guilty about what was being done to them, but they also stated that they hated/hate their abusers all the same, and even more for any sexual pleasure that their bodies were manipulated into feeling. Most state how they know that it was not consensual sex in any way, because they would have agreed to almost anything at that age. Asking a 6-year-old do they want to have sex is like asking a 6-year-old do they want to watch a porno movie. Just because they say yes, does not mean that it is not harmful to them. Furthermore, most normal people wouldn't want to have sex with a 6-year-old, so that tells me that another reason people state "sex between adults and children" as being inherently abusive has to do with the biology of human beings rather than social attitudes toward it. Most (heterosexual) men would be looking for a woman with child-bearing hips, not a little 6-year-old girl with no secondary sex characteristics holding her teddy bear. A normal gay man, like straight women, would be looking for a healthy adult male who gives off the vibe of livelihood, not a little boy with no secondary sex characteristics holding his teddy bear. I've read and studied much research on "sex between adults and children" (though it's usually not called that), and all of it, every aspect combined together, even the ones that state that it may not be inherently abusive, and my experience with the sexual abuse topic, leads me to believe (know) that it is inherently abusive. Anyway, whether I feel that this article is needed or not, I still don't feel that it is needed. Flyer22 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the article "The basis of the abused abuser theory of pedophilia: A further elaboration on an earlier study." The other three I dismiss, as they're just a lot of personal opinions. A.Z. 04:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All, both sides, can be called opinions. But they are "opinions" by experts in this field. And most experts are of the stance of what I cited above. Even a lot of pedophiles are. I was going to respond to the post you just posted before this one. In fact, I did type up a quick response to it, since it did anger me, but apparently I wasn't quick enough, since you withdrew it before I could post to it. Thus I decided not to post my response to that. Basically, you and I very much disagree on this subject. At least, we try our best not to sound condescending to each other while we debate. Flyer22 05:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I would like more data, you know. I would like to know what questions they asked to which people and how they got to their conclusions. In these three cases, there are basically just conclusions, so your options are either to believe them or not to believe them. I didn't mean to anger you before. I don't really know what it would mean to be condescending, so, if you have the time, I would appreciate if you explained this to me. All these opinions of mine on adult-child sex made me very afraid that people will dislike me because of them. I didn't like you mentioning the teddy bear, but this didn't make me angry at you. A.Z. 05:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A.Z., I couldn't help but anger at what you stated in that removed post. I won't elaborate on that any further since we kind of moved away from that. I must admit that I cannot grasp what the problem was/is with my teddy bear reference, but moving past that as well... What usually takes place in the kind of questions that child abuse experts and sexual abuse therapists ask men who are pedophiles and have been sexually abused as children (pedophiles are usually men, I'm sure that you know) are of their sexual feelings at the time of the abuse. Difficult questions for most of these men, such as did they get any sexual pleasure from it. A lot of them, even at the age of 32 or 46, are afraid to say yes because they feel that it implies that they liked what was done to them, when, in reality, they did not. It's like some of their bodies responded positively to the sexual abuse, but their minds did not, while others may have had both physically painful and mental experiences with the sexual abuse. Researchers will document a lot of these men breaking down in tears, swearing that they don't know why they are pedophiles, others feeling that they would have never been a pedophile if it weren't for the sexual abuse they suffered as a child, though a good number are quick not to try and blame their criminal actions of sex abuse on their past. All in all, a lot of them just want help. And then there are the ones who are not pedophiles...but were sexually abused as children. If these men are heterosexual, they can and do usually have a more difficult time with the fact that they were sexually abused. What is known to be stated often in these cases is how the child (the men when they were children) felt that they really had no control over the situation when they were those ages. By those ages, I'm generally speaking of 4 to 8-year-olds, even though lower and higher than that are subject to sexual abuse as well, of course. I would go into all the specifics of this, but it's too much to state, and this specific topic is a little away from the topic of whether to keep this article or delete. I know you want me to provide some data that you can look over, but I don't have any of that stuff with me at this moment, and what I stated above about the kind of questions asked of people who were sexually abused as children is valid (women who were sexually abused as children are asked these same questions), though I didn't list all the types of questions and what goes on with that. Anyway, I'll see you around, of course.Flyer22 06:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing admin made some good points explaining his decision. He appeared to favor merging, but was dismayed that few had proposed that altrenative. We can debate a merge without need to overturn the AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not endorse - either deletion, or merging the content to the appropriate abuse article. Nothing here or in the Afd makes a case that the article is not talking about abuse of children by adults. --Rocksanddirt 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.The unverfiability of the claim that there can't be sexual relationships between adults and children that are not abusive makes a case that the article is not talking about abuse of children by adults. The article about abortion is not called "the morally acceptable act of a woman deciding what to do with her own body" nor "baby murder". It would be called abortion even if all people believed it to be a morally acceptable act, and even if all people believed it to be murder of babies. The morality or not of abortion is just a quality of abortion, just like the morality or immorality, legality or illegality, and abusiveness or not of adult-child sex is just a quality of an activity that consists of "sexual things" being done involving a child and an adult, as abortion is "the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death", regardless of whether it is baby murder or not.
  • 2.Even if it were a verifiable fact that sexual relationships between adults and children which are not abusive can't exist, still there could be a fictional activity such as a non-harmful, non-abusive sexual relationship between adults and children. There are people who think there is such an activity and their opinion is notable (note that, even if there were no such opinion, argument one above would still be valid). A.Z. 23:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As for this statement, well, I have nothing different to state than what I just stated above at this very moment. Flyer22 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin. I just wanted to highlight a couple of points made above. As Flyer22 says, and I said in my close, a number of the delete votes objected to the name, not the content. And as Will says, a merge may well make sense, but can be debated at the article talk page. I'd also like to ask those who participated in the AfD and are also participating here to try to keep their comments short and to the point (which is, basically, the procedural validity or lack thereof of my close), and not make this a repeat of the AfD. Thank you. Chick Bowen 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there was no consensus to delete the article. Not only this, but policies suggest that value neutral articles such as this one should be the starting point of "phenomenon" articles such as CSA. Sure, CSA is a large topic, and should demand a large article, but the present and historical manifestations of the activities concerned also demand a value neutral article. Whilst killing is a rather top-down process embodied in law as murder, manslaughter and euthanasia, the subject matter has been subject to much more controversy over the years, and thus does not merit necessary interpretation as a top-down act of power abuse. Readers should be left to make their own minds up. 82.45.15.121 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus to delete. The main argument being made in the DRV seems to be wanting to censor... Smashville 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete votes were more in count, but all those said the same thing without explaining vote, and nobody described their claim of POV. Any content/title/merge can be discussed in talk page. As far as we are reviewing perticular AfD discussion here, not reviewing article, closing of afd can be endorsed easily. We certainly can give more time for this article to develop, before and if to delete. Lara_bran 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer's decision seems to be well-reasoned. This is not the place to flame each other over the subject matter of the article. Pleae restrict all flames to whether or not the VfD decision was correct. --Carnildo 07:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article contains some sourced information not found elsewhere, and nothing about the closer's decision precludes renaming or merging. Enrico Dirac 02:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The closer seemed to ignore that the main deletion argument here was that this is a POV fork. This article exists separately from Child sexual abuse so that the viewpoint that adult-child sex is not always abusive could be advanced more than was possible at the other article. A.Z., the author, was familiar with the situation when he created this article: look at the early versions and the purpose becomes very clear. This is now better sourced and attempts a neutral tone, but it is nonetheless accurately described as a POV fork. The title is not the whole issue, as the closure seemed to think, but it is definitely part of the issue. But at the core, the reason to delete here is POV fork. I have no objection to the text being available, but we don't let POV forks sit around until a consensus is formed to merge them back or move them, we delete them. It's about forcing people to work together on one article, not letting separate articles exist to house separate points of view on the same topic, and that should not have been dismissed as merely a dispute over the title. Mangojuicetalk 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accusations above are not true. My intent was to motivate other editors to write an article on a topic I know little about, and in which I am interested. I feel I should have an informed opinion on this. I had to start the article with some information, otherwise it would be deleted. The first version had the first useful information that I found searching for adult-child sex in Google. I have added at least other five sentences and at least three references to the article after the first versions. I have no interest in the article lacking any information. A.Z. 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorseThe closer made a difficult and correct decision. As I see it, the article would have been unquestionably kept on any other topic, and the opposition to it was based on the disagreement with one of the views presented. It was not a POV fork, but an attempt at a balanced presentation--it said that a small minority view was in fact a small minority view. That is the way to handle suitable wight. If it was insufficiently balanced, then it needed editing. There are those who try to insert as many articles as possible that will have some tendency to advance their particular view on this subject--I don't like that approach when the articles are unwarranted, and I've !voted to delete a good number of them. But I don;t like the approach of those who try to keep them out when they are warranted. that's both POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse the closer got it right - and the reminder of a vote count should be met with a reminder that afd is not a vote. This article approaches a difficult topic from a very different perspective from child sexual abuse. In the latter article, which assumes its conclusion deals with legal and health matters. There is insufficient attention to why a person 18-years-plus-a-day old having sex with a 17 years-plus-364-days old is "child sexual abuse" in California but not considered so in Spain or much of the rest of the world judging by the map. Another failing of the child sexual abuse article is its failure to convey why all the generalities in that article about medical implications apply when the same acts engaged in 2 days later after the younger person's 18th birthday apparently don't lead to any of those implications - which generally defy common sense, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, lacking in the child sexual abuse article. Certainly, these two articles can stand together. Carlossuarez46 17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment failures in the CSA article are not a reason create a POV fork but you have offered some good insights into changes that should be made to the CSA article although they would be more appropriate at the CSA talk page. When an article is lacking we don't create another article we improve the original, and all your comments are highly relevant to the CSA article, though I fail to see why a POV fork should stand alongside a legitimate article just cos it could be improved, SqueakBox 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An Elaboration on SqueakBox's comment to this part.. Everyone here knows that a 17-year-old having sex with an 18-year-old is not child sexual abuse (not unless that 17-year-old is mentally-disabled and the 18-year-old took advantage of that), and it may be called statutory rape in California, but people know that that (the 18-year-old and 17-year-old, when the 17-year-old is of normal mental reasoning) is not child sexual abuse. In most places in the United States, the person has to be at least three years older than their sexual partner for it to even be considered possibly sexually harmful...if that partner is below the age of consent while that person isn't. There being "insufficient attention to why a person 18-years-plus-a-day old having sex with a 17 years-plus-364-days old is 'child sexual abuse'" can be addressed in the Age of consent article. I don't believe that there is insufficient attention on that matter anyway. It's clear that that issue has to do more with law rather than the 17-year-old truly not being able to consent to sex, especially with her 18-year-old boyfriend. Different states (and countries) draw the line at different ages, as we all know, but those ages are usually drawn to mean that you have to be ages 16 to 18. The article Adult-child sex isn't focusing on teenagers having sex with other teenagers, or a 19-year-old guy having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. The Adult-child sex article is focusing on adults "having sex with" actual children, children who you will not find at all close to the legal age (age of consent). This article does not and should not stand to address why an 18-year-old guy may get in trouble for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Sex experts and therapists don't call that child sexual abuse, and this article acting as though an 18-year-old guy having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend could be considered the same as a 24-year-old man "having sex with" a 6-year-old girl is completely deceptive and even more reason that this article shouldn't exist if it tries to incorporate such. This article is about "adult-child" sex, not about how age of consent laws may hamper a teenage love affair. Flyer22 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for no consensus. It should not be on the record that the community consensus (what is supposed to guide AfD closures) was behind a "keep" for this article -- even the closing admin admits that it wasn't. This may seem like nit-picking, but the establishment of community consensus as penultimate mandate for Wikipedia means that consensus should not be declared where there is no clear or recognizable consensus. After the discussion at AfD, my thoughts on this are that it needs a complete rewrite and consideration for a move, even though I argued for deletion at the AfD. That's what I think should happen with this article, and I think that is the mandate that came out of the AfD. In any case, since the clear majority of "!votes" were not keep, to say "result was keep" is to blatantly disregard the principles of consensus. The record shouldn't say something that isn't true. - Che Nuevara 13:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say, I said in my close that there was no consensus for specific action. Are you objecting to the word I chose to put in bold? I really don't see that as a big deal. If that's the way people are going to read these closes, then for complex AfDs I'm going to stop putting any word in bold at all. Chick Bowen 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many a time I have seen "no consensus" bolded in an AfD closing. While no consensus generally defaults to keep, I don't think that keep should be used for no consensus, as it implies a community endorsement that is nonexistent. I don't fault you for this, as, like I said, you accurately summed up the discussion in your closing. But one of the problems of the AfD system is that people have a tendency to take the "result" given by the closing admin in hand. Unfortunately, that's the way people do read these closes, even if you don't mean them that way and some people (myself included, I like to think) understand that. I acknowledge the fact that closing an AfD, especially a highly disputed one, can be very complex, and I appreciate that. I just get uncomfortable at the appearance or assertion of consensus where none exists. I realize you didn't mean it this way, but I fear that's the way people will take it. - Che Nuevara 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep, but perhaps rephrase it as no consensus, default to keep or something similar, to address the concerns raised here. The question to consider is not whether we like the fact that adult-child sex exists, but whether and how to document its existence. Child sexual abuse can cover a portion of the topic, but not all of it; Several articles cover portions of the topic, but each views the subject within a particular framework, not holistically. --Ssbohio 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ahwaz territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

closed as No consensus (defaulting to keep), with the statement ..the keep arguments are affected by the lack of reliable sources.. after querying with the closing admin about this the response was that others who expressed delete saw something in the article, though they still said delete. With this case the questions on WP:V/WP:RS were unanswered as was the question of WP:HOAX. The fundamental requirement of Verifiability is or should be paramount, whatever the numbers If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Gnangarra 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. Serious questions have been raised about the reliability of sources and allegations that the article is purely a hoax or, at best, propaganda. All these questions remain unanswered. I know the closing admin closed in good faith, but I feel keeping a probable hoax article for the sake of vote counting and a hardline interpretation of the GFDL undermines our credibility. Sarah 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It seems that the article was kept without giving due regard to the actual arguments made concerning sources and the fact that the region does not exist according to any known authority. Rather, there is a separatist movement among some Iranian Arabs who claim a certain territory as their own - That movement is adequately addressed in the Iranian Arabs article. There are, however, no third-party sources that back-up a claim of territorial existence.--Strothra 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as closer) - It wasn't my intention to simply count votes or propose a specific interpretation of the GfDL. My understanding was that there was certainly no consensus to keep the article in its current form, but also not to throw away everything at once. I won't endorse or overturn myself, but am really sorry if this comes across as danger to the integrity of the project.--Tikiwont 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position. Personally, I didn't mean to really push the merge idea once I realized that none of the information concerning Iranian Arabs was cited and thus unusable. Part of the problem, I think, was with my initial nom. --Strothra 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Sarah. Being charitable, the article seems like unverifiable original research. The only reasonable thing we can do with material like this is to throw it away. If it were included in another article, rather than a standalone one, it would not, I hope, have lasted as long as the AfD did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin is correct.There was no consensus to throw everything away immediately. It is also conspiracy theorizing to say the article is a "probable"WP:HOAX as there is no indication at all that the article's initiator nor the sources he/she and others use are "attempt(ing) to trick an audience". Mysticpair 22:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:Mysticpair has made no edits outside this DRV issue and has been blocked by another admin as, a "Single purpose troll, no edits, deleted or otherwise, to suggest that this is a good faith account". [39] Sarah 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeping of article. The closing admin was actually being conservative. If I'd closed the AfD I would have said the consensus was keep. There does not appear to be any reason to either delete or merge this article.--Alabamaboy 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to delete a fictitious item that is claimed to exist primarily by militant sources that clearly do not meet reliable source guidelines? --Strothra 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no proof of this being a ficticious article. Of course everything must be sourced, but this disucssion isn't about that, only the deletion of the article. As for the accuracy of the article, hash that out on the article's talk page.--Alabamaboy 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, I concur with Sarah and Strothra here. If this isn't a hoax then it's cetainly not properly verifiable from independent sources. Guy (Help!) 06:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge anything that is not properly referenced - which may well mean reducing the article to a stub. A quick google search shows reliable sources indicating there is an area, or at least a city by that name, and that there is indeed notable levels of unrest in the area. See, for eg: [40]. But that alone doesn't justify keeping the whole article. And it should probably be renamed, or perhaps merged to Ahwaz. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ben, please note that we already have an article on the city, Ahvaz, located in the province of Khūzestān. This is the city named in the article you cited and this is also the city which comes up in searches for the name "Ahwaz" and "Ahvaz". This article, however, is about a different place. This is claiming there is a territory by the name "Ahwaz" that covers three provinces in Iran and enjoys "full autonomy and independence". There are no independent reliable sources that support the existence of such a territory and the article would appear to be a hoax or propaganda (propaganda may be more likely given the websites posted to the article belong to militant and revolutionary groups). Sarah 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete, then redirect to Politics of Khūzestān Province - Ahvaz is the capital of the Iranian province of Khūzestān, not the territory claimed in the Ahwaz territory article. I found no references containing the term "Ahwaz territory". In addition, for such a long existing territory, you would think Google scholar and/or Google books would return something to prove its existence. The Ahwaz territory article states "Ahwaz was conquered by General Reza Khan". There are no references that contain both "Khan" and "Ahwaz". The Ahwaz territory article states "The last ruler of Ahwaz was Sheikh Khazal." There are no references that contain both "Khazal" and "Ahwaz". The article does not meet WP:V and the closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly by concluding otherwise. -- Jreferee t/c 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC) The first Google book hit indicates that the Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz originated the term "Ahwaz territory." Politics of Khūzestān Province is the main Wikipedia mention of Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz, so it seem like a good place to redirect the article until more reilable source material can be found to present a WP:V article on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good to me. Ben Aveling 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer - Since this topic seem to need input from those who actually may be familiar with the geographic region, I posted notes about this DRV on the talk page of editors who have contributed significantly to the Ahwaz article, WikiProject Iran‎, and other matters related to Iran. Some of those posting below this message may have come to this DRV at my request. This post is typical of my talk page posts. -- Jreferee t/c 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problematic I have been in retirement from WP for months, due to my disgust with nationalistic squabbles like this one. The "Ahwaz territory" article is inaccurate and propagandistic; however, it exists due to Arab Khuzestani dissatisfaction with the existing articles on Khuzestan and Ahwaz, which are policed by Iranian nationalists. Khuzestani/Ahwazi history is complex and can't be slotted neatly into "always Iranian" or "always Arab". Yes, Reza Shah invaded Khuzestan/Ahwaz; yes, Sheikh Khazal ruled an area in which the Iranian central government had little say; no, Elamite is not a Semitic language, nor is it an Indo-European language. Best guess these days is that it's related to Brahui and Dravidian. WP could avoid the whole "projecting current national boundaries and squabbles back into history" mess by putting all the history of the area into an article on the history of the Karun basin (the Karun being the river that drains most of the area). Elam, various Persian dynasties, Abbasid caliphate would also be relevant. Zora 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zora! I remember you, you are a good editor and should stay. Yes, the ethnic divide is problematic. However, I think that the Iranian Arabs article deals adequately with Arabs in Iran without the need for an article on the "Ahwaz territory" which is simply propaganda. Rather, the history belongs to several actual regions of Iran which is why the Iranian Arabs article is far better suited to handle the subject matter, and does so. That is why I think this should be overturned and redirected to Iranian Arabs. --Strothra 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Ahwaz territories" are no more real than the "Arabian Gulf" is. It is a fabrication of Arab nationalists, who wish to carry out the wish of Saddam Hussein, who invaded Iran in 1980 to annex Khuzestan to Iraq. However, Iranian Arabs do exist, without question. But there are already articles on English Wikipedia that deal with just that topic. Besides, the maps on the article are even fabricated, and are drawn along non-ethnic and purely modern provincial lines. (Northern Khuzestan e.g. is majority non-Arab, as are many parts of Bushehr province). If such purely OR articles are allowed to exist, please be consistent and allow articles for Vermont Territories, Hawaiian independence, and dozens of other similar political platform articles, not to mention the superminority of Persians that were expelled by force from Iraq in the mid twentieth centuries.--Zereshk 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - the decision of no consensus, given the strong presence of SPAs on the keep side, was not the only conclusion that could have been reached and core WP policy is pretty clear about verifiable entities with no original research. Orderinchaos 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete, and redirect referenced info in it (if any) to Politics of Khūzestān Province - The closure of deletation discussion was very abrupt. The article is unverifiable and hoax. However if there are referenced material in it, I think we should keep them as a part of Politics of Khūzestān Province. Farmanesh 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - the article is almost entirely composed of factually incorrect original research. --Dfitzgerald 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The term "Ahwaz" as applied to the region in question is used by certain Iranian separatist groups. The area in question and other related aspects are discussed in the relevant articles. Furthermore, the term itself is not affixed by "territory" in popular use. Kaveh 02:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Where to start? Elamites being Semitic! How about the two fake and OR non-academic maps? False etymology on Khuzestan. Funny that in its history section it skips Parthian and Achaemenid era! How about the fake population statistics. Also we have an article Iranian Arabs and one on Khuzestan and one on Ahvaz which is a city and not a province or double provinces! --alidoostzadeh 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete
    A-Lack of "Neutral point of view":as the article is a political statement by a certain political separatist group(Ahwazi Liberation Organization) which has particular idea's about history and politics that is strictly against established historical views.
    B-Severe problems in "Verifiability" ( such as calling Elam, Semitic and/or in such sentences :"Ahwaz was enjoyed full autonomy and independence at various times in its history of 6,000 years" and etc.
    C-"original research" in article's name, history section, "Politics" and cites...--Alborz Fallah 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever I saw in the the initial AfD, the important thing is to get it right eventually and the consensus here is more than clear (leaving apart the formal distinction between deletion discussion and review). So I would suggest to close this review accordingly. --Tikiwont 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real places and claimed places are kept, it is apparently a term well-known among both sides to the conflict, like Kurdistan and Greater Israel. Whether the better article would be to make it a claims/counterclaims version, there is little question that this meets the sourcing and notability requirements. If it's written from a POV, fix it don't delete it. Carlossuarez46 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan has, at least, partial autonomy, a system of governance, and international recognition. Greater Israel was an actual kingdom and exists today as a concept that drives part of Israeli foreign policy. Ahwaz is an abstract concept developed by a militant separatist group for political gain. --Strothra 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Arabs in other provinces are largely distinct from those in the Ahwaz/Khuzestan region, apart from those forcibly relocated to other parts of Iran. There is no territory in history that is contiguous with the map in this article, some of the facts are wrong and unverifiable and the author of the article appears to be unaware of Wikipedia editorial rules. Nevertheless, I believe this article has been created because the Arabs of Khuzestan article, which covered the issue of Ahwazi Arabs, was deleted and transformed from an ethnological article on this ethnic group to being lumped in with Iranian Arabs, as if there is no distinction between the histories of various Arab groups. I suggest resurrecting the Arabs of Khuzestan article, so that the issues can be addressed in an NPOV way.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is consensus that most of the article is not worth keeping, and that there is a view that some of it might be worth keeping, or at least that there is a decent topic for an article here. Might userfication be a solution? Ben Aveling 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Grooveshark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now noteworthy

The article about Grooveshark was deleted citing CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material, which was originally deleted because of Criteria for Speedy Deletion, A7.

However, I believe that A7 does not apply to Grooveshark any longer:

As you can see by following some of those links there is some controversy surrounding Grooveshark's approach to music sales (especially their EULA) and a Wikipedia entry would seem like a good place to go for information, however at this time the article is locked to prevent people from re-creating it. Can you please review your decision to lock this article? I don't know what the original article said so maybe it shouldn't be re-created, but I believe it should be at least unlocked. The administrator who did the deleting is currently on vacation. Thanks.

70.171.53.143 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, valid G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grooveshark, and the fact that the recreation was completely unsourced and did not assert notability. All the sources provided here are blogs or opinion columns, which are not reliable sources. --Coredesat 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion until you can provide verifiable secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Smashville 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The recreated article did not overcome the reasons for deletion at AfD nor could it, thus CSD A4 fine for speedy deletion. There is lots of press release information going back to November 2006. However, I did find Miami Herald September 18, 2007 (the link blog reprints the Miami Herald news article and it is the Miami Herald news article that is a reliable source). Also, Chicago Reader did write "Or maybe you'd pielera monetized peer-to-peer network like Grooveshark." (see September 21, 2007 Chicago Reader. Not a whole lot to hang your hat on, but perhaps in a year or two Grooveshark will have been covered enough by reliable sources to create a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, endorse deletion, for a start - the recreation of the article actually contains even less assertion of notability than the January 2007 version which was deleted per AfD discussion, and absolutely no sources cited, reliable or not, other than the website itself. As for the issue of unprotecting to allow recreation - if the site is notable now (which seems unlikely since it is in "closed beta" still, according to the article), I recommend working up an article in user space which cites reliable sources for this notability, and then bringing it to Deletion Review. --Stormie 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation of a sourced article in userspace. As suggested by Stormie, this would allow us to judge an article at its best instead of the possibilities for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nothing prevents you from trying again per Dhartung, but without reliable sources, it'll keep getting deleted (properly). Carlossuarez46 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Caelestia.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted as a 'Proposed Deletion' despite previously not being deleted in an AfD. Administrator in question has marked their homepage with a message stating that they are no longer active. Namegduf Live 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3|AFD4)

An article was recently deleted, containing material which was brought up on an AN/I incident. This article is Archimedes Plutonium. While the article was in AfD (the vote was keep last I checked, and the user who brought up the AfD changed his mind and also voted keep), this is not about the article itself. The article's edit history contained what were, in my opinion, incriminating evidence of bad-faith edits by two users. It is essential that other administrators be able to review the edit logs. I do not care if the article is restored at this time, but certain assertions in the AN/I about the bad-faith editing can best be supported by references to the edit logs, and they are no longer extant. I hope the edit logs can be retrieved for review.Likebox 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Malformed and misplaced nomination relisted with proper headers. ~ trialsanderrors 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse due to lack of reason for undeletion; administrators can see the deleted edits, now including diffs. GRBerry 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Admins are able to review deleted revisions. If you truly have worries over bad-faith edits, you may contact me with details at my talk or by email, and I'll investigate. I have no prior involvement with this article, and I do find the AfD conclusion (on both BLP and WP:N grounds) appropriate. Xoloz 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close This DRV request that others review the edit logs. DRV is not the place to grant such a request. Comment In 2002, a former Dartmouth university employee who went under the pseudonym Archimedes Plutonium was falsely accused of killing two New Hampshire professors. See Providence Journal Bulletin. (June 30, 2002) False leads on the trail of professors' killers. Initial suspects included a geology professor living in Arizona and a former university employee who went under the pseudonym Archimedes Plutonium. Page 10. -- Jreferee t/c 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

22 October 2007

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

The arguments that were given for this article's removal are flawed. They say it is a personal philosophy and exultation of the writer's self,but I firmly believe it is not because this is a new philosophy that extends from Zeno's paradoxes, which is a very popular and highly discussed philosophy. The article is brilliant, original and promising.Wikipedia should be happy that such an original philosophical topic and new extension of historical philiosophy is being shown on their sites instead of shoving it to the corner. I believe that the article needs to be reinstated as soon as possible due to these reasons. Throwing things out like that suppresses knowledge and academic excellence and I believe that this is not one of the attributes and values of WikipediaRexeken 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Rexeken[reply]

While most of us have tremendous respect for new and original thought, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it is not an appropriate venue for it. Wikipedia requires that articles be verifiable, not contain original thought, and their subjects be notable. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Seth_Thurston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted for no reason. Several (verifiable) sources were sited, and with a small amount of effort can be confirmed. This article, about one of the (very) few successful artists from Albuquerque, New Mexico. No attempts via talk nor email were made to pose any questions related to content. I believe this deletion was done with haste and very improperly. Mr. Thurston is a valued Artist that is well respected by the Hispanic community of New Mexico, the (elite) Tamarind Institute of the University of New Mexico, as well as the African American population of New Mexico in which his recent Lithographs (produced at the Tamarind) focused on Tribal African American Art. The deletion of this article was a large loss to the varied cultures, as well as a loss to the many children who find Mr. Thurston a large inspiration. I would like to respectfully request that this article be restored, and I John Ramos (with proper and courteous communication) will make any corrections needed and with haste. Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated. I personally await a response. Ramos9111 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the article was killed because the subject's husband, or people purporting to be him, have had issues with several of the people who voted for deletion. In fact, community consensus can hardly be guaged by the number of comments (about six different people) on the AFD page. The subject of the entry is a published author whose books were issued by a major Canadian house, as opposed to so many musicians, especially Canadian punk artists, who are considered notable simply for self-issued albums. I believe the deletion of this entry also shows a certain narrowness and age/interest/nationality bias on the part of the persons involved, since they obviously consider Canadian regional historians to be not important. Dominic J. Solntseff 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Nothing wrong with the deletion process, and I, for one, !voted for deletion without having previously even heard of the subject's husband. No sources were present in the article or turned up during the AfD that would establish the person as at all notable. Also, if the deletion is endorsed, would someone please delete the article linked to in the header of this discussion, created by Dominic J. Solntseff in a fit of pique. Deor 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument against having the article that was put forwards at the deletion debate is that there are no secondary sources available for the author. If this is true then the article obviously has to stay deleted until there are some. She needs to be written about somewhere. Keep deleted Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD deletion I reviewed the AFD before I did a WP:CSD#G10 deletion of the recreated page. After all, people who are emotional can be right. Had I thought there was anything wrong with the AFD close, I'd have discussed with the closing admin or brought a case here. Endorse my WP:CSD#G10 deletion as an attack page of the recreated pages. Wikipedia is not a site for attacks on anybody, including without limitation, editors. It is especially not a site for attacks on living people in which category I hope all of our non-bot editors belong. Also, do another WP:CSD#G10 deletion of the current article as it also was created as an attack page. This new user appears to need a civility lesson, possibly a mentor. GRBerry 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, nothing presented by the nom (who should probably be blocked for creating attack pages) that indicates anything that would address the AFD concerns. --Coredesat 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse...keep arguments were "she wrote a book" and "she's not famous". And then this character accuses people of sexism... Smashville 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I worked on my comments for this afd for over an hour, trying to judge objectively the notability of the two local history books that comprise the notability. I checked whether they were in Canadian libraries--as there is no union catalog for public libraries in that country, I checked individually several dozen libraries. The Ottawa public library had the Ottawa book in multiple copies, as they probably do everything published about their own city; the Kingston library similarly for its. Only the very largest academic Canadian libraries had copies--not even the other cities in Ontario, some of which were very large libraries. I concluded from this that they were of immediately local interest only. for a narrow academic book, a few library holding may be notability, but not for popular works such as this. I asked for reviews or sales figures--no information was provided. DGG (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Arguments presented in the AFD for deletion were reasonable, and the closing admin did nothing wrong as far as I can see in closing the nomination as delete. The accusations of age/interest/nationality bias by Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs) do seem to lack foundation. I also continue to endorse my own nomination of the re-created page for speedy deletion as an attack page and inappropriate re-creation of a deleted page. Camaron1 | Chris 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion at AFD as well as following. Arguments for deletion were valid as the article had no substantive attribution of notability to secondary sources, without which it is difficult to have an article at all. Bad faith claims in the DRV are not supported by evidence such as diffs. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Closer interpreted the debate correctly. Comment She may have written two regional history books, but if no reliable source independent of Wetering reported biography information about her, there would not be much to say in the Wikipedia article about the matter. -- Jreferee t/c 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions the first at afd was clearly correct, the others for the attack pages and gratuitous insults need no further discussion. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darren Heitner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article came to my attention because it has been nominated as a Good article. I have serious doubts about its notabilty, and on investigation found it was previously listed on AfD here; the debate was closed as keep despite no support for this outcome (closing admin citing WP:HEY). Although the article is apparently sourced (try following the links!) this person has not achieved anything of note. The article is basically his CV (COI may apply; a notability tag was removed in April by User:Dheitner); the external links are advertising spam; and the name given for the uploaded image doesn't match the article. EyeSereneTALK 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the closing admin, Jreferee, was applying WP:HEY to his/her own edits to the article![[44]. That was inadvisable to say the least. Anyway, now that the article has been nominated for GA by one of the editors, there can be no more appeals to WP:HEY. The article is clearly not notable, and should be deleted. Geometry guy 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not the place to post a resume. -- SECisek 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD Jreferee shouldn't have closed the AFD, in my opinion, when you take such an interest in an article it's best to let a neutral admin close the AFD. But the article was substantially improved, it should really just get a fresh AFD. --W.marsh 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: following comment from IP editor moved by EyeSerene to avoid breaking nomination format): winning a nintendo contest and winning a few childhood contests now a poster now makes someone notable enough to get a wikipedia page? This page was SEVERELY changed from it's original intent...first it was all about his "blog" and his agency, then when he realized he wasn't notable enough for a wikipedia, he changed it to articles about his childhood? No I say! Delete this garbage! What makes this person more notable than anyone else? Everyone has some sort of childhood achievements, everyone placed or won something in their life, does that mean they deserve a wikipedia entry? I won bowling leagues when I was a little, do I deserve a wikipedia page too? Give me a break! (repost from talk page of "darren heitner" entry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.152.182 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist The article has changed too much for the old AFD comments to be relevant. But the closing admin had made the changes, which makes them not appropriate as a closer. GRBerry 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Darren has a number of achievements that individually would not merit an article, but cumulatively are very impressive. It appears that some of these at least would be widely known. Also, the article records that: "In late 2002, news reports indicated that many U.S. high school students could not find Iraq on a world map". This belongs with the 2007 article on Caitlin Upton, which notes "a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map." These articles document two significant points on a downward curve. A future article on decline in the US educational system might need this information. Wanderer57 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist He won some local contests while growing up, and after that nothing, he didn't make a career as a poster designer or as a Nintendo player, 63.147.152.182 is right. Those "awards" are used as an excuse for him to have an article in WP and promote his career as a sport manager. Note also that most of this article's "improvements" have been made by the creator: User:Dheitner, User:Jreferee, unregistered users and User:ANJaffe( [45]). (User:ANJaffe has only edited in this article.) --Yamanbaiia 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Wanderer57, what achievements would you say are "impressive", even cumulatively? Maybe if you're applying to be president of student government in highschool...but not worthy of an entire wikipedia entry. Give me a break! What achievement of his would be recognized in a farther reach than his local area in that small of capacity? What exactly makes him "well known"? The fact that he won a local nintendo contest or made a poster to enter in a local contest? You become notable for winning contests now? I can bet that there are many who have won the nobel prize who don't even have wikipedia pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.152.182 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 63.147.152.182. This does not warrant a big discussion since I'm obviously in the minority on this issue. Winning a contest at age 6 against 14 year olds is notable, assuming it's true of course. And winning a poster contest with 400,000 entries is some kind of achievement. Being a university valedictorian is also something that most people don't manage. IMO, an encyclopedia with (at least) 18 articles about flatulence either does not set its standards very high, or is inconsistent in applying them. Cheers, Wanderer57 06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out the every single one of the references for all of his "achievements" came from either the Miami Herald or the South Florida Sun Sentinel, two local papers, with most appearing in minor local, neighborhood, and community sections of the paper; there are zero front page articles on him (the two sources which indicate "page 1" are page 1 of the community section, not the paper). Even the nintendo contest in 1991 wasn't national news, and it wasn't even front page; I'd even bet that the nintendo contest wasn't even national, it was local (after all, it was in the local section of the paper). There is zero national coverage of this individual. Even a poster contest isn't all that notable -- I know plenty of scientific researchers with major grant funding and 100 peer-reviewed publications or more that don't have wikipedia pages. Dr. Cash 07:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Doctor. Fair enough. Have you any feedback on my suggestion that Wikipedia "either does not set its standards very high, or is inconsistent in applying them"? I notice, for example, that there are many articles whose purpose is to list other articles that are of "low importance" or "no importance". Thanks, Wanderer57 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shoemoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The biography of “Shoemoney” (Jeremy Schoemaker), search-engine optimization industry expert, Technorati 100 top blogger, and co-founder of the AuctionAds service, was deleted by NawlinWiki on Oct. 2, 2007 under criteria a7 nonnotable and g4 repost. I argue that Jeremy Schoemaker, a speaker at almost every search engine marketing conference for the past three years, and a major name in the Internet and search engine optimization world, is definitely important and notable. In fact, he has been called exactly that -- “notable” -- by the very popular Internet company-focused site TechCrunch (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/23/mybloglog-bans-blogger-backlash-begins/).

I respectfully ask that you please reinstate the article, based on that and all the reasons below:

  • Schoemaker has been featured in such mainstream popular magazines as Forbes and Business Week, and also has been regularly mentioned in top Internet sites TechCrunch, Search Engine Watch, PepperjamBLOG, and SEOMoz.
  • As aforementioned, he has spoken at almost every search engine marketing conference for the past three years, such as Elite Retreat, Search Engine Strategies (SES) Conference & Expo, eComXpo, and Affiliate Summit 2007 East. This is not something you get if you're not an authority.
  • Twelve of the Technorati Top 100 (http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/), which Jeremy consistently ranks in, are included in Wikipedia. (Matt Cutts, who has an entry in Wikipedia, ranks 89, lower than Jeremy’s 70, at this writing).
  • I can see why the editors may have expected yet another Shoemoney entry to not be worthy, because the several previous entries (now deleted) appear to have been frivolous and non-serious attempts at article creation; e.g. “A shoemoney is a finctional creature created by Esrun, often referred to as a small furry creature which collects chocolate coins(money).” [sic] However, I believe these many silly attempts may have unfairly negatively weighted the ultimate serious attempt at Schoemaker’s biography against being accepted.
  • Given that he is linked from another Wikipedia entry, it stands to reason that the stub should be expanded on for completeness.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful review of these comments and I look forward to your careful and reasoned decision. – Julia L. Wilkinson Further Sources:

  • Coverage in Forbes Magazine:

"Bitten By The Google Spider" - Forbes.com, 12-7-06, http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/12/06/internet-advertising-search-tech_cx_ag_1207google.html

  • Coverage in BusinessWeek:

“Bloggers Bring in the Big Bucks” – BusinessWeek Small Biz feature on five top bloggers: http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2007/sb20070713_202390.htm

  • Coverage in AuctionBytes:

“eBay Honors Developers at Annual Conference”: http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y07/m06/i12/s00

  • TechCrunch on Schoemaker’s AuctionAds sale:

MediaWhiz Buys Another Ad Startup, AuctionAds http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/07/27/mediawhiz-buys-another-ad-startup-auctionads/ AuctionAds www.auctionads.com

  • AuctionBytes article about AuctionAds eBay Star Developer award:

eBay Honors Developers at Annual Conference –http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y07/m06/i12/s00 Shoemoney - Schoemaker’s Blog http://www.shoemoney.com/ SEM Conferences where Shoemoney has spoken include, but not limited to:

  • eBay Developers Conference 2007 - June, Boston
  • Elite Retreat - June, 2007 - Orlando, Florida
  • Search Engine Strategies (SES) Conference & Expo - Aug 2007, San Jose, CA
  • eComXpo - March 2007, Chicago
  • Affiliate Summit 2007 East - Miami Juliawilk 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. He's a blogger. And being mentioned in an article doesn't mean you've been "featured" in it...no evidence that he's somehow become more notable since the AfD. Smashville 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse my deletion: the contents of which were:

== Shoemoney is funny. Visit the real Shoemoney ==


Will the Real Shoemoney please stand up! Find a HOT date!

If you want that restored, why bother to call ourselves an encyclopedia; as for all those saying "allow recreation" - NOTHING IS SALTED HERE; BE WP:BOLD - if it is substantially different than what was deleted before - it's not G4; I didn't delete under G4 because the crap that I saw was different that what was deleted. If you want the crap I've quoted restored, let's make sure it is included on the next "best of Wikipedia" CD. It lacked content, it was crap, is was speedy bait, it was deleted. Doh! Carlossuarez46 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking is that allowing recreation and restoring the deleted article are different approvals. A year has passed since the old AfD and allowing recreation of the topic with the new sources listed seems appropriate. If the recreated article is insufficient, that would be best brought out in a new AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing prevents that, so no allowal here is needed - that which isn't forbidden is allowed - it just has to be sufficiently different than the version deleted after Afd. Note my deletion wasn't based on G4 because it was different and there were more obvious reasons to delete that version :-). Carlossuarez46 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, I say show DRV a draft first. However, the nominator did mention many sources, the AfD was a long time ago, and there seems to be an article somewhere in the sources listed in this discussion that might have a chance of surviving AfD. Yes, it might cause drama (everything seems to) but I don't see any harm in giving the nominator a chance. Maybe I'm getting soft. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Marquis Jet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Tagged as db-spam for looking too much like advertising, deleted by me. Author contacted me to ask why it was deleted and how it could be put back up. JIP | Talk 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn blatant advertising deletion is meant for cases when nothing in the article would have been useful in a theoretical good article on the subject, but there appears to multiple items in the deleted article that would be useful to keep. Article needs some cleanup and better sources, but wasn't all bad. --W.marsh 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, although I'm not sure why you're bringing your own deletion to DRV. The mirror I found doesn't look too bad, even if it could reasonably be merged with NetJets. The article basically describes this unique service and I don't think there's too much POV language. Restore and tag for sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Temple of Saint Sava's bells.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Temple of Saint Sava's bells.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

During the fair use review process I got the impression that image page, together with my reasons against the deletion of the image, should be moved to the talk page of the image; but it wasn't done. So, I ask that they are moved. I haven't notified the admin who deleted the image because I believe that this is a technicality. Nikola 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're requesting undeletion of the image description page but not the image, we don't do that. If you're requesting undeletion of the image, endorse deletion; there was never an explanation of why that particular image of the bells was necessary for the article. It doesn't matter whether the justification was on the image description page or the talk page; it was visible to the admin, who quite reasonably deleted the image anyway. If I've misunderstood you and you were requesting something else, then I apologize; your nomination summary is a little confusing. Chick Bowen 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close WP:CSD#G8 is a basis for deleting talk pages for images that do not exist. Since the image talk page does not exist and there is no reason to create that talk page, this DRV request should be speedy closed as endorse. -- Jreferee t/c 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SuccessTech Academy shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Controversial AFD closed by non-admin (see also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennifer_Moore). Keep arguments mostly based upon "wait and see". Will (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close No comment on the Jennifer Moore AFD, but this was a valid AFD and we let non-admins close them, under the current rules. DRV is not round 2 of AFD, you can always re-nominate at AFD. --W.marsh 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which had nowhere near consensus to keep. Both closing reasons are pretty much the same. Will (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As a non-admin closer myself I wouldn't have touched this one; I stick to the unambiguous ones as much as possible. In this case there's a stronger argument from policy and a slight edge in !votes, so I think it's a good keep, but there were strong moral arguments on the other side. I have myself long lamented the lack of a good guideline for crime cases, since even minor crimes get news coverage and can technically meet WP:N, and WP:BLP1E is not the easiest indicator to apply nor even explicitly extended to the deceased. I believe what is trying to be done here needs to be done by forging a guideline, as difficult as that is, because under the present ruleset there isn't a real consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure without prejudice against re-nomination. As I also close unambiguous AfD's (i.e. the article got speedied or there is a clear consensus to keep), I would have left this one alone until a better consensus was achieved - though as there isn't a policy or guideline to refer to, as Dhartung said, there may never be a consensus. I think it's best to leave it as a keep, and if someone wants to re-nom it for another reason, then they can go ahead. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Happy to re-open and re-close this with the same rationale if "non-admin closure" is the only objection. ~ trialsanderrors 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close enough I'm not certain on first glance if the right closure was keep, merge or no consensus. For any of these, the article is kept. Delete doesn't look like a viable outcome for that discussion, and no compelling case is made for it above (especially as time passage will either invalidate or prove correct in a future AFD many of the arguments most disagreed with). GRBerry 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but not the way it was closed. Non-admins can only close non-controversial AFDs. This was not a non-controversial AFD, and it should not have been closed by a non-admin. I would have closed it as "no consensus" and not "keep", but there wouldn't be anything different about the effect of the AFD itself. There was no consensus to delete, so endorse the actual effect of the closure. --Coredesat 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'endorse with the same limitation as Coredesat. My own feeling was to keep, but I would have closed as no-consensus. The one thing which seems clear is that there is no real community agreement on such articles, and there is no point in pretending there is, one way or another. I hope most admins would have realised that. the result would however have been the same. i see no point though in immediately re-nominating this immediately, because we must first find some place to discuss the general issue. A non-admin closing something in a situation like this is going way out on a limb, and is likely to do as much harm as good to the cause he may wish to advance. We make people admins so they can more safely take the heat. DGG (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - In situations like this where there are more than enough sources for the topic, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CFORK is what needs to be discussed at the AfD. The delete discussion was not convincing regarding the topic meeting WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CFORK was never really an issue. Trout whack for the non admin closer. Non admins should not close AfDs like this because someone likly will be upset and if a non-admin does the close, they are likely to be even more upset since non-admins have not received a consensus minimum level of trust over a period of seven days. -- Jreferee t/c 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Belgian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Finnish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Norwegian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Swedish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Swiss Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
These were originally separate and I combined them. There are two AFDs and one DRV:
Belgian AFD - Norwegian AFD - Norwegian DRV.--chaser - t 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE For anyone wanting to see the scope of this matter, I created User:Jreferee/Lists of Ethnic Americans to give an idea of where we are and where we may be going. -- Jreferee t/c 00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Probably about 60 percent of the redlinked ethnic groups are implausible, like "Etruscan Americans," "Northamptonian Americans," etc. Badagnani 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some are just downright absurd - is there a serious concern that there will be a proliferation of lists like "List of Nebraskan Americans" (seems that is already covered by List of people from Nebraska"), "List of Antarctic Americans" (don't be making fun of our Penguin-American friends, now), "List of CSA Americans" (a shining example of RAS syndrome), "List of Americanh Americans" (what is an "Americanh" anyway?), or "List of ירושלמי Americans" (I guess we don't need to worry about "List of القُدس Americans")?! DHowell 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. This article-list was deleted for the same incorrect reasons that the since overturned List of German Americans was deleted. This list is for a notable American ethnic group as evidenced by its having an article and having a category. There is no valid WP reason why this list was deleted. There is nothing in WP that says lists cannot also exist when categories exist. The list readily provides information for the reader that categories only provide by lots of work, reading one article after another, It provides names, dates of birth/death, and occupation/reason for notability--in other words why one might want to then read an article. The list serves as an index to the category articles. Is the list perfect? No, but the job of WP editors is to improve articles (including lists) on notable subject matter, not delete them. Hmains 01:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn: If the reason to delete List of German Americans was found to be invalid at DRV, it should be invalid for the rest of the lists. I can't see any significant difference between other lists of __ Americans, so if all the others do not violate WP policy, then neither do these, and they should be restored. Leuko 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - Our users have suffered over the past month or so from not having the sourced, annotated information about individuals of these ethnic backgrounds contained in these articles, and their research has consequently been hampered, as the names of the individuals from each ethnic group were conspicuously not merged into the articles about the ethnic groups themselves. Deletion was done solely to make a WP:POINT and the case that our users should not be permitted to have well sourced, annotated lists of individuals of these notable ethnic groups was not convincingly made. Neither was the case made that a category "does the same job," as a category is clearly not sourced and properly annotated. Further, the argument used by previous "delete" voters that editors should not be the arbiters of who belongs to a particular ethnic group (such as Norwegian Americans) was not valid, because our lists go by the individual's self-definition/ethnic identification, using sources that state they are a member of that ethnic group (the same process we use to cite any information in WP). Badagnani 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There is no policy-based reason for these to be deleted. Hence, the debates themselves will be extremely subjective. In such cases, the result should be keep unless there is an overwhelming consensus to delete, which there obviously was not in the first two cases. --- RockMFR 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. We seem to be going through another spate of IDONTLIKELISTS with the usual vague arguments. Lists and categories can certainly coexist, preferably with the list article using its advantages over categories wisely, but this is not a requirement. I have even seen the overreaching argument that lists by ethnic group are "cross-categorizations" but that really applies to "ethnic group" + "something else" lists. If these lists can be properly sourced, there is no reason we can't retain this information. --Dhartung | Talk 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the same reasons I gave in the DRV for List of German Americans. The closing admin dismissed the keep arguments by saying they justify the various articles (such as Belgian American), but not the lists. But if the notability of a topic does not justify a corresponding list, what does? In fact, the books I cited included one which was specifically about promintent Swiss Americans (not just the about the ethnic grouping "Swiss American"); if this isn't "signficant coverage in reliable souces" enough to justify a list of notable Swiss Americans, I don't know what is. The closing admin then justified deletion of the Swiss and Belgian American lists by saying that the delete arguments "cited valid policy", but merely citing policy should not be enough, there must be a demonstration of how the policy applies, and of a consensus to apply policy in such a manner; but there has never been any evidence of a consensus that WP:NOT#DIR was meant to prohibit lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups. Policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus supporting it, and not simply based on one's personal opinions about what policy means. Just asserting that a list is "loosely associated" does not make it a violation of policy. Further, the Scandinavian American lists were deleted without even a single policy being cited for deletion! The arguments that the inclusion criteria are not well defined ("How Norwegian does one have to be to be on the list?") are addressed by better defining the criteria, not by deletion. And even Neil acknowledged in the German American AfD that arguments that a "list could be replaced by a category are not convincing". It is clear from all of the AfD and DRV discussions that there is no consensus to delete lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per deletion policy, these lists should have been kept. DHowell 21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all I note that the Norwegian AFD has had a prior DRV, linked above, and am not convinced the closure of that DRV was correct, as too much of the first DRV was contaminated by an inappropriate comment and reactions thereto, and the legitimate discussion of the close may have been somewhat lost therein. I stand by my belief expressed both in that DRV and the German DRV that, once we conclude the ethnic group is notable, the default presumption is that we should have a list of individuals who are themselves notable for Wikipedia purposes, but that inclusion thereon needs to be due to a reliable source indicating that the individual belongs in the category. GRBerry 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn DHowell is correct that "the Scandinavian American lists were deleted without even a single policy being cited for deletion!" Whatever the merits of the decision, the process had the unfortunate appearance of being a pro forma sham. In my opinion, there was an agenda being pushed against ethnic-American lists generally rather than a good faith review. In the spirit of good faith myself, I acknowledge the possibility I am wrong, but in fairness I don't see any reason to think so. Either way, anyone would be frustrated by being summarily dismissed rather than communicated with. Finally, on the merits, these lists should be viewed as adjuncts to the ethnic-American articles, which after all is how such information is incorporated into historical and cultural treatments of ethnicity in America all the time. It's more than just "trivia". Langrel 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deletion was not based in policy. All the above articles were deleted by the same editor, based solely on the use of the following arguments to overrule the lack of consensus: "Arguments to 'keep' in a number of cases lack any justification for retaining the list [...] and a number of others don't really provide any justification for why we should keep the list. [A] duplicate argument is ignored."[53], "arguments to 'keep' "failed to address why we should have a list"[54]. No policy violation was cited by the closing admin. Rather, the personal opinion of the closer was used to judge which arguments were to be dismissed. (One editor was dismissed solely for having participated in a similar Afd!)(No, sorry. Correction: there really was a duplicated "keep" entry). As per the deletion review, the closing admin. admitted to having relied on the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to reinforce his/her decision to ignore the lack of consensus: "I closed a deletion discussion as best I saw fit, using that very link you provide to reinforce my judgement."[55]. I suggest Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is upheld as the proper guideline to turn to for reinforcement. The lack of consensus should have been guiding the decision, here as elsewhere on Afd. In addition, participants should never be randomly dismissed unless they use "arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious." The majority of the participants were dismissed in spite of using rational arguments and in spite of their reliance on established policy for lists; they were dismissed solely for not satisfying the closing admin's personal opinion of what was is "sufficient justification" for keeping a list. or for having participating in other, similar discussions. Pia 03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This has been debated ad nauseum, and precedent tells us that there's no consensus in either direction. The main case for deletion of these lists seems to be negative proof-based. The burden of proof, as Xolox noted, really has to be on those favoring deletion given that there's no policy by which articles inherently meet notability criteria; rather, the general criterion for inclusion is the lack of policy/guideline/precedent/consensus violations. Deletion arguments are mostly notability/significance-based in some sense, but it would be ludicrous to apply the general notability guideline directly to lists, and there isn't really a notability guideline for lists in particular. We don't need a specific policy violation to delete an article, but in its absence we do need a rough consensus, and there isn't any consensus to delete "List of <notable ethnic cross-section>" articles. — xDanielx T/C 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Whilst I agree that categories serve a simular purpose too much weight was put on the WP:USELESS arguments on the cited AfD. No clear consensus, should have defaulted to keep per no consensus. EconomicsGuy 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Pia. (hope that is considered enough justification)Inge 10:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Even as this is heading toward overturn, the deletion activity of editors claiming that lists should be deleted because categories exist continues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people. Whatever flaw that exists in WP policies and guidelines or whatever is leading/allowing this to continue to occur needs to be addressed or this activity will simply happen over and over again. Thanks Hmains 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers has similarly been proposed for deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American musicians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American social and political scientists have been deleted with very little input (the vote was probably not widely advertised, so only the "delete page regulars" caught it). Badagnani 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn You can't categorise everything... and besides, lists can be expanded more than categories can, well, in some cases anyway. It was a no-consensus, no-win situation, so overturn and allow re-creation. --Whitmorewolveyr 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Pia L.--Berig 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn These are all perfectly sensible concepts, and should be verifiable fairly easily.--Bedivere 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Demoscener Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

Nomination time was too short and too soon after previous (failed) nomination roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and undelete as per previous discussion from June/July 2007. The category was nominated again on Thursday night of October 4, 2007 by User:Jc37 without providing any new arguments or reasons that were not already debated during the deletion debate less than 3 months earlier. The deletion debate had only one comment and that was the one by the user who flagged the category for deletion in the first place. Based on that was the deletion debate closed on Tuesday morning October 9, 2007 by User:After_Midnight. If you exclude the weekend, then there was only little time for people to react and express their opinions. Compare that to the time given for the second nomination, where all expressed opinions, except the one of the nominator, were for keeping the category. Plenty of valid reasons were provided why the category should be kept. The first nomination was started on June 24, 2007 and was closed on July 4, 2007 to give editors time to comment. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The time period between nomination was exactly 4 months from the prior decision and more than 4 months from the nomination, not less than 3 as asserted.
  2. The prior discussion was supported by a user other than the nominator, as opposed to what is asserted.
  3. Consensus can change. Many categories kept in the past are being deleted in the present; this is no different.
  4. 5 days is the standard run time for both CFD and UCFD. This discussion was not closed early.
comment - I don't want to imply that you did something wrong. jc37 nominated it and was the only supporter. I don't count you as admin who closed the debate as a supporter, you are an arbitrator and executioner IMO. Last days of June (nomination)/first days of July (closure) and first days of October (nomination and deletion) are not 4 months apart but 3 months and a few days tops or less if you count from closure to new nomination. Consensus can change, but its unlikely within a subject that covers primarily past events (although the demoscene still exists) and being only a short time apart. I know that 5 days are the standard length, but I would suggest to give also Wikipedians a few days off and not count the weekends as days and do it like everybody else and use week days. To exclude holidays would be a bit too tricky :). Just my 2 cents --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - deleted because of a single vote is hardly a consensus. // Gargaj 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Consensus can not possibly be determined by a single person, especially when there have been previous debates. This should have been relisted until a significant number of opinions were given by the community. --- RockMFR 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There was no reason to delete since no consensus was reached. Relist it to get some consensus,whether it be keep or delete. TonyBallioni 15:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There was nothing necessarily wrong with the close; however, discussions with so few participants (namely, here, just the nominator) should be easily overturned in light of any reasonable request. Xoloz 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on UCfD Definitely needs some sort of discussion before deletion - that's the entire reason we have XfD in the first place. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per others. --Kbdank71 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I don't have a problem with relisting, I do question the rationale. In the past, I've seen innumerable CfD "discussions" with no commenters except the nominator, which are closed on a regular basis. This is also typically what happen in speedy listings at CfD as well. The same goes for Requested moves. It's called being unopposed. Are you all, by suggesting relist, suggesting that such closures are now not to be considered? Just looking for clarification. - jc37 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (with response to prior question). Our consensus policy has a section entitled "Asking the other parent". It reminds us that to demonstrate a change in consensus, you need to actually engage the arguments for the prior consensus, preferrably also actually engaging the participants in the prior consensus discussion. "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one." With no link to the prior UCfD discussion, no engagement with the keep arguments therein, and no participation by those who said to keep it in the prior discussion, it is impossible to conclude that consensus did change. What should have happened was that the closing admin should have found the prior discussion (as closing admins should read the page's talk page before closing and check the history and ... a bunch of other steps that all too often get skipped) and either relisted with a link to that discussion and notification to its participants or closed the new discussion as "no consensus" with a closing comment that pointed out the prior discussion and the total failure to address the keep opinions there. In my opinion, if a XfD only has one opinion, that is enough to allow a close provided the required amount of time has gone by and there are no prior XfD discussions, but a one opinion XfD should be overturned on any reasonable request, because the low participation means that consensus is lost as soon as there is an objection. GRBerry 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't address my question, however. I'm asking about current practice across Wikipedia. You seem to be talking about whether consensus can change and what to do in such discussions. I'm asking whether suggesting a relist in the case (due to the nomination being unopposed) is inconsistant with current pratice in all such discussions. While I don't oppose it (because I happen to prefer discussion, as I've said elsewhere) I think relisting for these reasons is inconsistant with current convention. So should we consider this closure to suggest that current convention now needs to be changed based on it? Or are we just WP:IAR in this case, because we feel like it? Or what? I'm looking for your and everyone else's perspective on this. - jc37 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - What could possible be wrong with having a category for a Wikipedian to identify themselves as a person who produces demos that are non-interactive audio-visual presentations run real-time on a computer to show off programming, artistic and musical skills? The topic needs more participation at CfD for all the reasons listed by GRBerry. -- Jreferee t/c 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd comment by closing admin - my knee jerk reaction was to oppose this DRV as I felt that the close was procedurally correct, and the stated procedure is to accept the nomination if it is unopposed. In response to GRBerry, let me say that there was no talk page, as you can see from the logs, so the only way that I would have know of the prior discussion would have been from edit histories and backlinks, which I normally do not check. Most importantly, in a case like this, had Cumbrowski discussed this with me at my talk page, as recommened at the page purpose "1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look. rather than bringing it directly here, I likely would have accepted a request to extend the discussion. Therefore, I should probably withdraw my objection to the relisting of this category, as I should not penalize Cumbrowski for the poor form in his lack of discussion. --After Midnight 0001 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for After Midnight. Sorry if it came across that I blame you for what you did. That is not the case. The appropriate template should have been placed by the closing admin to the talk page to refer to the discussion. I noticed that this is often not done. I don't know if that is written somewhere in the guide for admins regarding how to close a AFD or other deletion debates. If it is not, then it should be added IMO. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize for not asking you first. I was a bit upset, because of the second and brief listing for deletion followed by the deletion of the category. It's not your fault as I said. I would also not suggest to relist it, because what is the point if no new facts were brought forward since the last debate only a few months ago. It should IMO be undeleted and the discussion should be closed via speedy ... something :)--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

21 October 2007

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

Overturn this deletion as the closer appears to have interpreted the debate's arguments and applicable policies incorrectly. Reasons given for deletion were "no reputable references," "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day," "per nom," and "Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable." Reasons for keeping were "references all look legit, cover different years and different countries and even US states." I'm not sure what the content of the article was when AfDed, but this mirror does show external links to references in several newspapers across the U.S. and Canada as well as in The Financial Times of Deutschland. The idea that there are no reputable sources for this topic is clearly incorrect and easily discounted, as is the idea that a topic covered in newspapers over several years in three countries is equivalent to something simply made up in school one day that "does not begin to rate as notable." Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The sources listed in the article during the AfD were Monkey Day website, ***** Monkeys In The News blog, ***** Article in Denver's Westword, ***** Article in The Financial Times of Deutschland (subscription), ***** Article in Canada's Hour Weekly, ***** Article in L.A. City Beat, ***** Article in Detroit Metro Times. -- Jreferee t/c 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion From looking at the mirror, this passes WP:N. Articles devoted to it in newspapers in three countries constitute reliable independent sources. Something's telling me that these references were removed (sic) before the AfD, or the people who commented to delete and the closing admin didn't bother to look at the references. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- As the article cited significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources, the celebration was presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and no arguments sufficient to overcome this presumption were presented in the AFD discussion. John254 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion valid AFD, no valid sources, all of them are altenative weekly newspapers, blogs, and tablods, and the monkeyday.com site, far from reliable. Jbeach sup 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, multiple citations to reliable sources. Whatever Jbeach56 may think of alternative weekly newspapers, they meet WP:RS. Most of the delete arguments were based on WP:NFT, but that guideline is for things not yet well known to the rest of the world. Obviously if newspapers (even free ones) in multiple urban centers are writing about it, it is not limited to some high school cafeteria. Those !voters were incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Agree that multiple reliable sources over that wide a range geographically, with multiple years of coverage meets WP:N. Guideline was misapplied in final decision, and none of the delete arguments were substantive. Horrorshowj 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn and strong relist if overturned - Wikipedia is for things made up in school one day if there is enough reliable source material to support the topic. The delete reasoning really did not address any of the references in the article during the AfD, so it would be hard pressed to say that the delete consensus was the stronger argument. On the other hand, the delete outcome seems the correct result. Right result with out a clear delete consensus reasoning ... I would not have a problem with a quick return to AfD so that the source material can be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apathetic as closing admin. —Kurykh 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • uphold deletion - quoting one deleter in the Afd: "Strong Delete - an event without any notability. I quote from one of their links "And, actually, it won’t be many humans and they won’t be spread very far around the globe. In fact, it might just be a couple of wacky art students in Lansing partying in someone’s basement." Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable." Comparing ghits, "International Talk Like a Pirate day" generates about 275k ghits. "Monkey Day" generates 45k ghits. Add "New York Times" to the search, and Pirate gets about 12k ghits, while Monkey Day only get 570 ghits. Significantly less notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -- A small number of search engine results does not necessarily imply non-notability. John254 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jennifer Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was incorrectly deleted, without any satisfactory arguments having been provided favoring deletion. Since the article cited significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources, Jennifer Moore was presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL was also advanced as an argument for deletion. However, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and did not actually furnish an independant rationale for deletion. WP:BLP1E concerns, though raised, were unpersuasive, since the subject of this article was deceased. The only remaining argument for deletion was the purely subjective assertion that this person is non-notable, which failed to overcome the presumption of notability conferred by the general notability guideline as previously described. My closure of this discussion, correctly citing the above reasons for retention of the article, was incorrectly overturned and replaced with an explanation-free deletion. The deletion of this article, purely on the basis of vote counting, without any explanation of a legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion, violates Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, which expressly provides that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The problems with this deletion are more fundamental than mere policy and guideline violations, however. Deleting articles whose subjects meet the relatively objective standard of notability set forth in the general notability guideline, but are nonetheless deemed to to be non-notable on the basis of purely subjective criteria, risks the destruction of much encyclopedic content, simply because the editors who happened to participate in given AFDs didn't personally believe that the relevant subjects were sufficiently important for inclusion. John254 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist There was possibly some confusion here. There was a simultaneous discussion at AN/I and a individual discussion of several similar articles. The AfD showed inadequate discussion of the specifics of this particular one. I do not know what I will !vote when it is re-discussed--I am a little ambivalent about these--but it needs a fuller discussion. DGG (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A closing admin is not supposed to substitute their judgment for the community's. When someone who could close disagrees with the community consensus thus far, they should comment, as both Bearian and I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional approval voting. Thus, the original closure was incorrect, it should have been a comment. It was also wrong, as WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is not just a restatement of the notability guidelines (it guides how we right about notable dead people, not just whether we write about them). And no guideline creates a presumption of or against notability. It instead reflects the community standard by which we normally judge notablity. But it also can't be read in isolation from other policies and guidelines, and the initial closer completely ignored the references to WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP in delete opinions, and thus did not reflect the debate. Thus, we must endorse the overturning of the non-admin close as it was just plain wrong. The sources referred to in the article were not specifically discussed or analyzed in the discussion. The discussion represented a clear consensus for deletion, and I see nothing in the article, AFD discussion, or nomination here to merit an overturn. I thus endorse deletion. GRBerry 14:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - AFD closed the wrong way by a non-admin. WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E states that, for biographies, there needs to be a sustained notability. Will (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse final closure as delete. I considered this AFD a bit but couldn't make up my mind; I saw some argument for keeping but I think it's a pretty weak case. Regardless, closing against the clear consensus was incorrect (and out of bounds for a non-admin). John254 should really consider carefully whether his closures meet the criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this closure was not in the bounds of a non-admin closure, and consensus was clear. The AFD was re-closed correctly. --Coredesat 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The AfD was closed properly by the admin, a decision well within reason. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The topic meets WP:N, but consensus seems to want the article deleted anyway. Had I seen the article, I would have speedy deleted it per WP:COPYVIO. The verbatim reprint in the Wikipedia article so much newspaper coverage could have been seen as an attempt to "honor departed friends and relatives" under WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The non admin improper close of this ambiguous result discussion seems to have been taken into account by the closing admin. Also, when the same non-admin specifically targets ambiguous result AfD discussions related to murders, it becomes clear that the non-admin has a conflict of interest in the topic, and any such close is a violation of Non-administrators closing discussions. The closing admin could have taken that into account as well in regards to whether the article would comply with WP:NOT in the future. Helping admins close AfDs is one thing. While Wikipedia may end up with an article on the topic, consensus seems to be that it is too soon after the murder for the topic to attract those editors capable of producing a Wikipedia article that will meet Wikipedia's article standards. No prejudice against returning to DRV in six months to revisit the issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -- The claim that I closed an AFD discussion as "keep" when the article was subject to speedy deletion as a copyright violation is quite simply incorrect. Articles are only subject to speedy deletion as copyright violations where the infringing text constitutes the entire content of the page or such a substantial portion that the article would be subject to speedy deletion on other grounds if the infringing text were removed. Even assuming, in arguendo, that the newspaper quotations in Jennifer Moore did constitute copyright violations, they could simply be edited out, while retaining substantial content. AFD is not cleanup. John254 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Calli Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This porn star article has been repeatedly speedily deleted and is now protected from recreation. However, she is notable per WP:BIO as she has been nominated for six notable awards: 2003 AVN Female Performer of the Year, 2003 AVN Best Sex Scene Coupling,[56] 2002 AVN Best New Starlet and 2002 AVN Best Group Sex Scene (3 times)[57]. She has had further coverage here: [58], [59], [60]. Epbr123 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, as this and this constitute sufficient coverage in reliable sources as to establish a presumption of this person's notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. As such a presumption of notability has been established, the article is clearly no longer eligible for speedy deletion. John254 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Epbr version of the article only, everything else was deleted because of major BLP concerns by the fountation Jbeach sup 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and source article for notability. I presume the Foundation edits are in the article history? It would be nice if there were some permanent indication that could be made to warn editors properly. But it does look like we can have an article based on the ifnromation provided, we just need to be careful about whatever material was previously removed. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fountation are the ones that mostly deleted this article in the first place, for major WP:BLP concerns including personal info, those versions can't be restored. Jbeach sup 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that. But there's no flagging or guidance available on what not to do, which is frustrating from an editor's point of view. This is more a gripe about the process. Maybe we need a "contact OTRS ticket processor" template or something to add to the protection template, so that things can be discussed privately. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Epbr is correct, 6 award nominations greatly exceeds the standards for pornographic actors. Additionally, this one can probably pass WP:N even without the awards. If there are BLP concerns, they definitely need to be addressed on the talk page. Horrorshowj 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all but those deleted for BLP concerns (in other words, Epbr's version), add those sources to the article and there you go. --Coredesat 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation but keep history deleted (for now) - But if it is more of the same unreferenced, BLP problem material, it will be speedy deleted. All the information I found relates to her 2002 Campus Invasion film that used Indiana University students. If you can find enough biography material in those stories, write a biography on Calli Cox. If you can't, use the material to develop an article on Campus Invasion (film). Don't try to fit a round peg in a square hole. Also, don't use any of the students names in the article or provide any other such identifying information. Comment Here's some info for the article: (1) UPI Entertainment News, February 11, 2002, Jockstrip: The world as we know it (writing "Some 20 to 30 Indiana University students participated in the filming of a pornographic movie, some of which was shot in a university dorm. The movie, titled "Campus Invasion," is expected to be released some time this winter and will feature footage of the students engaging in oral sex with adult film actresses, Calli Cox, a publicist for Shane Enterprises, told the Indiana Daily Student."); (2) Phoenix New Times September 5, 2002, (3) UPI October 23, 2002; (4) Los Angeles Times October 24, 2002' (5) Fort Wayne News Sentinel October 28, 2002 (search Sentinel archives for "All fun and games - until a film crew invades IU"); (6) July 25, 2007 -- Jreferee t/c 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jamie Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should be restored as it is now notable, beacause he has played for England U19's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland06 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Boy oh boy, that unsigned comment is not good - it illustrates that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. But your contribs indicate you are, so I'll wave it off. Anyway, endorse deletion as the Google test brings up only one hit - and it contains one sentence in German (Jamie Chandler ist U-19 Nationalspeieler für England), which, as to the best of my knowledge, says "Jamie Chandler is a U-19 national player for England." That's a trivial mention, and as there are no other sources, Chandler is not notable. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until less ambiguous confirmation of his WP:BIO passing is available. I am not of the impression that just being a U-19 player is sufficient. (As for the signature, anybody can forget to do that -- I think I've done it two or three times this week for one reason or another.) --Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sum total of the deleted article was: "Jamie Chandler (born 24 March 1989) is a midfielder who currently plays for Sunderland." - TexasAndroid 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - The article was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7's lack of importance/significance in the article. The newly presented information, he has played for England U19, seems to provide enough importance/significance to squeek by A7. He does appear in the news [61], [62], so a five day discussion at AfD may help bring out enough references. -- Jreferee t/c 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Langmaker (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Langmaker|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Talk page speedily deleted because main page was deleted. Main page is now restored, so please speedy restore the talk page as well. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 01:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page was not restored; it was recreated. The deleted talk contents predate the current article page content & aren't really relevant. While I don't have a objection to it being restored, I don't see the point. Simply create a new talk page if new discussions are needed. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Hypergeometrical Universe - Theory of Everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Below is the original discussion for the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory which has been published and peer reviewed. Please follow the links associated with the Quantization in Astrophysics book. The Hypergeometrical Standard Model will be published by the end of October in a Hadron Physics book. None of them were initiated by me. These are peer-reviewed books.

Mr. Bachmann set my new page into a speedy deletion process which let no space for reviewing prior comments directed at my theory. He did not make any substantiate comment. He stated that my work was a HOAX, which did not stand scrutiny.

Below are some of the comments which are obviously out of place since the theory has been peer review and published. Snide comments such as "Quaint or WP:BOLLOCKS" have no merit since the theory is peer reviewed and published and show lack of civility unworthy to Wikipedia.

They did not have any merit at the time of their issuance. Any disagreement with the content of the work should be directed to a journal or at least should be made clear to me.

There is no copywrights violation in this page since all work is mine.

By the way, there is and there was't any copywright violations. Five dimensional spacetimes are common (normally they have compact dimensions like Kaluza-Klein). There has not being published a single model in which the 3D Universe is a shock-wave traveling at the speed of light. That hypothesis together with the Fundamental Dilator model allow for the unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetism. Had the reviewer noticed that detail, he/she would not mention that my work has been done before. The other comments deserve no reply, but if you need answer to any of my prior reviewers please let me know.

The Fundamental Dilator is a departure from the concept of Particle. Electrons, Protons, Antiprotons and Positrons are all modeled as different phases of the same 4D deformationalcoherence. This means that in this theory, those four particles displace the same 4D volume as they travel along the radial direction, thus having the same 4DMass.

This theory is an extensive theory and thus can only be published in books due to its scope. It is difficult for me to cover all the details in this communication, but I will be more than willing to explain anything to anyone.

If you have any questions or issues with respect to the page, please let me know. I will be happy to clarify anything.

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

Wow, those links show that an article written by a Marco Pereira was published: proving only that an article was published. Unfortunately, I couldn't find "Hypergeometrical Universe Model" among the links. It's a bit hard to believe that the article in the PDF file was published though, as it's incredibly poorly written.
As for meriting an article on Wikipedia, Hypergeometrical Universe Model is like a single particle floating along the FS boundary. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW. We have a literary critic among us.
The book was published and here is a pdf with all the book contents including my contribution.
Quantization in Astrophysics Book
If you have any content criticism, I will be happy to hear. If you want to rewrite my papers, you are welcome to do so.
The fact is that this is a creative theory that makes a Proton, Electron, AntiProton and Positron to be the same coherence between stationary states of a 4D space. This means that the concept of Particle has been replaced by this 4D deformational coherence traveling at the speed of light. Hence the model does not corresponds to a "Particle floating on FS".
Unlike other Kaluza-Klein like theories, this one proposes that the Universe is a 4D shockwave traveling at the speed of light. If this idea has been considered in the past, please let me know the reference. If you have any scientific objection to this hypothesis, please let me know.
Please show some self-respect and provide a meaningful criticism.
Thanks,
Marco Pereira
You misunderstand. Nobody doubts its existence, but existence is insufficient. Since the only contributor to the Wikipedia article appears to be the author of the subject article, this looks like original research or a novel synthesis. There is no evidence that this concept has received significant independent critical attention. This search [63] indicates not, as does [64] which indicates that the entire concept of the "hypergeometrical universe" is essentially yours, and maybe a very small group of others. See WP:FRINGE for guidelines on how we handle such things. Please also give citations for discussion of this subject in the major scientific journals. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Until authors independent of the creator write about this theory it is unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia. This general theme of the initial discussion has not been addressed by the new version or this nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model

It is nice that you people are having a little more appreciation towards my theory. I thought that Dieter calling it a HOAX or someone else calling it from Star Trek a little childish.

As I mentioned, I appreciate your efforts to keep crackpots from Wikipedia. I understand the risk, personal risk, you people face by being too much of an inclusionist.

On the other hand, I am sure you understand that managing risk is a matter of equilibrium - like walking a tight rope. Being tooooo safe and you will keep novel ideas out, you will prevent the dissemination of what might be a great idea.

Today's Science is very reactionary. My theory is currently 80 pages long and cannot be defended in chunks of 5 pages. It is a broad theory with the unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetism and a replacement for the Standard Model- a pilar of support of what that we hold near and dear.

I have to confess that the breadth and innovation that my theory brings is a hindrance to its dissemimation. People like to see a constant build towards something. I analysed all physics and restructured it. The theory starts at a Classical Relativistic level with the proposition of a new topology for the Universe (a ligthspeed outwards traveling shockwave 3D Universe embedded in a four dimensional Cartesian spatial manifold). It introduces absolute time and reference frames which are not observable within the 4D relativistic spacetime.

Einstein sought throughout his life the hidden variable that would make the transition between classical and quantum mechanics. With the introduction of the Fundamental Dilator paradigm, particles became shape shifting 4D displacement volumes -corresponding to the coherence betwee stationary 4D metric deformational states. Proton, antiproton, electron and positron are modeled as just phases of a 4D volume that spins while in contact with the 3D Fabric of Space. The displacent volume is modeled as a quantity proportional to our 3DMass. From that proportionality relationship, I was able to assign a 4D mass (4D displacement volume equivalent) for the fundamental dilator equal to the sum of one electron and one proton (1.00785 a.m.u.).

Using simple logic, I derived Newton's Gravitational Law, Gauss Electrostatics Law and the Biot-Savart Law. The non-methaphysical character of my theory becomes evident when I calculate from first principles two Cosmological Constants: vacuum permitivity and vacuum magnetic susceptibility.

The equations are shown below

Image:Epsilon Calculation_p01(2).jpg

The numerical value for m (the 4DMass of the fundamental dilator) that corresponds to the perfect Epsilon calculation is 1.004145 a.m.u. or an error of 0.36%. Since the formula uses inputs with significant uncertainty, 0.36% error is certainly more than expected.

If you are a physicist, you might realize that there is no formula in any theory (physical or methaphysical) that calculates the value of epsilon.

Of course, I also can calculate G (the Gravitational Constant) and derive Schrodinger Equation) for that matter.

Needless to say, the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm is also the basis for the smooth transition between classical and quantum mechanics- the solution to the hidden variable problem that Albert Einstein failed to solve.

There are many other fascinating results I published in the Quantization in Astrophysics book and some that will be published on the Hadron Physics book due in November. Others can be seen in my blog http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com

The latest version of the work is in this link http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/1.pdf I am writing it because Geocities is having some glitches in the redirectioning of links.

I created a site for discussion and invited scientists, bankers, bakers, PhD students or anyone else to criticize it (positive or negative criticism). I rarely receive any criticism and certainly I've never received any criticism which I couldn't solve, clarify or remediate. You are welcome to bring your questions, critique and that includes literary critique.

Now, returning to the posting in question. I demonstrated that the theory has been published, people had the opportunity to criticize it and chose not to do so. In fact, I haven't the faintest idea if someone is referring to my work. I don't follow the literature due to lack of time.

The reason why I tried to post it in Wikipedia is exactly because of this intellectual inertia or reactionary attitude (demonstrated clearly in the comments by your peers).

It is difficult to accept that a new and great idea might come from someone you've never heard of...:) Not the usual suspects...:) but not to allow that idea to be disseminated or discussed would be a crime against Science.

This is site where statements will be edited, discussed, and ideas will come to life. If my ideas is discredited it will a statement about it reflect that and that is alright...:)

I believe this is the best place for the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm to be presented and I reiterate my request for a reevaluation in face of the new evidence.

Thanks very much for your attention and effort.

Yours truly,

Marco Pereira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny2292000 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 October 2007

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

AfD claims Kēlen is "something made up in school one day".

However:

  • a) Kēlen was developed over years;
  • b) Kēlen is well-respected and known within the conlanging community;
  • c) Kēlen was featured in a specific talk at the 2nd Language Creation Conference, establishing notability among other things; and
  • d) the AfD was closed after one day, apparently by editors and an administrator with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, did not qualify as a speedy delete, and did not receive proper editorial review.

Therefore, I request that the article be undeleted; failing that, that a speedy unclose of the AfD to discuss both the substance and manner of the AfD. Either way, I also request a temporary undeletion of the article so that editors can see what it is they are discussing. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist does not qualify for speedy delete or the letter of WP:NOT#SCHOOL (though it may meet the spirit of the latter). Should be relisted for a full five days of discussion. The points above are certainly assertions of notability and if sourced may be enough to save the article from deletion. Eluchil404 22:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. At one point there were at least two references in the article, IIRC; I'm not sure what happened to the other one, the proceedings of the second Language Creation Conference, between the last time I looked at the article and the time it was deleted; but with that added back it should be fine. (Apparently the LCC2 website is having problems today but it should be back up soon enough.) --Jim Henry 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, closed too early. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to ensure proper discussion. I'd undelete it myself, but I was part of the CONLANG list and the conlang community for years, so I can't/shouldn't. Kēlen does not qualify for WP:NOT#SCHOOL in any way, and a deletion discussion should be open for at least several days so that editors can assess the evidence. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist AfD was open for less than one day [65]. The deletion process requires five days before taking action [66]. — Ksero 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article for the young adult fantasy novel “Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc” was speedy deleted based on notability issues. However, the novel is published by a legitimate publisher, Avari Press, and is the first in a series of books. It is available from all major bookstores, wholesalers, and distributors nationwide. The article provided information pertaining to the novel, including a plot synopsis, character/race/location information, as well as the appropriate publication details. In addition, the article received contributions by administrators of the Fantasy task force of the Novels WikiProject who gave no complaints concerning the article’s content or notability. Fan of fantasy 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion From looking at the article, there are no sources cited - thus, no sources to back up the assertion of notability. That's enough to fail the general notability guidelines. If it were to be restored, it would need to be cleaned up to meet WP:N and WP:PLOT. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (from deleting admin) Advertorial article on the first book of an ambitious but non-notable young author (Matthew R. Milson, also deleted]]) published by a vanity press on October 15 of this year. Milson has been shopping Young Arcan around since January 2006 and while I wish him the best of luck, Wikipedia is not a proper venue for advertising new fictional works. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at afd Books can not be deleted at speedy as non-notable. If people want to change WP:CSD they should discuss changing it. I think the article can go pretty quickly, but it is still wrong to list them there. I've seen some prize-winning childrens novels listed there because the prize wasn't in the article and neither the nom or the admin realised it. It takes more than two people to do creative works properly--no two individuals know enough between them. Not even if I'm one of them--far from it--anything that might need any special recognition needs a general view. DGG (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged it because my checks suggested that the publisher was a vanity press--apologies if that isn't true. On the subject of the novel, perhaps we can wait until we have some reviews by reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The article was speedied citing WP:CSD#A7. However, as WP:CSD says, "There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion". This should either have been prodded or AfD'd — Ksero 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, blatant advertising for a vanity publication, correctly deleted - do we really need to policy wonk over what CSD criteria it was actually deleted under? Neil ☎ 10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Avari Press is not a vanity publisher. A vanity publisher by definition is "a printing house that specializes in publishing books for which the authors pay all or most of the costs." The author at no point in time paid any amount of money to have his novel published. It is in my opinion that simply because someone did not recognize the name, they assumed it was a vanity press. I would have thought that a little more research would have gone in by the administrators before making such an arrogant assumption. Furthermore, the article simply provided plot synopsis and character definitions as does several other Wikipedia articles concerning novels. I do not understand how this can qualify as "blatant advertising". Fan of Fantasy
  • Procedural overturn and list at AFD. Books aren't currently a valid option for A7 and I'm not convinced this was ad-spam. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list - CSD A7 doesn't apply to books and none of the other speedies apply. There appears to be no reliable source information for this topic, but listing at AfD is important so people don't feel like they are being screwed. Also, there is the chance that those at AfD will come up with off beat reliable source information for the book. -- Jreferee t/c 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly overturn and list I view it like this: an article on a person whose only claim to fame was a book published by an obvious vanity publisher would probably be correctly deleted under db-bio, and deleting what is essentially a sub-page about their book as well would fall within the spirit of that deletion. However, in this case it's not obvious that Avari Press is a vanity publishing house (they certainly don't have the usual "our prices start at just $xxx" on their website), and I don't think that db-bio should be applied to non-vanity published authors or their works - having a book published by anything resembling a proper publishing house should be seen as at least a claim of notability. Having said that, I see little chance of this being kept at afd. [68] Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kay.K.BayZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON KayKBayZ 13:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Hmm...no reason for undeletion. Just by looking at the title I can tell it doesn't belong here. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Does the nominating user intend to add a reason? If not, then close this thing please. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Fear of God (LA) – Restore and list. The esteemed colleagues who support the deletion are correct on one major point: the deleted article was under CSD A7, as there was no assertion of notability. The deletion was proper at the time it was performed. Now, however, there is an assertion below, namely that the albums were released under the Warner Brothers label. This assertion hasn't been verified by sources; but, having been made in good-faith, and being supported by comments below, it is enough to qualify as new information, and warrant restoration. – Xoloz 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fear of God (LA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a stub on, now disbanded, metal band Fear of God. They satisfy Notability (music) guideline (#5 criteria) since they had released two albums on Warner Brothers label, one on Pavement Music label, and one on Metal Blade label (as Détente).[69] -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I hate one-line-of-prose-plus-maybe-a-stray-list band substubs as much as the next guy, but multiple non-self-published albums are a definite and easily-verified assertion of significance. This article's problems were not ones best fixed by speedy deletion. —Cryptic 11:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Passes the notability guidelines for bands with an album released on a pretty well-known label. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favour of overturning the deletion. With four albums, two released on a major label, I'd say it satisfies the criteria nicely. And I agree with Cryptic, the article's "notability issue" would have been better off being solved by a deletion debate, rather than a speedy tag. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and send to AFD for discussion. Multiple album releases exempt the article from speedying; other issues can be hashed out at AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Content was correctly assessed by deleting admin. If an article is deleted per A7 and you think you have info that asserts notability, ask the deleting admin to userfy or simply write a new article that includes the info and ask the admin to restore the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The Wikipedia article itself needs to assert importance/significance. Many bands have five self published records. There was no label information provided in the article, nor was there any indication that any of the records were even sold. The entire information conveyed by the deleted aricle was "they were a metal band, previously known by a different name, who had a female vocalist, who died. Here are five record names." Importance/significance is not conveyed by such information to get past CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
VampireFreaks.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was speedied on account of AFD from 2005. Does not take into account any increase in notability over the last two years, which I believe makes it notable enough for inclusion. Zazaban 03:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - Find some third-party sources, and claim to notability thereof. Then, userfy the cached version of the page, improve it for encyclopedic standard, and then submit it to DRV. As it stands, the article is not exactly encyclopedic nor neutral.--WaltCip 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care for the currrent version myself. I was the one who put a POV tag on it. It needs a lot of work, but isn't that what a wiki is for? Zazaban 06:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. Two years is a long time...the old article would probably need a ton of updating. However, this website is one of the most trafficked sites on the internet per alexa (higher ranked than eHarmony). As long as it's sourced and neutral, I don't see any reason to not have an article about one of the Internet's more trafficked pages...particularly a unique one like this. Again, though, it must be sourced and show notability. Smashville 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't salted, so endorse deletion and just write a new article. Go ahead and recreate the article if you have reliable sources indicating notability. --Coredesat 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the 2007 version was much different than the 2005 version deleted by VFD... G4 didn't really apply. --W.marsh 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely overturn. Someone with access to the various deleted versions will need to make a more thorough appraisal, but the two year gap between AFD and CSD deletion makes me question whether this was a valid G4. If there's still a question about notability, ship it back to AFD; it had at least some support during 2005. If there really are more sources available now, the article should be able to stand up for itself. Serpent's Choice 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation. If someone is willing to write a article in a neutral tone, then go ahead. Otherwise, the last version (before deletion) belongs in the wastebasket. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, but don't restore the old version. If someone is willing to write it from scratch, let them. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - the original deleted article was not even about the same subject, it really did not discuss the website vampirefreaks.com at all, it was about a court case that involved the website, and the delete votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampirefreaks called for its deletion on those grounds. The recently deleted article is completely different and certainly contains enough assertion of notability (over 1,000,000 members, 450,000 of them active?) that it deserves an AfD discussion. --Stormie 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to someone writing a properly-sourced version. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation with sources - There is a ton of reliable source material for the topic going back to at least June 2003. I'm not sure what the point of this DRV is. If you are asking for permission to create an unsourced VampireFreaks.com, the answer is no. If you are asking for permission to create a sourced VampireFreaks.com, this seems like something you could have done in advance of this DRV request. -- Jreferee t/c 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I figure it's a waste to just delete the content we already have. Desides, I suck at editing, if anyone does it, it won't be me. I figure we can just bring back the old page and source/fix it. Zazaban 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:American entrepreneurs – Deletion endorsed, with explicit permission to recreate under more definite criteria. It is clear that the original CfD did fail to consider the full implications of the new arguments presented below; however, it is reasonable to endorse deletion (which the consensus below does) on the basis that this failure existed within the category itself (ie. its criteria for inclusion were also unclear on the distinction between a businessman and an entrepreneur.) Recreation is permitted: if this distinction is made clear, G4 would not apply. Essentially, Jreferee's compromise below is succeeding on strength of argument (and within policy, because substantial new information always renders G4 inapplicable.) – Xoloz 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:American entrepreneurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Note Category:American entrepreneurs was Merge into Category:American businesspeople by the CfD being reviewed at this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Useful, encyclopedic, important, distinct, well-populated category was hastily deleted Wikidemo 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Overturn (comment by nominator). There is a clear difference between a "businessperson" or an "businessman", and an "entrepreneur", in American English and business culture. It's a useful distinction that many erudite people make and are interested in; hence it is encyclopedic. Before the deletion/merge we had more than 600 people in the category. The deletion discussion was very brief with little participation, and in my opinion missed the point. We have one article for Business and another from Entrepreneurship, so we obviously recognize the difference as notable. There are books, articles, papers, academic departments, etc., on entrepreneurship, often within larger business-oriented organizations. For example, the New York Times has a "business" section but also a topic on entrepreneurship. [70]. Harvard Business School teaches business, but has a program and department in entrepreneurship [71]. There are tens of thousands of essays, articles, books, etc., on the difference. I could find find better references but here are some quick ones - [72] [73] [74] [75]. If the category distinction is good enough for the New York Times and Harvard Business School, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. In brief, a businessman is someone who runs or manages a business operation ([76]), whereas an entrepreneur is someone who starts a new enterprise, product, service, or the like, through their own efforts and capital, outside of the confines of a large structured organization ([77], [78], [79]). Most (but not all) entrepreneurs are businesspeople; most businesspeople are not entrepreneurs. I think we should restore the category and reverse the category changes. I have no opinion on the category deletions for other countries, however; the usage of the word "entrepreneur" is different in American versus British English, and most countries (and even most sectors of the US) do not have a comparable culture of entrepreneurship.Wikidemo 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we should also overturn and restore Category:Entrepreneurs on similar grounds. That deletion discussion was here. Wikidemo 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks for the reminder. Wikidemo 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)...Wait a minute. You *are* the closing administrator, right? My objection is not procedural, that's fine and you made the fair decision in light of the discusison. Rather, I think the result is clearly wrong in the context of the American entrepreneurial business subculture, which draws a sharp line between those businesspeople who are entrepreneurs and those who are not. Perhaps people responded without thinking this through - I haven't seen a comment in the original discussion or so far here that reaches the underlying issue. I can still inform you of the debate if you wish :) -- Wikidemo 07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I was just trying to inject some humor.  :) --Kbdank71 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You succeeded. Thanks, and sorry that I forgot to notify you. If only we could all be so sporting about deletions. Wikidemo 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I look at it this way: I'll give my opinion on just about anything, but at the end of the day, if consensus doesn't go my way, the earth will keep on spinning. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, on wikipedia that requires getting that worked up about. If we're not having fun doing this, it's time to quit. --Kbdank71 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/renaming. The trouble with Wikipedia is, it doesn't have any unambiguous meaning for entrepreneur, to parody something somebody didn't actually say. Sam Blacketer 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or permit renaming (somewhat pointless as of now, due to the cats being depopulated) to Category:Business founders or something if unambiguity is required. There is a clear distinction between people who merely work in business and people who found businesses. (In fact, the skillsets and interests are often incompatible.) When Steve Preston was made Small Business Administration head, small businessmen (entrepreneurs) were concerned that he had never started a business, merely worked for one. There is a difference. Category:Businesspeople is horrendously overpopulated at all levels and has too little breakdown by industry, and far less by role. This deletion didn't help matters. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor is this CFD take two. --Kbdank71 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll say what I think about the outcome. It was ill-informed and wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet you chose to equate businessmen and entrepreneurs in your argument to overturn (small businessmen (entrepreneurs)). --Kbdank71 17:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no reasonable claim that businesspeople and entrepreneurs are the same thing. The question as I understand it is whether having a sub-category here for entrepreneurs is helpful. I think so, and suspect that the 600+ Wikipedians who added that category to articles thought so too. If I'm sifting through a list of entrepreneurs, I want to find people who started new businesses, not the CFO of Enron or the head of a bank.Wikidemo 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really don't want to get testy or presume bad faith, but I sometimes wonder if people even read the newspaper. Entrepreneurs are a subset of businesspeople. Primarily, they are small business owners, unless they are lucky, in which case they are large business owners. The key difference is whether their own money is invested in the business. Lee Iacocca is not an entrepreneur, he was a hired gun, and a very good one. John DeLorean had the same career path as Iacocca until a point, when he struck out on his own and founded a company with his own money (and that of others). He was an entrepreneur. There are thousands of notable businesspeople who are not in any conceivable form entrepreneurs. But all entrepreneurs are, of course, businesspeople. Business founder (as I proposed above) is a near-match, but really it is possible to take over a business and still be an entrepreneur. People who are hired to run a business at any level, however, are not entrepreneurs. They may accumulate a stock investment in a company but they have not underwritten the business themselves. At the other end of the scale are investors who may have an ownership interest in a company but are not in a management role. All are essential roles, yet all are distinct within the larger class of businesspeople, just as are engineers, managers, secretaries, or accountants. Put it another way: businessmen who fail get fired; entrepreneurs who fail go bankrupt. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I read the newspaper, but more importantly, I check the dictionary. Entrepreneur: a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, esp. a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk. Which correlates with what you just said: "But all entrepreneurs are, of course, businesspeople." Now, if we had merged businesspeople into entrepreneurs, I can see the reasoning for overturning. But the merge was entrepreneurs into businesspeople. Lee Iacocca has not been moved into entrepreneurs, because he isn't one. But seeing as all entrepreneurs are businesspeople, then the merge made sense. Your comments seem to argue in favor of endorsing the merge, not opposing it. --Kbdank71 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment I have only said that it is a subset, i.e. a subcategory. We do not merge up all subcategories simply because there is a parent category into which they may be merged. Please do not engage in this misconstruction of my words; I am losing my ability to take your arguments in good faith. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CFD was unanimous, and unanimously wrong. Sometimes we blow it and we need to fix it when we do, and DRV is in part a venue for doing so. A new argument is given above, namely that these really are different categorizations, reflecting different roles and different fields of study. That argument is sufficient reason to overturn the close as it relates to this category. I don't know if the other nationalities also need to be separately distinguished, not knowing the literature for them. Relisting at editorial discretion, but that old AFD certainly should be overturned as just plain wrong. GRBerry 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/permit recreation - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. However, businesspeople and entrepreneurs are not the same thing. An entrepreneur includes one who assumes the financial risk of starting and operating a business venture and includes "An innovator of business enterprise who recognizes opportunities to introduce a new product, a new process or an improved organization, and who raises the necessary money, assembles the factors for production and organizes an operation to exploit the opportunity".[80] The the category American entrepreneurs would take its meaning from the Entrepreneur. The Entrepreneur should be footnoted to provide an accepted main meaning of entrepreneur in Wikipedia's Entrepreneur article that would make clear what an Entrepreneur is for purposes of the American entrepreneurs category. Permission to recreate the American entrepreneurs category on the condition that the category itself includes a clear membership criteria. -- Jreferee t/c 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the category should have clear criteria for inclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

19 October 2007

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

Jamie Szantyr, a.k.a. Talia Madison is a now notable TNA Knockout and the article that was recreated earlier was a very good article, very well written, and was "procedurally" deleted by anetode. I believe it should be restored.Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 10:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't it a bit bigoted to use the word "retarded" to mean "stupid" (sort of like using "Jewish" to mean "stingy" or "nigger-rigged" to mean "poorly assembled")? At the very least, it could be argued that your apparent bigotry makes your entire argument less palatable. Just sayin'... Heather 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion (and salt?) - she was not notable when the debate was closed two weeks ago and she remains not notable three recreations later. B1atv 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As mentioned above. Wasn't notable two weeks ago. Members of the Wrestling Wikiproject voted delete in that AfD...I mean...there wasn't a single keep argument and those with knowledge of the subject voted to delete her...what more do you want? Smashville 15:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I find it hard to believe her notability has exploded so much in 2 weeks that it should override the unanimous Afd consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Starblind and Smashville. People don't become notable overnight, and if members of WikiProject Professional Wrestling voted delete, then you know they aren't notable. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to recreate the article now anyway. I would also recommend SALTing the article unless notability is established. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made Austin Creed yesterday, because he was at TNA's Bound For Glory and so far nobody has no problems with it. He's in the same boat as Talia, so what's the big deal. If Talia ends up working for TNA, I'm recreating the bloody page because then she'll be notable. End of story. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 22:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Salt, clearly this page is going to continually be recreated. Salt both Jamie Szantyr and Talia Madison. Tyler, make a page in your sandbox with third-party references. When she gets a notable storyline or wins the TNA Women's Championship, then it can be moved into mainspace. Nikki311 00:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Jamie announced on her official blog today that she has been signed to a contract with TNA. That makes her notable in my book. Some guys need to get their heads out of their asses as to how many times an article has been deleted before, things change, and she is a notable wrestler with a major promotion now. ShyGuy69 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt - Lack of reliable sources in the recreated article failed to address the problems in the AfD. CSD A4 speedy delete valid. Use of "Jamie Szantyr" to recreate the article not a good way around the "Talia Madison" AfD." Comment None of the sources mention "Jamie Szantyr." In Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 21, 2006, page 31, they mentioned "a women's match pitting April Hunter against Talia Madison." Miami Herald, June 15, 2007, Ring report, listed "A wrestling and sports memorabilia convention Friday, August 24, 2007 ...Legendary guests include Rowdy Roddy Piper ... Dawn Marie, Talia Madison and more." That's about it for reliable source information. Until there is more present to DRV, salt the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Your Face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Your Face is an Oscar-nominated film by director Bill Plympton. Why has it been deleted? Esn 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The article was not about the film, but rather some nonsense about the "comeback" used in verbal discussion. Do some proper research before submitting an article to DRV. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what has gone on here. This was all a big mix up, and it partly my mistake for not properly checking the history with enough precision. Let me explain. It was once a legitimate article, but then, when a revert error occurred with the Bot-account user:Cluebot, the article was never reverted to the revision relating to the film, but rather a revision involving this nonsense. Then, an editor came along, nominated for speedy deletion, and I speedily deleted, without delving too deeply into the history. Of course, I will restore, and I do apologise for the harsh tone I used previously. But please note that this is probably not the correct venue for this; an ask at my talk page explaining what had happened would have made things much faster, and would have probably been more effective than this. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suspected that it was an article about the film previously, but since I don't have access to the history, I had no way of really knowing. Esn 08:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the logs, it was once a legitimate article (this is according to Zaninum). So what happened? And why shouldn't it be unprotected? I have no way to know what the page looked like before, but why not allow someone to create an article about the film under that name? According to WP:NCF, "When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film." Esn 07:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And restored. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

18 October 2007

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

The Smith Bros. aka the BEATSMITHz page, should not have been deleted. They are a legitmate production team. It's not a fan site, it's an information site. If this is the case then all of the artists they've worked with, as internally linked and noted on the page, should be deleted also. [81][82][83] 70.18.210.95 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not prejudice to recreation in this particular deletion, so go ahead and write an article that meets our guidelines. --Haemo 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above comment...Deletion allowed recreation. The page as it was would never meet WP standards. Smashville 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Should be put back up. If this one is so bad - look at Yummy Bingham, Patti Labelle , The Rolling Stones, STING, Britney Spears... perhaps if they could repost in the right catergory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; a look around is turning up nothing resembling reliable sources that would indicate these guys would meet WP:MUSIC, so the deletion seems to have been appropriate. If the folks arguing to restore can put an article together that includes reliable sources and can meet the guidelines, then fire away. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by active status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

If you look at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Wikipedians by active status, you'll see that a decision was made to delete the categories about active status. After two people agreed that the categories should go, they unleashed a bot that stripped every status template of their categories. OMG. I can't believe that two people can make a big decision that I think makes a really big change. They also left Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia as an orphan category. There was not enough input sought before making change. It should be reversed. --evrik (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A couple things. First, do you feel that the 5 and a half days of being posted was not long enough for potential discussion? (Noting that the categories were tagged when nominated.) 5 days is currently the minimum length of time of most XfD discussions (unless speedied). Second, thank you for pointing out that I missed one. I'll wait to nominate it, though, until after this DRV has been resolved. And finally, considering the fact that it is not uncommon for Wikipedians to abandon one account to edit with another, the right to vanish or the right to leave, as well as GoodBye, these categories are just an arbitrary list of usernames. And "whatlinkshere" will tell you who has the associated template applied to their userpage. - jc37 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary with the UCFD. The userboxes are still there, correct? So instead of each user page stating the user is not active, partially active, etc, twice, it only states it once? Don't see the issue. --Kbdank71 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The discussion was open for >5 days, allowing sufficient opportunity for comment. I also don't see what the "really big change" is: editing a userbox to add or remove categorisation is something anyone can do... Procedurally, the discussion was carried out and in accordance with all relevant policies (Wikipedia:Category deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process). No arguments have been presented to justify the retention of the categories (either in the UCFD discussion or here). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse. There is nothing procedurally wrong with the discussion and this is how such matters are usually handled. Once a decision is made, it is perfectly permissible to use a bot to implement it. On the other hand, it is not clear to me that these categories are obviously valueless (and they are less useful for votestacking than many) so that in th face of opposition further discussion migh be appropriate. Eluchil404 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, that's how user categories are normally handled--by decisions of a small group, all opposed to most uses of such categories, in an obscure process with minimum input. Time to change the policies and--perhaps--require a poll of all users in the category, or some other way of getting sufficient attention from the interested. DGG (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may wish to note that UCFD is linked at CFD, and is also on Template:Deletiondebates, which is on every XfD page. Low commenter turnout may just be that most people don't seem to care? - jc37 19:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're correct that UCFD discussions generally see a few comments by a relatively small group of editors (and it's important to note that the membership of that group is constantly changing), but it's the same situation at CFD. Most CFD discussions gather 2-4 comments, often from members of a core group of editors that work primarily or almost exclusively with categories (again, their composition is always in flux). This shouldn't really be an issue, since participation is not restricted in any way, it is mandatory to post the deletion notice on the category when initiating a discussion, and the format of WP:UCFD is nothing but user-friendly. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something else worth noting is the general lack of interest toward UCFD discussions displayed by the creators of user categories. When they choose to participate in a discussion, they generally restrict their participation to the discussion for 'their' category only, almost completely ignoring every other category. The few exceptions include a disturbingly high proportion of instances where users paste the same message to several dozen discussions, irrespective of the nuances of each. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect people to come there to discuss primarily the categories they use, people ought to do just that--in the previous paragraph you too state they don't do so frequently enough. Multiple postings are often in response to multiple similar nominations. When I started visiting there occasionally, I received a post to my talk page questioning my participation. I do not exactly call that user-friendly. I still visit sometimes, (and don't always say keep) but how many new people would have continued after such a question from an established editor? DGG (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure to what comment you are referring, as I'm pretty sure that I've never posted to your talk page regarding UCFD (I found nothing in my contributions history). Am I missing something? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC) -- no, it was in fact someone not at the present discussion at all--I am sorry it sounded that way. I know very well you would not say something like that. DGG (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - not sure what else to say here. Straightforward close. Proper nom. Proper tagging. No objections. Decision made. The bot always does the category emptying, no big deal there. All UCFD and CFD resulting in Delete/Rename/Merge get actioned by bots. --After Midnight 0001 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - clear cut from what I can see. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The close was entirely proper, but it appears that several interested editors missed the discussion. In view of the effort that would be involved, the categories would be kept deleted during the relisting. How to give greater publicity to the less active deletion fora is a question worthy of further discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I would support your proposal since it encourages a more complete discussion. However, in this case, the 'interested editor' who missed the discussion (i.e. the nominator) has not offered any counterargument to the arguments for deletion. Further discussion would be useful only if there are certain arguments that were not considered by the original discussants. How can we strike a balance between the desire for a more complete discussion and the need to avoid setting a precedent for procedural relistings every time an interested or involved editor misses a deletion discussion? – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
based on the amount of notice, this will probably get other people as well. This is a significant group of categories, and we should get further assurance of consensus, if nothing else. If IAR applies to anything, it applies to technical proceedural issues like deadlines. DGG (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to haggle about procedure, because obviously the procedure was followed. I think that these were useful categories, as is Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia which was orpahed and now nominated for CfD. I think that the categories were useful, and that they did no harm. Stripping them from as many templates as was done should be a sign that users found the categories useful. --evrik (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I'm not very committed to these categories, and I understand the argument that they are redundant -- WP has the boxes, so what use are the categories, exactly? However, these categories were frequently employed, and they could serve a valuable administrative function, albeit one that isn't on the tip of my mind. For instance, I wonder if the deletion of these affected Rickbot's daily updates of WP:LA? Given their prominence, I do feel more comments should be solicited. To answer Black Falcon's point... procedural relistings should only occur if it is reasonable to believe a large number of editors might wish to comment. A "reasonableness" standard permits relistings in cases where large administrative categories are at issue, but would tend to discourage more discussion where such discussion would be of interest only to a few, or arise solely for partisan reasons (as with the problematic identity categories lately so controversial. In this case, as an editor who has no attachment to these categories, I can see why they might attract widespread attention, given their administrative role. It is for this reason that I think more discussion is proper and warranted. These aren't the sort of categories that should inspire anyone's passion, but they are of the sort whose deletion might cause unintended consequence to the orderly management of Wikipedia's work. Xoloz 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but Relist for more input No procedural objections, but the ramifications of the deletion should be considered more carefully in light of the ubiquity of the categories. ~ trialsanderrors 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but Relist for more input per above. Also, even if these categories are deleted, I think it appropriate to permit recreating them so long as the recreated categories meet category requirements and the reasoning for their deletion is overcome. -- Jreferee t/c 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Patrick van Aanholt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I figure that as a number of the Chelsea Reserve and Youth players have a profile page, van Aanholt is at least as notable as the others and therefore my submission from 10/10/07 should stand. 217.158.3.3 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was the only one on Wikipedia that covers a political ideology in between conservatism and fascism. The Libertarian Nationalist Socialist Party proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a movement is indeed fact. Along with this is a link at www.theblacknationalist.com. This article was showing more than a usage of a term but a political entity that was correctly labeled. Therefore the article wasn't opinion but a restatement of what a certain political entity endorses. As far as covering all sides of ultraconservatism it could have at least have been edited for that.The point is I gave my part of what I knew on the subject with sources supporting my claim and I expected that others should have contributed to it by editing it. {There was even first hand sources from blogs if someone bothered to check it.What will a thing like this do for the researcher? Fact is there is almost a seperate section for every political belief except ultraconservatism—Preceding unsigned comment added by Statist0 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 October 2007

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Gary Hayes – Deletion speedily endorsed, no arguments from non-SPAs for restoring, and the discussion has degenerated into a trollfest, with one user blocked as a result. If another DRV is to be opened, it should happen if and only if there are reliable sources to provide notability and address the original concerns for deletion. – Coredesat 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gary Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Initiating review for some users who have mentioned concerns about the article's deletion on its talk page. Their main points are:

  • "As the log states, there were four to delete, four to keep";
  • "Gary Hayes' Wikipedia page is relevant because he is running for an elected office in the government of Schoharie County in NY." Resurgent insurgent 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment I didn't feel like the people wanting to keep really addressed the arguments for deletion... namely not meeting WP:BIO. I recall looking at the sources provided before deletion, and they were all to the official campaign site or a results list. I saw nothing in the way of independent, non-trivial coverage required by WP:BIO. I'm always open to reconsidering if sources are found... with or without a DRV. Or perhaps the merge that was discussed, to a general article on the election. I guess I should have made that more clear, but I've been closing a lot of AFDs lately to help with the backlog. --W.marsh 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus of the AfD was interpreted correctly, and nothing in the article except for the sheer fact of the election was cited to a reliable source. This was classic original research. Chick Bowen 03:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least unsalt - looks like article was recreated only for temporary evaluative viewing purposes; not a reason to block legitimate recreation of a likely notable person for whom we haven't found good sources yet. — xDanielx T/C 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, unsalted and history restored. Resurgent insurgent 06:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. — xDanielx T/C 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. The most recent info I could find on Gary Hayes was a listing in the October 28, 2000 obituary "HAYES, ELIZABETH 'BIRDIE'" in the Albany Times Union (search). Apparently, Elizabeth was Gary's mother. Despite his running for office he has not generated reliable source coverage, without which the article cannot meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. That was brought out in the discussion and was not reasonably challenged. The delete arguments were the stronger arguments and the rough consensus. Comment - not that this affects the deletion issue, but that article seemed attract BLP problems. -- Jreferee t/c 07:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gary Hayes does have an impact on a statewide scale. If you want to see a lot of hits on Gary Hayes, look him up on YouTube. This article should be reinstated with several minor changes and corrections. Deletion of the article should have happened after a good discussion, like this, not all of a sudden like it was. Dr.orfannkyl 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was already a "good discussion" about deletion. If the outcome goes against what you wanted, tough luck. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was deleted after a six day Articles for Deletion discussion. That's one more day than is required by the guidelines. Corvus cornix 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion' result from afd is clear: unsourced blp about mayor from small town in NY is not an article that we need. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The result of the AfD was pretty clear. The keep arguments were either assuming bad faith or a WP:ILIKEIT. In addition, I hate to make these declarations, but it seems like there are sockpuppets abounding in this one...this DRV is already getting all screwy and out of hand...and the Nazi argument has been made. Smashville 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse discussion was interpreted correctly. Keep arguments were, in general, not compelling, and consensus was clear. --Haemo 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Perhaps the closer should have specified his reasons, but the decision was absolutely correct. A local politician usually needs substantially more accomplishments and coverage to get into WP. No valid arguments for notability were presented. Mayor of a village pop. 1398, and lost the Republican primary for county clerk twice. Way below the bar. DGG (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sgt. bender, JoeC2004 (with the exception of two edits to the Coin article), Dr.orfannkyl and Squeeblz are all SPAs. Squeeblz' comparison of this deletion to the Holocaust and Sgt. Bender's comparison to Nazi-ism have invoked Godwin's law to the ten-thousandth power. Close this deletion. Smashville 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop Attacking Other Users and Restore the Page It's unfortunate to see that users are arguing the membership of other users instead of arguing the facts. I have been editing articles on Wikipedia for months now, but I have only recently set up an account. The assumption that my only purpose in setting up an account to talk about Gary Hayes is not only wrong, its just stupid. Argue the facts, not the people. If you would check, I have edited other pages since I've aquired my account; furthermore, my account has only been in existence for a short time. I really haven't had time to edit or talk about other things in this short time, and my discussion of Gary Hayes is evident because I believe it to be a pertinent issue. I don't know about the other users supporting the Gary Hayes article, but I am not a SPA. Stop assuming things, please, and argue the facts. Dr.orfannkyl 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I'd appreciate it very much if you didn't delete my comments from the talk page. I am not arguing "your membership". I am stating the facts. The fact is that when you made this post, all but one of your posts has been related to the subject of the DRV is plain and simple. It is completely relevant to the discussion that the only people arguing to keep this page have made very few if any edits to any pages not related to this person. And I did check. The only other edit you made before I made that comment (or you made this post) was an edit to Jimmy Carter. All of your other edits prior to your edit here were related to the subject of the DRV. We're all supposed to assume good faith around here and there is nothing wrong with joining Wikipedia to help an article, but...it's a little odd when the only people arguing for the article only edit this article. Smashville 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did have another account for over a year (in fact I still have it, technically), but forgot the password and screwed up with the email. Except for that flaw, I have one active account and do still feel strongly about the Gary Hayes article. There is no need to get personal, so I will not. However, in defense of my National Socialist comment, the inability to comment freely is akin to Volkischer Beobachter. I understand that there are many articles deleted all of the time for good reason, but the way the discussion was carried out was irresponsible at least. (Check it if you're not sure.) Restore The article beat a discussion to delete, and I feel that that decision should stand.Sgt. bender 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it did not. Otherwise we wouldn't even be here. Smashville 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smashville why don't you actually look at the early history of the article instead of calling me a liar?Sgt. bender 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, just look at it instead of assuming. That's not very professional or administrator-like.Sgt. bender 20:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked. "The result is delete" and then it was brought to DRV. Where do you see that it survived AfD? Smashville 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look in the first two weeks of the article. It clearly is there.Sgt. bender 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I did again. This article never survived an AfD. Smashville 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not an admin. Smashville 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology Sorry, Smashville I just checked the log, and it doesn't hva emuch of the early record (like when I created the article. Sgt. bender 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the history is there...and I have a hard time believing this article had ever survived an AfD. I believe you are mistaken. Smashville 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at it. Way to accept an apology. And Hayes did a great job at that fritter, don't demean the man just because he's a Vietnam vet.Sgt. bender 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I demean someone for being or even mention someone being a Vietnam vet? Smashville 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article even mention that he's a Vietnam vet? Red herring, anybody? Corvus cornix 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important As can be seen by Rpnaico's contribution, there is more than enough additional sourcing to fix the article. This bolsters the sources already in the former article. I volunteer to shoulder the work if necessary. Sgt. bender 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Who's Rpnaico? Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::::::::::Rpanico is the first contributor on the article discussion.Sgt. bender 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<--- Ah, User:Rpanico, whose User name is almost identical to the website which hosts Mr. Hayes's campaign information. Corvus cornix 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did survive a deletion request, this is directly from the History log: 08:09, 8 September 2007 Glen (Talk | contribs) (1,603 bytes) (removing speedy delete tags - speedy is contested and subject is a allbeit minor political figure but therefore does at least show some notability - I suggest prod or afd from here)
It survived a speedy deletion nomination, that's not the same thing as a deletion discussion. Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these sources? The only ones I see are a party's website, an article written because he wants a Civil War memorial, an EPA filing, a website where he is the contact and a blog showing that he lost an election. Smashville 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a portion of the former deletion discussion, I think it significantly bolsters my case by two seasoned Wiki-veterans:Sgt. bender 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but we can all click the link and look at the AfD. Posting two comments from the AfD and making it look like the users signed them is not good practice. I have deleted them. You can link to them like this and this. Flatterworld's argument was a straightup WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Gloriamarie's argument completely ignores WP:BIO. Specifically, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Smashville 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated where the quotes were from and they are signed by the writers at the date that they were written. I think that is straightforward endorsements from two users who know a little more about Wikipedia.Sgt. bender 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were failed keep arguments from an AfD that both ignored Wikipedia policies. I still linked them for you. Smashville 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their statements were clearly applicable to this page and should be shown clearly.Sgt. bender 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, contact them about this instead of calling them incompetent behind their backs.Sgt. bender 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, this DRV is here for all to see. Secondly, I haven't called anyone incompetent. I stated that the arguments ignored WP policies. Don't post something as evidence to support your argument if you don't want someone to argue against it. Smashville 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also point out that Gloriamarie's argument was to keep pending the result of the election, as she seemed to be unaware that he had already lost the election? Smashville 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the article clearly points out, (I wrote it myself)Hayes is still running in the general election as an independent despite losing the primary.Sgt. bender 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says nothing of the sort. It says he lost the primary by a large margin in September. The next paragraph says something about July. Smashville 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, directly: Currently Hayes is running for the Schoharie County Clerk's position against incumbent Indica Jaycox. Hayes has the nod of the Schoharie County Conservative party and the New York State Constitution Party and is forcing a primary for the Republican nomination on September 18, 2007 [2].Sgt. bender 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is October 18. The election is apparently over? Therefore he is not currently running for anything. Corvus cornix 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election is November 6, same as it was a month ago. Elections are usually held on the first Tuesday in November.Sgt. bender 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election is indeed on November 6. JoeC2004 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he lost the primary. The article makes no mention of him running for anything else. Smashville 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion In my opinion the closing admin interpreted correctly both the consensus and the inherent flaws of the article. --Goochelaar 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well...every long argument always seems to have the "main arguer" and in this one, it seems to be me...but I also need to add...sometimes there is something in article that just kinda says it all...the article contained this sentence..."Mr. Hayes volunteered at the recent North Blenheim church fritter supper on September 29,2007." Seriously? Smashville 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Here is the discussion from the Talk: Gary Hayes page. I think that it is more than relevant. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt. bender (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 October 2007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • RESTORE Please restore this page with the appropriate content tags. I was able to review a cached version of this page before it was deleted using Google. The cached copy looked like it needed editing. This article should be reinstated and tagged if any of the content goes against the guidelines. Gary Hayes is indeed notable in our county as an influential citizen and former mayor. It is important that he have an entry in Wikipedia. Some additional third party references to Mr. Hayes may be found in the following locations:

Schoharie men want war-hero memorial www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1872876/posts Endorsed Candidates (NY Constitution Party) http://www.nyconstitutionparty.com/candidates.htm EPA Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/June/Day-02/i13641.htm NYS Military Museum and Veterans Research Center http://dmna.ny.gov/forts/fortsM_P/middleFort.htm Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Middleburgh_(village),_New_York Schoharie County Tattler http://www.tryonpress.com/Tattler/valley.htmlRpanico —Preceding comment was added at 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been through one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Hayes. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESTOREAs the log states, there were four to delete, four to keep, then someone deleted it. Look at it again. Admins supported keeping the page at least until after the election.Sgt. bender 01:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hayes' Wikipedia page is relevant because he is running for an elected office in the government of Schoharie County in NY.JoeC2004 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you let it stay up long enough to get a discussion going?Sgt. bender 02:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of people deleting this page has been a serious offense of WP:GAME

Let us be heard!JoeC2004 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ask here for the outcome of the deletion discussion to be reconsidered. Resurgent insurgent 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESTORE WP:DRV says, and I quote, "Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums." Raise, not unilaterally delete them. Please put the article back up until feedback can be received and judged.Dr.orfannkyl 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting out of context there. Make the request first. Resurgent insurgent 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has already gone under a speedy deletion process and was judged to be adequate by Wikipedia guidelines. Its deletion is unwarrented. Please, review the talk pages during its recent deletion discussions and get your facts straight. Sgt. bender 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My quote is perfectly in context. It's the first sentence; how could it be out of context?Dr.orfannkyl 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally request a WP:DRV.JoeC2004 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18#Gary Hayes. Resurgent insurgent 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truly an example to us all...


Although "terrorism" might be a little far, the deletion of the Gary Hayes article is ridiculous.Dr.orfannkyl 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorism" might not be far enough. Some of this censorship is like Nazism anew. I should know, I'm a History major with a concentration in World War II. Sgt. bender 02:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this would be like innitiating the "final solution" all over again!

I have noticed that this article/similar ones were deleted for unexplained reasons. It's like somebody's afraid of free-thinkers. Just like Hitler was afraid of "The Infidels". Is it just me, or is there really a connection like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeeblz (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Extreme endorse deletion. The hyperbole of the keep crowd is ridiculous. "terrorism"? "nazi"? "final solution"? Provide sources of his notability, as you have been repeatedly asked to do. You have not done so, there is nothing further to discuss, and the repeated attacks will, eventually, lead to all of you being blocked. Corvus cornix 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And may I suggest to Sgt. bender and friends a quick peek to Godwin's law? --Goochelaar 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could have written Godwin's law. What makes that noteworthy and not Gary Hayes?Sgt. bender 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you didn't read the article because you completely missed the point. But to answer your question, it is sourced with multiple verifiable secondary sources and is extremely well-known. No one has been able to present any significant verifiable secondary sources on Gary Hayes. Smashville 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Foley Hayes may have been the inspiration for Matt Foley. Doesn't that make him noteworthy? If you don't believe me, look them both up on YouTube and compare them. Sgt. bender 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research is most definitely not a reason to overturn an AfD. Smashville 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Me Alone I never compared anyone to Nazis, I never deleted anyone's comments, and yet I'm being accused of such things. Stop lumping everyone together as people who support the article. And please stop attacking me. If you wish to particular address issues, address particular people. All I want is the article to be reinstated, and it's as if the admins are attacking everyone, and the lesser users are insulting the admins. Leave me out of this vitriol and discuss the issue with me, don't insult me. Dr.orfannkyl 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you. And you are correct. You did not delete my comment. It looks like it disappeared before your edit. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to overturn this AfD. He's the former mayor of a tiny town in New York whose most recent claim to notability is cooking corn fritters at a church. Smashville 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was attacked by Corvus cornix who lumped me in with every other anti-delete user when he said "the repeated attacks will, eventually, lead to all of you being blocked." "All of you being blocked." I never attacked anyone and the accusation of me doing so is unbelievably annoying. Dr.orfannkyl 21:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I attack anyone by name? I attacked those using the loaded language I quoted. If you didn't say any of those things, then there was no attack. Corvus cornix 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you attacked me specifically, I said you lumped me in with all the other people who support the article. You never said I, specifically, did the attacking, but you said that the pro-Gary Hayes article people, me included, are attacking people. Don't lump me in with others who are attacking people. That's all I want, please. Dr.orfannkyl 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importence Gary Hayes is important to over 30,000 people in the county, plus people in the nationwide Constitution Party and Ron Paul campaign. He also owns one of the last vintage Model As in the world. Not to mention ten years of elected service under three titles. This is more important than many authors, assemblypeople, and some professional sportspeople. Sgt. bender 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a car absolutely does not make him notable. Where are your sources that show that he's notable to these people? That's the entire point. Most authors and athletes have verifiable secondary sources and more importantly, meet Wikipedia guidelines, two points that you seem to be repeatedly missing. Smashville 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I owned Franz Ferdinand's deathcar, that would make me notable. He's far more notable than a pitcher who pitched in one game; and of course he's notable to over 30000 people, he's running to govern them. I think they careSgt. bender 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Owning a car does not make you notable. The existence of other articles is irrelevant per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And...per the article you wrote yourself...he already lost the primary by a wide margin. So he's not running for anything. Smashville 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, unfortunately, the only source I can use to even prove that is the article you wrote because no reliable secondary sources seem to exist on this guy. Smashville 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 4 in the article, at least 4 put up by Rpanico. If still interested, type in "Gary Hayes Schoharie County" into Google.Sgt. bender 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only potential secondary source period was a website that mentions his name and the number of votes as "NA". The other references were youtube, his own website (which states that he was running in the primary) and a mirror to the exact same website. Smashville 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am upset that you would think that my Wikipedia account is only to help this article. I want to help Wikipdia, especially with their sports coverage. JoeC2004 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the appeals from off-site for new users to come and discuss this - http://www.artistopia.com/gary-hayes/biography. Corvus cornix 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a transclusion, not an appeal on reflection. --Haemo 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is seriously uncool, though. --Haemo 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed...it's a mirror...I'm really concerned about sockpuppetry, though, but I don't really want to start another fire... Smashville 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, you're right. I didn't realize that since the formatting wasn't the same. My bad. Sorry. Corvus cornix 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost My English might not be as good as should be, so I will write in Farsi what the person who write the article might say about its cencorship: man mored e tajavoz gharar gereftam. Cheddarbob2332 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that anytime someone doesn't want their article deleted, they claim "censorship" despite the fact that it's clearly not notable. Also note that this user joined WP less than an hour ago. Smashville 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Na namifaman... I have been subjuct to cencorship back in my home country of Iran before I got away. I know what cencorship is. Wikipedia is shekaste. Cheddarbob2332 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you said, but this is not censorship. Censorship would be deleting this article because we disagreed with his political views. This article is being deleted because - outside of 500 people in the middle of New York - no one has ever heard of this guy. Smashville 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you spoke, but you might be correct in your meaning of cencorship. man nemikham be shoma bi ehterami bekonam, vali tarjih midam daresh sherkat nakonam in Wikiipedia. Cheddarbob2332 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked. --Coredesat 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

17 October 2007

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

This page should be undeleted as it was put up for speedy delete before i had finished it. I planned to finish it today with reliable references, uncopyrighted images and more details. If it is undeleted the standard of the page will change immdeiately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeatoffender4031 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 October 2007

  • Comment. There's been some minor coverage in the Sunday Mail, nothing spectacular. Might or might not pass AFD but probably not a good A7 candidate. Chick Bowen 03:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as the speedily deleting admin: the page as it stood when deleted consisted of nothing more than the track listings for two EPs, one of which was noted as "self-released". There was nothing in there which claimed notability under WP:BAND. I have explained to Repeatoffender4031 the ways in which notability can be demonstrated. Of course, if such demonstration can be found, I have no objection to recreating so it can be added. Sam Blacketer 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Church of the Militant Elvis Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Proposed for deletion as not having reliable sources. There are listings for the party, but that is the nature of a party in a general election. There may be a belief that a political party by default is notable because it gets a public listing, however there appears to be no Wiki guideline on this - and the current guidelines asks that coverage would actually speak to notability when examined. The sources are listings of parties involved or comments which focus on the party's very lack of notability: [85] "The noble Lord will know that I could not possibly resist pointing out that in his amendment he suggests that we should consult all political parties. We dug out the list of political parties that we have; there are 317 on the GB register, and I might hold a short quiz later to see how many noble Lords recognise them. I have no idea what these political parties are, but I love them. There is the British Unicorn Party, the Church of the Militant Elvis Party, the Grumpy Old Men Political Party, the Idle Toad Party, the Fancy Dress Party, and the Make Politicians History Party." In the discussion there were 6 deletes, 1 merge and 3 keeps. User:Jreferee closed the AfD with the comment that the statement by Wikidemo that "mentions in the Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, Associated Press.... easily establishes notability" was a persuasive argument. I feel that Jreferee didn't examine those sources and took Wikidemo's word that the sources established notability. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn WP:N requires significant coverage in WP:RS, merely mentioning something doesn't make it notable. Like all the official government-registered candidates in California's governor's election - most got mentions in some reliable sources if only to show "hey there's a teamster running", or "this candidate promises free booze", or "this candidate wants pretty girls/boys/goats to call him". C'mon, this is an encyclopedia not a citation resource with a listing of everything that's appeared in print anywhere for any reason. Carlossuarez46 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The references provided show no notability, there are no non-trivial mentions. Sure, you got mentioned on the BBC's website, but does that automatically make you notable? Not unless the story is about you, which it is not in any of the cases. The closing admin probably did not take a look at the sources. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Silk. Without non-trivial sources, a wikipedia article cannot exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Normally I would say relist or just do another afd, but this was--to put it simply--carelessly decided. I am one of those who think all genuine political parties probably notable, but this is not one of them. DGG (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, with the declaration that I commented in the AfD. This is just a one-man party. The reason this party attracted slightly more media coverage than average is due to deliberate attempts to fight 'interesting' elections: Mr Bishop turned up in the very high profile Tatton constituency in 1997, followed Martin Bell to Brentwood and Ongar in 2001, and in 2005 chose the Erewash seat being fought by Robert Kilroy-Silk. British election law requires that all parties are mentioned in media coverage of a particular constituency, so this party has to be mentioned. Sam Blacketer 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per all above, sources are trivial and do not count as significant coverage. Closing as keep wasn't the right decision, though I could see why he did so (sometimes editors will look at what the sources are rather than what's in them). --Coredesat 05:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As the nominator I provided the links to the sources. The article itself doesn't have any. When a nominator for delete provides sources it would be a courtesy to at least glance at them! Withdrawn as a petty comment. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, huge outnumbering and clear consensus to delete. Good arguments can only go so far. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Mis-assessment of consensus at AfD. I don't see how the discussion at this AfD indicates a consensus to delete. I feel that the closing admin has substituted his own judgment for the actual consensus of the discussion (which I would characterize as no consensus, leaning towards keep, at worst). Chunky Rice 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think that finding the print sources you referred to in the AFD would be conclusive. You now have five more days - go look; a citation in combination with your saying "I've read it and the coverage is non-trivial" should suffice. GRBerry 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm none too happy about the way this was closed - there was no consesus, and it had only been running properly for 6 days. The afd should absolutely be overturned if Chunkyrice provides sources. Artw 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact overturn - the afd was a mess from start to finish. There may be some WP:N grounds for deletion, but that would be better dealt with by relisting it with a proper afd and not closing it early. Artw 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I'd be absolutely shocked if reliable sources can't be found for this, as there's several magazines which cover CCGs in depth, such as InQuest, found at B&N, Borders, and other mainstream outlets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick Google shows that Inquest #78 included a promo card for this game, and in all likelihood also had coverage of it as well. Should be a good place to start when it comes to finding sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, around Oct. 2005, there was a two page article about communities supporting out of print games in which the Buffy CCG was prominently featured. If I had a stack of Scrye and InQuest magazines to leaf through, I'd add the specific references in a heartbeat, but I don't. But the inaccessability of sources known to exist is not grounds for deletion. But this isn't AfD part 2. My assertion here is that there was no consensus to delete in the discussion at AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and relist on AfD if necessary. Definitely no consensus over at AfD, it just looks like a lot of arguing with some delete/keep comments in between. If some sources can be found, then by all means overturn, otherwise I think this should be relisted. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not automatically relist, because there was consensus to keep. DGG (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist. I would go past the point of nonconsensus and go as far to say that the consensus of this one was a Keep. The only deletion arguments was essentially "Wikipedia is not a how to guide"...which was pretty well argued against by xDanielx. Also, the AfD existed for almost 24 hours without a tag being placed on the page. Smashville 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No reliable sources means no verifiability. If it is overturned, it should be overturned as no consensus, to allow relisting unless sources are rapidly found. Chick Bowen 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Chick Bowen. If it's notable, prove it with reliable sources - saying "they're out there" isn't enough, they must actually be provided and/or added to the article. No one did so in the AFD. If overturned, the article should be relisted at AFD. --Coredesat 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I agree that the general notability test was basically not met, but as someone who firmly considers WP:N a proxy test and not an inherent test, I think the rough consensus to keep the article anyway was perfectly reasonable. Some notable subjects just incidentally slip the media, and recreational-geared topics like CCGs generally get a disproportionately little amount of reliable coverage (no customer reviews, no coverage from academic journals, etc.; magazine coverage tends to be non-holistic). It's fine to allow consensus to trump guidelines as long as those in favor understand what the guidelines are and have reasonable grounds for supporting an exception. — xDanielx T/C 06:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer - since the debate was interpreted correctly. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy. Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. The keep reasoning in that discussion address things other than whether the topic could meet Wikipedia's article standards, including the underlying policy of verifiability. The keep arguments were weak. No reliable sources means no verifiability. The delete reasoning was clear in that not enough reliable source material exists on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 07:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that the verifiability issues were addressed during the AfD by Chunky Rice's comment: "I know for a fact that this game was written up multiple times in Scrye and InQuest magazines" Those are both fairly major publications and considered reliable sources for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring the debate due to a lack of sources (or "interpereting it correctly" as you put it) would be reasonable, except afd was listed improperly and rushed to a close. WP:N was raised late in the debate and reasonable attempts were in progress to source the article. I would urge you to take another look at what has gone on here, as I suspect you've just given a rote response. Artw 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do find it interesting that in the above DRV, you went against consensus to delete because Wikidemo makes an assertion of sourcing, though no direct links or additions to the article were made and here you went agaisnt consensus to keep with similar assertions on the table. I find this to be inconsistent. Further, it is not and has never been policy that an article must have sources in the article for the purposes of notability. The mere fact that they exist is sufficient. Verifiability is not an issue for this article (it can be sourced to primary sources like the game itself and Score's website) and was not even raised in the AfD debate, so I don't understand why you're bringing it up here. Your job as admin is to assess consensus of the discussion, not to make your own determination of whether or not the article should be kept or deleted. -Chunky Rice 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. It was a virtual certainty that a TCG licensed from a popular franchise, which produced three sets, organized tournament play in both the US and Europe, prize support, and an active online community will have a reliable source somewhere. Finding these sources is, admittedly, nontrivial; gaming and science fiction industry periodicals from 2001 are not generally available online and rarely stocked in library or university collections. Nevertheless, promotional cards for the game were included in InQuest 78, InQuest 84, InQuest 88, Scrye 49, Scrye 53, Wizard 127, and the June 2002 issue of SCI FI Magazine and that a "play mat" was included with Scrye 48. Scrye 54 (Angel as the cover) included a deck list and strategy discussion. And, for today's "most random source" nominee, the youth section of the online edition of the English-language Malaysian tabloid/newspaper The Star included a discussion and review of the game here back in 2003. Smart money says that someone with hardcopies of the industry mags from the appropriate period will find a lot more out there... Serpent's Choice 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Seems clear-cut to me. Stifle (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I want to make a page about this guy, but it is protected. The people at the help desk said I should come here. Brian Peppers is a popular meme. There are other pages pages for memes (see internet phenomena so we should have one for this. If you have never heard of this guy, see http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp for a quick overview. Can someone unprotect or undelete this page so we can create a reasonable sourced artical about it?? Pilotbob 04:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 October 2007

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

Insufficient review of information and sources. Muntuwandi 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) This article is well sourced and a number of notable scholars have researched this area. The reason stated for deletion is that it is an inappropriate content fork. However the consensus in discussion is that both articles, development of religion and origin of religion cover different time periods. The deletion of massive amounts of sourced material is at this stage is unwarranted. Muntuwandi 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if you could provide evidence, just saying that it is a syn without evidence could just be an opinion or a lack of understanding. Muntuwandi 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting that I'm not capable of assessing the article and making the decision that I did, let me disabuse you of that notion. I read it, I analyzed it, I considered it in the above-noted context, and that is my opinion. It is an opinion -- it's the opinion of someone who is quite capable of understanding what he reads. I'm not interested in re-writing the article just to satisfy your curiosity about what I think of the topic. That would be energy that is better spent elsewhere, like much of this discussion. Accounting4Taste 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have read WP:SYN. According to my understanding, the article is not a synthesis because all 5 major citations discuss the same evidence with regard to origin of religion. A synthesis is a collection of items that results in a new conclusion that was not made by any of the individual sources. However all the sources have come to a very similar conclusions. If anyone bothers to read them, they will find similar discussions in all the major sources. It is for this reason that the only reason someone can say that it is a synthesis, is either they have not read the sources or they do not understand the material. If I am incorrect please identify some information from the article that is synthesized from the sources. Muntuwandi 04:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Speedy Close - DRV is not AfD 2. Consensus did not establish that there was a valid division between the articles, but that it was WP:SYN and misuse of the sources. There is nothing here to dispute the procedural close of the AfD. -- Kesh
  • Comment The reason for closing was innapropriate content fork. however WP:POVFORK states

    POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first.

    If you look at the history for development of religion there I had never any attempt to edit that article. I had seen it, but the content is totally different from the sources that I have been reading on the origin of religion. As I mentioned before, the development of religion deals with specific religions. Whereas the authors cited make no reference to any specific relgion. The major sources cited include:
  • "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553. The author is is professor of anthropology at The College of William & Mary,this is her profile and these are are reviews on her book.
  • "Nicholas Wade - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8 p. 165" ISBN 1594200793, he is a science journalist for the New York Times. I figure since this is one of the most reecognized newspapers in the world, he qualifies as a reliable source.
  • The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion Matt J. Rossano, he is a professor of psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University, ::his profile
  • (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3. by Steven Mithen, Professor of Archaeology, University of Reading, his profile.
-- Muntuwandi 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one bought this argument in the AfD. I doubt they will here, either. Note the very first sentence of the essay: POV forks usually arise... It is not a requirement that you personally edited the other article to create a POV fork. Someone can create a POV fork of an article without touching the other article, simply by creating a new article on the same subject laced with their POV. As consensus was that you have done here. -- Kesh 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how do you explain that the information contained in the origin of religion article was and is not found in the development of religion article. The development of religion makes no reference to any archaeological findings whatsoever. How then can it be a POV fork if the material covered is completely different. Muntuwandi 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to temporarily undelete the entry for this purpose? I do believe there was ample time to merge the negligible amount of relevant information into the Development of religion entry, but actually not enough of a consensus regarding what exactly to do in this regard. I also strongly believe that if this entry is temporarily undeleted a certain editor whose attitude seems to be one of ownership of that entry should be kept administratively from disruptively interfering with the productive attempt to utilize this information--however one accomplishes such a thing.PelleSmith 02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to take on the job, the article could be userfied so they could try to find any relevant information to merge. However, it really seemed to be a mess of WP:SYN/WP:OR that would be hard to mine for solid facts to merge. -- Kesh 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think allegations of OR are due to lack of understanding of the material. So far having read at least five books on the subject there is considerable consistency on the topic. Instead of trying to improve the article, editors have opted to delete relevant information. If anyone takes time to read the aforementioned titles you will find all the same material that is in the article. There was nothing that was created from thin air. I think Jreferee rushed to delete the article. Admins are busy editing a lot of articles so often they don't get a good understanding of the subject. For example jreferee is questioning whether some other articles that I edit frequently should be deleted as well [86]. He is questioning the recent single origin hypothesis. This indicates that jreferee may not have the technical understanding to make an informed decision regarding the deletion of this article.
We were still debating the merger. My question remains unresolved and that is the development of religion deals with some of the major religions of the world such as Development_of_religion#Role_of_charismatic_figures_in_the_development_of_religions and Development_of_religion#Teleological_development. The authors of the books cited make no mention of any specific religion in their works. If anyone bothers to investigate the sources, you will find no mention of islam or christianity. The focus on their study is mainly archaeological and anthropological. Archeology because beyond 3000 years ago, there is no writing. Hence archaeologists are the only scientists who can give any information about history older than 3000 years ago. The development of religion article makes no mention of anything archaeological. I therefore question the validity of the accusation that origin of religion is an inappropriate POV fork of development of religion. I view it as a scapegoat to have the article deleted furthermore i see elements of Anti-intellectualism. These articles cited are peer reviewed scholarly articles. For example google scholar turns up rossano and mithen. I therefore do not understand the hostility towards information that is cited from peer reviewed articles. This is the kind of information wikipedia desires.
One most of the editors calling for deletion just issued one-liners. How can we ascertain that they even read the articles. I would play greater attention to those who gave more comments, especially about the sources because this proves that the read and understood the topic. Many editors just say "delete per nom" but how do you know the read the article. Muntuwandi 04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

That's what WP:AGF is for. Again, you have not introduced any new arguments here. -- Kesh 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete and redirect. the difference between "delete" and "redirect" is the loss of edit history (for purposes of attribution required by GFDL). If the outcome of the AfD debate was "content fork", the appropriate course would have been redirect (if necessary, protect the redirect), not delete (I am amazed at how many admins get this wrong). --dab (𒁳) 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I severely doubt the usefulness of preserving the history. It's such a mess of original research and misused sources, I'm very skeptical of its value as a draft. Pulling the small handful of useful and reliably sourced facts from the article is like mining diamonds in a dung heap. It would be better just to start over. That said, restore and redirect would be acceptable to me. Vassyana 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "deletion" on Wikipedia means "hide edit history from non-admins". Just think for a moment of the amount of trash we keep around in edit histories. There is no reason whatsoever to delete material on grounds of being trash, or a content fork. We only delete articles that had no business of existing in the first place, not on grounds of being trash. Plus, there was no need to delete the talkpage either, there was some useful discussion on how to proceed with this case. Even if deletion of the article was justified (I agree it was mostly trash), can we have the talk history back, please? dab (𒁳) 09:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure... but... if it can be verified that content was merged into another article, WE MUST RESTORE THE EDIT HISTORY TO MAINTAIN GFDL COMPLIANCE. I rely on the administrators who comment here to make that call. Burntsauce 17:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. There was no attempt to merge any of the information. The issue is far from being resolved. The deletion was premature because there was still a lot of information on the talk page that was deleted. I suggest undeletion and going to mediation. Muntuwandi 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. If people say the article was a mess, there is nothing wrong with cleaning it up rather than deleting information from peer reviewed scientific journals. Muntuwandi 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The sources cited above all use the term "origin of religion". None use the term Development of religion. How then can origin of religion be a content fork of development of religion, when the sources cited use the term "origin of religion". Development of religion clearly deals with religion as a social construction.

One of the reasons I am persisting with this argument is that, with the exception of PelleSmith, no editor has attempted to give any details. Each time I request for evidence of what is wrong all I get is one liners "Its OR, a synthesis, a POVFORK". Wikipedia has guidelines on what constitutes WP:NOR, WP:SYN OR WP:POVFORK and I would like to know how people have used these guidelines to come up with their conclusions. A simple one-liner is unsatisfactory. It could be that people have little understanding of the content, and hence decide to go the safe route and opt for deletion. I would appreciate the unbiased opinions of some editors who have some scientific knowledge in related fields. Muntuwandi 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nothing was merged, then endorse deletion, valid AFD. If content was merged, then restore as a protected redirect to Development of religion. I've also changed the tag and blanked the recreated article (it should have been speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4); the history is still available for the purposes of this AFD. Tags are not license to circumvent an AFD decision before the DRV closes, and {{delrev}} is not appropriate here given the nature of the problem. This should probably be clarified. --Coredesat 05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is more of a content dispute than a procedural dispute. I still finding it hard that well researched sholarly material from peer reviewed journals is not being given a chance on wikipedia. I have asked for a technical review, unfortunately nobody is willing to review the material from a technical perspective. All I get is one-liners. This is unsatisfactory from an encyclopedia that is all about academics. Wikipedia:Deletion review does allow reviewing content, it is not only procedural. Muntuwandi 05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I throughly critiqued the entire entry, and many other editors also commented on content. You have however refused to take any comments into account and simply keep on doing whatever it takes to try to make your point.PelleSmith 11:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your critique is that you dispute accepted theories like the recent single origin hypothesis or that grave goods indicate belief in the afterlife[87]. You were disputing the authors of the study not the content. I mentioned earlier User:Jreferee the admin who deleted the article was had never heard about the recent single origin hypothesis and other established articles. This is why I have doubts that many of the people passing judgment on the article have either not reviewed the information or just do not have the technical understanding of some of the subject matter. This is because these are well established hypothesis within the scientific community. So what is happening here is strength of numbers is prevailing over quality of argument.Muntuwandi 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your diff is entirely out of context. My critique was about your selective and sometimes simply erroneous use of sources in the main entry. Now your argument is that you are the only person who understands any of this material? Give us all a break. Pretty much every editor, no matter how sympathetic they were initially to the idea of this entry, has been soured on your tireless crusade. When will you ever give it a rest?PelleSmith 04:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are actually admitting that the article has merit but editors are put off by myself. The stuff is really basic and anyone can understand it if they take the effort. The problem is no one is interested. I have requested some basic questions like whether development of religion and origin of religion are truly the same field of study. Unfortunately nobody has tried to respond to this important inquiry. This is why the debate is being unnecessarily prolonged.Muntuwandi 04:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be clear, no one thinks your synthesis of misrepresentations and factual odds and ends has any merit. Many different editors have explained why. Some people believe that the archaeological evidence of prehistoric religion has merit, and that it has merit in terms of how religion may have originated. Those entries are not two seperate "fields of study," because they aren't fields of study at all, but simply entry headings. Again, several editors have explained why the salvageable entry contents from the origins entry should go into an improved development entry, and again you have refused to listen. I will now refuse to continue this circular conversation with you.PelleSmith 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not misrepresentations and nobody has explained why. The topic development of religion deals with religion as a social construction and deals with the modern or world religions. The origin of religion deals with its origins of human religious behavior. The suggestion of merging the article was without merit and was simply an attempt to make the issue disappear. As you can see nobody has attempted to merge any of the information, which suggests there was never any intention to do so. Muntuwandi 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record Dbachmann, and others started making edits to Origin of Religion in order to improve it for a merge (in fact I made an edit or two but stopped when it was clear you were going to keep on reverting to your synthesized and now deleted version). You kept on reverting his edits to include problematic conjectures, immaterial information, and so on. I don't think anyone wants to touch this information anymore until this DRV is finished and there is some promise of not having productive edits constantly reverted by you.PelleSmith 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Dbachmann made an attempt to add some information and I was glad he did, however some of the information he added was not factual. I explained that on the talk page, unfortunately the history of the talk page has not been retrieved but I mentioned the problems. There is a misunderstanding about what a synthesis is. There is nothing wrong with using multiple sources in an article. In fact a good article needs citations from a variety of sources. A synthesis always produces a novel conclusion built from the sources. for example If one source says the population of the world is 5billion and another source says the population of the world is 6billion. Then an editor combines the sources and says the population of the world is the average of the two ie 5.5billion then this is a synthesis because none of the sources says the population of the world is 5.5billion. But if you say that according to source A the population of the world is 5billion and according to source B the population is 6billion. you are not synthesizing because you are merely quoting what they say. Then it is up to the community or the readers to decide which source is reliable.
So the article had citations from a variety of sources each was quoted in isolation from the others. Why people are saying its a synthesis because the sources are from fields not normally associated with religion like archaeology and genetics. Religion is normally associated with the social sciences like sociology, psychology and religious studies. Hence most people are hostile to this new and different approach. However this is the latest information available. king's book is 2007, Wade's is 2006, Rossano is 2006 and Wentzel van Huyssteen 2006. This really is at the cutting edge.Muntuwandi 19:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should probably be speedily closed as this isn't a DRV, it's an extension of the existing dispute. This isn't RFC or AFD II. --Coredesat 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • indeed. this is just about Muntuwandi being argumentative now. He could fairly ask to have his material restored to hist user-namespace, but apparently this isn't necessary and he kept a private copy. The effort he invests in this debate would be much more fuitfully applied to debating the actual topic, at Talk:Development of religion. dab (𒁳) 09:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would invest the effort into the Development of religion article if that is the appropriate article for the content. Unfortunately no editor has answered the question, If development of religion and origin of religion are the same topic, then why did the authors of the studies cited use the term "origin of religion" and not the term "Development of religion". This is an important question simply about the titles. Dbachmann himself mentioned that it was a valid topic [88], [89]. Dbachmann has not objectively changed his mind, he has just changed his mind because he finds me annoying[90]. In truth he agrees that it is a valid topic. A further question regarding the development of religion is why is the article discussing modern religions whereas the sources cited make no reference to any specific reason. Wikipedia is about objective knowledge rather than forceful opinions. I have provided external sources for other editors to verify. Unfortunately not a single editor has provided any source from outside wikipedia to counter these assertions. This is some of the worst form of anti-intellectualism I have ever seen on wikipedia.
I have been searching the internet for topics related to "development of religion" and the topics that come up are inconsistent with the content from which the sources I have cited. google search results. If there is an article Origin of language then why not an article Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
A Faraway Ancient Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Encyclopic entry does not deserve speedy delete

The article was Speedy Deleted for Blantant Advertising, here is the Wikipedia definition: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

My reason for undelete: The artlce took no sides, and didn't promote the book in any way, even though I thought it was interesting and funny. All of the other books I like already have a page, so I thought this would be a good subject for my first article. The page had no links or information on how to buy the book. I didn't even mention how I bought it. I had put a brief summary, a few facts the aurthor mentioned in a news paper article and her website, and the cataglory. I had just added the publisher's name, the ISBN number, how long the book is, and a few other encyclopedic facts when it was deleted. I was still trying to figure out how to propery add the Sailsbury Post Newspaper as a source. That's where I first heard about it. --JRTyner 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--JRTyner 07:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter where it was published. It also doesn't matter at this point about the AFD process, this is about it being speedy deleted. The page was a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article. It said "'A Faraway Ancient Country' is a book about a woman's journey into the land of mystics and scholars. The book teaches about Catholicism from a Biblical perspective using the King James 1611 Bible. The author claims to have used 80 sources, 190 Biblical passages, and the efforts of three theologians, each with a Master's Degree in Divinity. The book's ISBN numbr is 978-0-6151-5801-3 . Category: Religion & Spirituality Author: Emissary Copyright Year: © 2004 Language: English Country: United States". There is no advetisement.
And it was taken from here. Advertisement and a copyright violation. I have told you this. IrishGuy talk 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to prove to you it wasn't. Please quite stalking me because it is becoming discontending. --JRTyner 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Furry Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD1|UCfD2|DRV|UCfD3)

I do not believe the closing reflects the consensus of those contributing to the discussion. "Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated" boils down to "because a lot of people said the same thing, that's worth less than a few people saying several different things." That doesn't seem to make sense, especially since there weren't a lot of arguments given for deletion in the nomination other than (previously hotly-contested) precedent of "identification categories don't support collaboration, and that's the only good reason to have a user category." This was given even though a WikiProject was founded by going through this category. I believe this is an example of trying to make Wikipedia "tidy" and eliminating useful community-building features in the process. (Note that some arguments pertaining to this deletion are in the UCfD for Category:LGBT Wikipedians, since it covers the same ground) GreenReaper 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per the "Sexuality and gender identification categories" DRV on Oct 10 [91]. --Kbdank71 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can people please stop lumping it in with "LGBT", "Sexuality and Gender", etc stuff? Maybe we should use precedents relevant to, dunno, video game consoles. Just about as irrelevant. Bushytails 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. In addition, I could see this having reasonable encyclopedic usefulness: when faced with editing issues on a "furry" article, one could use this to find a user with some knowledge of the genre. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that the argument, as I imagine you recognize, would be that although Category:Wikipedians who hate Jews would almost certainly be divisive and inflammatory, such that any prospective collaborative benefit (which would not, necessarily, be all that great; one's disliking Jews does not mean, of course, mean that he/she is well-versed in encyclopedic topics about anti-semitism or specially capable of finding sources for encyclopedic content) would be outweighed by the category's disruptive effect, Category:Furry Wikipedians is unlikely to divide or inflame users or otherwise to distract from the project's mission. Joe 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this constant tug-of-war over "identity" user categories is getting silly. Dragging individual (or even small groups of) categories through deletion discussions, DRV, back to deletion discussions, back to DRV is not in the best interests of the community. If one does not already exist (I am not aware of any) there needs to be a broader discussion on the topic of whether or not "identity" based user categories belong on Wikipedia. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV for Sexuality and gender identification categories. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community were given less weight as depreciated. Please note that it does not says "The consensus is..." it says "The result of the debate is..." and admins are expected to use weights of arguments when making these decisions. Finally, please note that 3 of those who expressed an opinion of keep, including the bringer of this DRV, did so for the stated purpose of social networking, which is clearly not our purpose here. --After Midnight 0001 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish people wouldn't keep waving WP:NOT around like it's a magic wand. Wikipedia is not a site dedicated to social networking, but its community is a social network, and user pages and categories are used to assist in its maintenance (regardless of what they should be used for). They are popular because they give us a sense of belonging and identity separate from a hundred thousand other Wikipedia editors. Does that in itself improve the encyclopedia? No. But being a part of the "furry Wikipedians" (in this case - replace with LGBT Wikipedians, etc.) does encourage me to spend more time on Wikipedia in the first place, and that leads to improvements - at least, if I don't spend all my time arguing about the value of a community-building mechanism. GreenReaper 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, those pesky policies, always getting in the way. --Kbdank71 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. If they are getting in the way, it's not a good policy. GreenReaper 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion for the same reasons as this UCFD discussion and this DRV discussion. Apparently, all of those and this cat have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the people in these cats are not notable, this is not a social networking site, no one cares what you are just how you edit, and whatever else they spewed out to delete all kinds of InsertYourOwnClassOf WikipediansHere. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people in those cats are indeed not notable, this is not a social networking site, and no, we don't care what you are. Well said. --Kbdank71 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the other hand, I happen to know a couple of people in those categories that are worthy of Featured Article status themselves if they had an article on WP, some very noteworthy activists.. the point was, if you delete one, you gotta delete them all. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's part of the problem. There are silly user categories. Nobody denies that, and few people care about their deletion. But that then leads people to say "if one user category is bad, they're all bad", but as there's no actual problem they end up justifying that with silly arguments like "could be divisive". What ever happened to "could be cohesive"? GreenReaper 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: Two votes for deletion, one by the nominator, the other simply "per nom" with no argument at all. Five for keep (and would have been more if people had known it was up for deletion!), all with good explanations. All past precedents point to keep, including the previous deletion review. How is community consensus anything other than keep? Overturn as improperly closed, with consensus not reflected in the decision. Bushytails 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part that said this isn't a vote? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part that said wikipedia is built on community consensus? While not a vote, consensus (based on what the most people, with actual arguments, had to say, as well as the end result of the previous processes) clearly was for keeping the article. The only version of consensus where the article was deleted is when one admin decides he/she does not like one side, and simply ignores it. At least this time it was a mis-closure, rather than a simple random deletion like the last three times or so... Bushytails 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that since it is not a vote, I can consider the arguments of users who chose not to include bolded words in their comments, such as the analogy provided by WaltCip. --After Midnight 0001 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then you should also count some people's excellent replies to some of those responses, which also did not use bolded terms. Unless you decide to simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you, the community would appear to want it kept. Bushytails 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above point about over-broad generalizations that are used to justify deletion. Saying "all identity-based user categories are bad because some of them have the potential to be divisive" makes as little sense as "all articles are bad because some of them have the potential to be divisive". As a practical matter, the category concerned was used to found a WikiProject Furry, which makes the arguments about divisiveness even more confusing. GreenReaper 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I generally don't get involved in these user category debates, but I have to wonder, do the people who have been nominating all these categories for deletion see a point in having user categories at all? I'm having trouble seeing just which user categories they ultimately want to keep. Presumably, the "Wikipedians interested in X" and "Members of WikiProject X" categories are safe, but what else? The way things are going, there won't be anything else left. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from issues relating to this specific category, allowing this deletion sets a very, very dangerous precedent. "As the admin, I can chose to ignore all arguments I personally disagree with" is equivalent to doing away with any semblance of building or following community consensus - simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you! Regardless of opinions on whether this category should exist, the process by which the discussion was closed can not be allowed to malfunction in this manner. Bushytails 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how would you determine consensus? Count votes? The closer needs to be able to make decisions based on strength of argument, otherwise they would be handcuffed into accepting any BS reason people could come up with. An intelligent, well-thought out argument should trump "I like it" any day of the week. --Kbdank71 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The closer also has to make a decision that reflects the community. If you wish to base it on the arguments, there were intelligent arguments to keep it, and none to delete it. Even the original nominator didn't make a valid argument to delete it, just "This is another notice of self-identification category", with the suggestion we use a bloody userbox instead. Contrast this to the various well-reasoned "keep" arguments. It's not up to the closer to decide whether he/she personally agrees with the arguments, merely to make the decision that properly reflects any apparant consensus. This was clearly a keep - both by number of votes, existance of arguments, and the quite extensive precedent history - and can only be a delete by "I'll just ignore everything I don't agree with" type reasoning. One can not create consensus by ignoring everyone who disagrees with you, then claiming everyone agrees. Bushytails 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that an argument of "keep this even though it is unencyclopedic" is not well reasoned. Also, when determining the strength of arguments, please remember that policy trumps guideline, and guideline trumps essay or opinion. For example, if an admin deletes something for a WP:BLP violation presented by a single user even in a case where consensus (by vote counting) is against deletion due to WP:ILIKEIT arguments, the deletion will be stand. If users don't like policies, they need to change them, not ignore them. --After Midnight 0001 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you wish to quote deletion arguments not to make, "this is unencyclopedic", as claimed by the nominator, is not a valid argument, nor is "per nom", nor is an example of violating wp:point. And, last I checked, there was no policy against using categories to benefit collaboration. And, even if there were a policy, the goal here is to build the best encyclopedia possible, which often will involve ignoring all rules. Unless you can find a policy explicitly stating a useful category must be deleted, or a policy that all votes making arguments you disagree with can be ignored, "policy trumps" arguments are irrelevant, as the only policy here appears to be community consensus. Even if there were a policy, only directives from jimbo and a few select other policies can trump consensus - except for foundation issues, policies are based on established consensus, and if consensus appears to no longer agree with the policy, the policy must be disregarded as no longer applicable. Oh, and speaking of directives from jimbo... "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing." - while "human beings" may not be what many people in this debate consider themselves as, that quote still applies - even if it were not for the benefits of having this category (already well-stated in all the ignored deletion votes), the lord himself hath spoketh towards the benefits of community, and the validity of related arguments. Bushytails 05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sincerely interested in your opinion: Why do you feel that a category which states that a Wikipedian is a "furry", is more useful in community-building or in collaboration than a WikiProject Furry category? - jc37 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why do you think we should just have one or the other? They mean different things. That does not imply that one has value and one does not - it means they are useful for different purposes. An example: The "Furry Wikipedian" category can be used to find potential members for WP:FURRY. Conversely, I'd feel feel more comfortable contacting "Members of WikiProject Furry" with updates on WP:FURRY-specific matters, since I know they are definitely interested in editing furry articles, rather than just expressing identity. I think people often make the mistake of trying to convert one to the other because they imagine that either they mean the same thing, or that only one kind is useful, when they both have distinct purposes and uses. GreenReaper 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I understand that that's your perspective, but you're skirting the question. (Also wondering if Bushytails will respond.) - jc37 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I figured GreenReaper gave a good answer, however I will answer too if you wish. Joining a wikiproject, whether this is true or not, is seen as indicating you plan on giving continual, active support, rather than just the occasional thing or two. A category of people knowledgable about a subject, on the other hand, can be joined by anyone, regardless of how much they expect to be able to contribute, thus attracting far more people. A category for the wikiproject isn't helpful - you could just add your name to the project member list (many of whom were found through the category!) - and doesn't do anything at all. There, while I know some people here will disagree, is also a communit benefit - being able to find like-minded users can do nothing but help the encyclopedia. Bushytails 20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I thought I was answering the question as best I could, considering it had an assumption in it that I disagreed with! :-) You suggested that we must be supporting the identity category because we felt it was better than a category of Wikipedians who were members of a WikiProject. I believe it is possible for there to be more than one useful grouping of users, and I gave an example of why I thought that was. Saying one particular category satisfies the needs better is like saying Category:Furry comics should be discarded in favour of Category:Webcomics - neither being a subset of the other. It is possible that one of these categories would be more useful than the other, but I don't see how it matters, since the presence of one doesn't imply the other is redundant. Instead, why not have both, and gain the utility from both? GreenReaper 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Self-identity categories do nothing to help the encyclopedia, and the deletion supported that. ^demon[omg plz] 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is the so-called "community building" power that this category has in order to justify its existence?--WaltCip 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the category does nothing to help build the encyclopedia, the deletion was correct. Burntsauce 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think, as do many of the people above , that identity categories do help, and that it is a minority group only who think otherwise--it is useful in a general as well as a specific way to see the different people interested in things; I have frequently used such categories for orientation in unfamiliar topics. DGG (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I maintain that the organization satisfies WP:ORG and that relevant updates to the article during the deletion discussion were not taken into consideration.

RAHB is further notable in the following respects (facts which I would propose be added to the restored article):

  • 1949 - first real estate group in Ontario to introduce the Multiple Listing Service
  • 1951 - first Photo Co-op System (predecessor to modern day MLS) in Canada
  • 1993 - first fully constituted and duly elected ICI division in Ontario

RAHB has also received numerous awards, including some non-Realtor specific, such as:

  • 2002, 2005 - Pinnacle Award from Canadian Public Relations Society

-- Robocoder (t|c) 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Originally deleted at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Youth Network. Recreated (and G4 deleted) several times since then, and the notability and verifiability/reference issues from the AFD have never been dealt with. I finally reached the point of salting it yesterday. User:Rebecca then proceeded to undelete it with the comment "Invalidly deleted. The AfD had no votes at all. It pretty evidently never appeared on the AfD page." A simple "What links Here" check of the AFD shows that this is not true, the page was listed quite properly on June 25. So, instead of wheel warring with Rebecca, I'm bringing this here (as, IMHO, Rebecca should have done if she considered the AFD closure improper instead of wheel warring herself). Is the existing AFD valid or not? Does the AFD stand, or should it be overturned? In case it is not clear, I Endorse the existing AFD. TexasAndroid 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and for goodness sakes salt it this time! Either User:Rebecca knows something we don't or she really dropped the ball on this one. No notability (basically a student radio station) and not a reliable source to be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although Rebecca appears to have been incorrect about the AfD's not being properly listed, I don't know that one can say that she's really "dropped the ball" here; I'm not sure that an AfD discussion of which only two editors partake can be said to have produced a consensus, such that the AfD ought perhaps in the first place to have been relisted to generate more input from the community, and consistent with that analysis, one might reasonably conclude that the article was not deleted consistent with a proper deletion discussion and thus that G4 should not apply. I can't imagine that we would do all that badly to undelete and relist at AfD in order that a fuller discussion might be had—if indeed no sources toward notability are adduced and verifiability issues are not resolved, the page could be safely salted—but I suppose Rebecca ought to have elected to bring the issue to DRV instead of to summarily overturn a months-old, previously uncontested close. Joe 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt per DRV rationale. This is not a valid Wikipedia article, and the user's attempts at recreating the article could be viewed as adverse to WP:COI, and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING.--WaltCip 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist looking at the AFD, it seems like no one participated in it, should have been relisted for more comments. Jbeach56 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with a dose of salt, regardless of how many participated in the original AfD, I see no reason to believe that their arguments were wrong. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. It's pretty clear that the deletion debate never appeared on the AfD page and was never added to the Australian deletion sorting project to bring it to the attention of people with more knowledge of the subject matter. Had this done so, it would most likely have been referenced (by actually bringing the article to the attention of people in that state) and easily kept. This isn't a student radio station - it's one of the more significant community radio stations in the entire country. The absolute insistence on its deletion by people who have made absolutely no effort to actually work that out is bewildering. Rebecca 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's clear that the reverse is true. Here's the diff from when it was added to the Australian deletion sorting project, and here's the diff from when it was added to the AFD page. Maybe it should be revisited anyway, but TexasAndroid is correct in that procedure was followed in those respects. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's pretty clear that you did not even bother to read my DRV comments above, where I say that a simple "What Links Here" check of the AFD page shows that what seems obvious to you is actually flat out incorrect. The AFD was properly listed on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 25 page. - TexasAndroid 12:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see an explanation why this has been closed early with essentially no participation. The reason why we run debates 5 days at a minimum is to give the community a chance to locate sources or establish with some degree of certainty that no sources exist. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added a handful of grants they've received with refs. To be fair this might be a bit of a cultural misunderstanding as student radio in the US is remarkably different than what this article refers. They also do TV and a publication as well as website. Benjiboi 06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Public domain photo of an extremely common Vietnam era medal, verified with the National Personnel Records Center as a common image ineligable for copyright. Deleted in a massive purge, by a single admin, of all images uploaded by User:Husnock. Image was not a copyright violation, deletion reason was never discussed, and should be overturned -OberRanks 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Husnock is notoriously unreliable in his claims for image sourcing. He never provided a specific source, merely "from internet". No reason to believe that this is indeed in the public domain. GRBerry 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion as a blatant copyvio. This was a photograph of a 1960's war medal. The source was not specified, only that it was found on the Internet. Even if the medal itself is in the public domain, somebody photographed it, and their photograph is protected by copyright. I should add that I was not the only admin deleting problematic Husnock images; that the situation was discussed extensively at several places first (including here and here; and that I have left dozens of appropriate images uploaded by Husnock intact and even corrected faulty license tags so those images would not be deleted by others. -- But|seriously|folks  17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, images without source information go, period. This is necessary for protection from legal liability along with other concerns. Of course, no objection to a reupload if someone finds that this image is unquestionably in the public domain and can demonstrate that, but that's why a source is required—without that, it can't be checked out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion we are not a free image hosting service, especially when the copyright is questionable. Burntsauce 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Auschappoint.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Auschappoint.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Government public domain copy of an SS service record document was deleted in a massive purge, by a single admin, of all images uploaded by User:Husnock. Image was not a copyright violation, deletion reason was never discussed, and should be overturned -OberRanks 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As long as the image meets WP:PDI or it is clearly - as you say - government public domain, endorse recreation.--WaltCip 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Husnock, who is not a reliable source, claimed "Released from S.S. Personnel Service Record, on file with the National Archives and Records Administration". The image was definitely not in that record, it is an image of a page in the record. Husnock did not claim that he made the image, nor that NARA made it. So we have no reason to believe that this is in the public domain. It might be, it might not be, but without sourcing, we can't claim that it is. GRBerry 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Endorse my deletion as a blatant copyvio. To my knowledge, German government documents are not public domain. US government documents are, but only because of a statutory provision which is specific to US government documents. Even if this image is a US government copy of an original German government document, there is still the underlying German government copyright. I should add that I was not the only admin deleting problematic Husnock images; that the situation was discussed extensively at several places first (including here and here; and that I have left dozens of appropriate images intact and even corrected faulty license tags so those images would not be deleted by others. -- But|seriously|folks  17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I read somewhere that pre-WWII German gov documents are now in the public domain. This should be verified, though. Tizio 17:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SS records are kept in College Park on microfilm by the U.S. National Archives. When a researcher goes there, they pay 50 cents a copy for the photocopy of the microfilm. The copies of the record then becomes the property of the researcher. There are no rules about what they can do with them and researchers can use them in books, articles, research papers, anything. The German government isnt even involved and there should be no restrictions about having such images here. This is why I think it should be undeleted. -OberRanks 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The facts that researchers can obtain a copy and that you are unaware of any restrictions do not suggest that the image is free from copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would we need to verify this? A letter from College Park saying its so? An e-mail from a NARA employee? I can probably get either (But after m Wiki-Break I just started! HA!)
Neither. A citation to a law providing that German governmental documents (or at least certain ones) are not protected by copyright is what we need. -- But|seriously|folks  19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is definitely true that 'certain German governmental documents are not protected by copyright'. Not sure if this is one of them though. See the German Wikipedia copyright page and relevant law. My German is more than a little rusty (and not focused on legalese to begin with), but basically I think these are saying that government documents meant for public consumption (new laws, announcements, et cetera) are not subject to copyright. This is also an odd case as these are presumably documents seized by the U.S. during the war... essentially the U.S. government 'took ownership' of them and the Germans don't seem to be objecting (there was that whole thing where they surrendered), so are they still German government property or are they U.S. government documents now? Copyright law gives me a headache.--CBD 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The debate above is irrelevant. The source has not been established; without it, there's no way to establish the legitimacy of the document or its copyright status. If someone can upload a new one with a clear source and make clear that it's genuinely in the public domain, fine. Chick Bowen 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
THE CHOSEN - An Avant Garde Film of Omniview Perspective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

1. Deletion happened 20 minutes prior to the proposed Oct 15, 2007 20:15 while the improving was still going on;

2. "General Comprehension" if a very questionable term as for Wikipedia as envisioned. Simply answer my question: to what educational level is the Wikipedia for? As we know a lot of people in my circle visit this post to see the progress. They are researchers, professors, people in the TV/movie industries, media artist, VC funds, graduate students. While they have no problem understanding what's going on, how come it is incomprehensible? We agree to improve and use plain text to educate the much extensive public however that also demands time and solid data e.g. feedback from multiple screenings, production news and the related, similar projects that are on-going. For example, the Real-D cinema has the same streamhead with immersive/interactive cinema and you Wikipedia already has an entry for its commercial implementation "http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Disney_Digital_3-D". Does it exist only because it has a BIGGER name - "Disney"?

3. Don't take offense that it is true that you editors are not almighty to understand everything. You are only experts in your field. When it is not comprehensive to YOU, think twice before categorize it to be "Generally Incomprehensible" to others. Otherwise, Wikipedia, not YOU, would be laughed at and no real informative entries will be posted sooner or later because some small group people don't understand them.

4. This article is an intro on the most recent methodology and production of interactive and immersive film. We are still working on the improvement to make it much easier to the more general public. So, please restore it and allow us longer time to make an entry useful for people who need to know more about this domain and its forefront. Yuechuan Ke 06:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A messy article is not a reason to delete. It is notable, and over the course of the AfD, sources and references were added and the article cleaned up, which obviously can't be seen now as it's been deleted and Google's cache has the old version. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and lesbian retirement for the numerous media sources found and that were being added when the AfD was live. It should not have been deleted. Instead, it should have been tagged {{verify}} and {{cleanup}}. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prejudice to re-creation. If you want a user copy of the page to clean-up and repost, just leave me a message. Do make a serious effort to clean it up if you're going to do this; don't just do an end-run around this review. Not that I'm implying anything, I just though I would mention it for completeness sake. I trust users will be responsible with the deleted versions I give you. --Haemo 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:Haemo, who expresses the same sentiment that I did when closing the AfD. Although a long list of external links were added over the course of the AfD, no effort was made to actually improve the article. If you want to recreate a quality form of the article, please do so, but there was nothing of redeeming value in the prose within the article, which continued to be written as an essay full of vague platitudes. As even when the article was in the spotlight no one was making an effort to make it worthwhile to keep (simply adding news references does not improve the quality of an essay), I am skeptical that anyone would even bother with rewriting the article were it restored. —Verrai 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect I thought I had more time to do work on improving the article and indeed had started the process as soon as I was aware of the AfD. My goal was to save it from deletion and proving it was a notable subject with sources available was the first step. My understanding per WP:AfD is that if an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD. I'm also unsure how long AfD's go for although many seem rather endless so maybe I'm just missing that information. Benjiboi 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Benji. That's why I said it should have been tagged with verify and cleanup, not deleted or even put up for AfD. However, since the AfD was placed, the AfD should have been closed as No Consensus based on the arguments presented. I know we don't "vote" on here but I never have been one to call a rose by any other name and the No Consensus was plain. It makes me wonder if anyone that puts an article up for AfD actually does some research on the subject of an article before putting it up for AfD. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly agree, I've seen the AfD process continually abused and speaking for myself feel it's extremely stressful to rush job improving an article to satisfy an audience that seems determined to eliminate information; all rather counter-intuitive to finding information on wikipedia. Benjiboi 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article simply needed editing as it was and AfD should not have even been started then why shouldn't the article simply be reinstated? Why should the article start from scratch without it's history and work done up to this point? Benjiboi 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put it this way: if you're working from what was there, the article you're creating will also be an essay. You would be better off starting from scratch. All of the relevant links are in the AfD. —Verrai 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Bad faith assumption that an editor wouldn't be able to rework an essay, even though I don't think it was one, into an article, the links were formatted into refs and additional content was also added including edits to the text so it was already in process of being "de-essayified". Benjiboi 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the previous version was a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. If you want to rewrite it to be an encyclopedia article, then go ahead, but you should write it from scratch. Corvus cornix 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why references, and other content besides the problematic essay-like portions should not be available. Benjiboi 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn ridiculous when people put so much work into an article to bring it up to standard and it gets wiped out with nothing more than "feel free to re-create it". Total bullshit. >:o[] PLEASE userfy the info to my userspace so we can finish the work on it and recreate it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what was in the article that made it an encyclopedia article? The version that I see in the cache above, is not an article. That's why the deletion endorsement and the suggestion to rewrite. Corvus cornix 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, the version that's in the cache had been expanded greatly and improved. Benjiboi 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Article could have been improved therefore should have never been nommed for AfD, a quick google search would have easily verified that. AfD discussion spelled out that plenty of refs had been found to assert notability of subject and work had already begun to address concerns. Overturn as no consensus and let's get on with writing an article or two. Benjiboi 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creating an essay with a lot of perhaps valid references (and I didn't see the point in checking the references since the article itself is unredeemable) is not what Wikipedia is all about. Now go read those refrerences and produce an encyclopedia article. Or else find a place where your own personal opinions and original research are welcome. Corvus cornix 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civility please, I accept that the article needed work and work was indeed being done on it. Strongly disagree that the article is unredeemable as, in fact, will be shown whenever and however we can get the article back on track from deletion. The fact that we had added a dozen references to the article should be plenty indication that the article subject is encyclopedic despite perceived WP:OR issues. Again, article should be improved through regular editing. Benjiboi 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently you missed the part where it was userfied and is in the process of being re-written before before being recreated? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rhianna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I only recently realized that this had been deleted - it wasn't even on my list of monitored articles until I accidentally typoed from the more famous Rihanna, but per policy this young former popstar, whose article was speedy deleted having existed in its factually correct form for eighteen months, warrants an article. I just wanted to bring it here before doing anything rash.

Please note that the final, cleanest version of the page is the "Revision as of 23:39, September 24, 2007", and any further restorations would warrant immediate reversion back to this revision of the article. Bobo. 00:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 October 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The delete discussion regarding this and this reference was "No 3-rd party sources" which does not appear to be true. Given that this statement was in the nomination, it may have improperly influenced the remainder of the discussion. The other delete comments regarding these two sources focused on the importance/significance flowing from the two qx.se articles, which did not address whether they provided sufficient reliable source material to write the article in combination with other reliable source information. The keep reasoning was poor as well, largely focusing on personal judgments of importance/significance. On reflection, my delete close should have been no consensus and I have changed it as such. -- Jreferee t/c 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malmö Devilants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clear consensus to KEEP the article, 6 vote keep, one delet and 2 redirect. And the Adm was saying "of lack of reliable sources", thats wrong it was third-party articles etc-}} 81.236.190.174 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Closer appears to have missed this and this, which were described in the AFD as independent reliable sources. They are in Swedish not English, so I can't be sure that they are independent and reliable - but I see no reason to challenge the description of them given in the AFD, and no other participant challenged them either. Since there were independent and reliable sources, the closer misread the discussion. GRBerry 21:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reread the AfD and do not see what you see. "Described in the AFD as" and "no reason to challenge the description of them given in the AfD"? Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide diffs for these assertions. -- Jreferee t/c 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rocky Horror songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn - closing admin was displeased by the form of the nomination and it appears that this displeasure led to a misreading of the debate. Admin asserts that no collective decision can be made about a series of songs from the same film. The discussion would appear to contradict this assertion, as the people involved were able to clearly express and articulate opinions. In this instance, the opinions articulated were in favor of deletion and while there were assertions made by the keepers that the songs were notable, this was not backed up by providing sources that demonstrate the notability of any of the songs. The links provided by the last keeper are merely Ghits results for one of the song titles with no proof that anything that comes up actually demonstrates notability; simply being mentioned in a newspaper article or book or a track listing from a play program or record does not satisfy WP:N as it is not substantial coverage specifically about the song. Closing admin states that there do not have to be reliable sources in the articles to pass AFD. This is true, but there have to be sources somewhere and it seems to me that those who are claiming that the songs are notable should have some burden of proof, otherwise AFDs hanging on notability become nothing more than counting up how many say "yes it is" and how many say "no it isn't." The only argument in favor of keeping that was beyond a simple "keep it's notable" hinged on the notability of the stage show and film. The notability of the source material doesn't impart separate notability onto every aspect of the source material, as was shown by the deletion of another song from the same source. The admin's personal opinion about the quality of the mass nom should not have a bearing on the quality and numerical superiority of the delete opinions and the poor quality of the keep arguments. Otto4711 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would you even delete these? If nothing else they're needed as redirects to The Rocky Horror Show or an article on the sound track... they're very likely search terms. Turning them into redlinks just seems like a disservice to our readers. At any rate, there seems to be plenty of sources for someone who wants to expand these articles... need for cleanup is not a reason to delete. --W.marsh 18:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I may have closed it differently, but it's sufficiently within closer's discretion to not find a consensus apparent here. Summing up the debate: These songs almost surely fail WP:MUSIC, although the album might actually pass, and a redirect could boldly be made per W.marsh's comment. Given that state of affairs, closing as no consensus was within discretion. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer - Thank you for the notification. These songs have existed for more than thirty years as part of one of the longest running stage musicals and most widely popular movie of all-time, both of which have inspired countless publications. The four listed song are so widely known and have been treated differently by reliable sources over the many years since their creation in 1973 that a single discussion could not reasonably say the songs stand or fall together. It was clear to me that just about all of the discussion participants failed to adequately address each song individually in the context of whether enough reliable source material exists to maintain separate articles on each song. Because of the compilation of the AfD nomination, the participants largely ended up listing voting opinions as opposed to reasoned analysis. Without reasoned analysis, there was no justification to delete the articles and the lack of sufficient keep discussion was a reason not to close as keep. -- Jreferee t/c 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say that people didn't offer reasoned analysis? The analysis was stated in the nomination and agreed to in abbreviated form by multiple !voters. It is unreasonable to expect every person who expresses an opinion to reiterate a complete analysis that's already covered in the nomination. Isn't that why shortcuts to policy and guidelines exist, so that someone can type "per WP:POLICYSECTION" instead of typing out a regurgitation of the section? Do admins really want to read six or seven largely identical paragraphs per AFD when a sentence sums it up? Otto4711 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus closure or overturn and close as keep. Someone actually finding sources for things asserted to not have sources is one of the arguments that always wins - and that they couldn't be sourced from independent coverage is exactly what the nom did. W.marsh found the sources, and he obviously didn't have to look very hard, which means that the nomination and all "per nom" arguments were shown to be false and have no weight. With them removed, the clear consensus was for keeping. GRBerry 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts on closing the discussion were that W.marsh found sources for one of the songs (Rose Tint My World) and he obviously didn't have to look very hard. He may have been able to find sources for the other songs, but didn't. Rose Tint My World probably could have been close as Keep, but with so little discussion specifically directed to Rose Tint My World, no consensus seemed the appropriate close for that song. -- Jreferee t/c 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per GRBErry and nominator. JoshuaZ 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close defaulting to Keep all. All of these songs are highly notable. (I think some of the confusion in the discussion above may be occurring before the collective title "Rocky Horror songs" is showing as a redlink.) Newyorkbrad 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus close of mass nomination. Very little discussion (mostly the final comment before the closer) touched on facts for reliable sources of individual songs. Some have been much more noted in non-fanzine, non-fanblog sources than others, for reasons such as the Rose Tint My World book that W.marsh cited. (In fact I would support a merge of those not well-sourced to a list article or "Songs of ..." article as was suggested in the AfD. Each of these songs separately has passing minor mentions in WP:RS sources, and featured coverage in fan sources, but does each have enough to pass the guidelines as being worth an article instead of a mention within a broader-topic article?) For now, a no-consensus keep allows interested people to work on the articles for the next couple of weeks, then Otto4711 and any others interested can review the updated versions and get consensus to merge or keep each. (All these are noted enough for a merge so users will find the redirects.) Is there a WikiProject for Cult Films or Drag or Off-Broadway Musicals that might help us get these articles sourced and edited? Barno 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Making the bed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Abuse of patent nonsense section, since it doesn't apply at all- the page was a stub describing (in intelligible english) basically what making your bed is. Also it's a perfectly good idea for a wikipedia article seeing as how it's an important facet of personal hygeine for most of the western world, the admin was completely unjustified in marking it speedy frotht 05:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion (and, optionally, list at Afd) I am inclined to think that I'd !vote delete at AfD, and I am not nearly as confident as Froth that a legitimate encyclopedia article about making the bed—in its historical and cultural contexts, perhaps—might exist, but the text, although almost certainly as written unencyclopedic, was not patent nonsense, and as such was emphatically not G1able (or, for that matter, A1able or A3able). The deleting admin has now recreated the article as a redirect to bed sheets, which may ultimately prove an appropriate target for this page; even as, though, redirection is an editorial decision, a discussion about the propriety of redirection or merging cannot be had when the underlying article is deleted. Undeletion, then, is appropriate, and deletion, merging and redirection, or deletion and redirection might each be considered. Joe 06:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and troutslap the nominator for arguing over stupid one-liners. If you think there is a feasible article to be written about the topic, write one. ~ trialsanderrors 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per trialsanderrors: for non-admins, the entire contents deleted were: "Making the bed is tidying one's bed after waking. This is practiced in most civilized cultures." Clear A1, and credible A3 or G1 as well. If this is overturned, we should certainly add this one to the next CD of Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'd probably have cited A3 instead, but this one liner wasn't worth the time to get the deletion summary right, much less this DRV's time. GRBerry 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A 17-word article is within speedy deletion criteria. If you want to flesh it out more, feel free to recreate it with sources and more substantial content.-Wafulz 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is almost (but not entirely) pointless. No one seems to be contesting the current redirect. Is there some reason not to restore the history behind it to serve as a seed for a fuller future article? —Cryptic 06:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the deleting admin, I've restored the original history of the article for the duration of the DRV. I stand by my original deletion of the article, although in retrospect I would have used A3. It was a borderline nonsense article and was extremely short. It may be possible to have an article on that, but I'd argue that it makes better sense as a part of bed sheets, which is where I redirected the page. -- Flyguy649 talk 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with provision Is it possible to make an article on this topic not OR? JuJube 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Wikipedia isn't a dictionary nor is it an instructional manual. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tower Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Per the current talk page, there's a current discussion on bringing the article back. It was originally deleted for no reliable sources, however a related page Desktop Tower Defense was recreated with a large quantity of sources (whether they are reliable or not could be another issue. )

While I'm okay with the article remaining deleted, restoring would allow describing the genre without putting undue weight on a specific implementation. In addition, it can help record how this genre got started as well as how it changed to the current forms. Sigma 7 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure what material could be useful- the only material that isn't already in the Desktop Tower Defense article is this original research: The origins of the genre are uncertain. During the Warcraft III beta in alpha development, there were two early developers who take credit for laying the foundation of TD: With the game handles of Mr.123 and Evilseed. The genre may have existed within Starcraft previous to that, where they are typically called turret defense as opposed to tower defense games. It then follows with a blurb on map naming conventions.--Wafulz 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There is nothing reliably-sourced that could be useful in the editing of a new article, and no evidence offered here to change the conclusion of the prior AfD. Xoloz 14:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

14 October 2007

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

The article was closed as Keep even though there was obvious consensus to keep 11/3. While some of the deletes are obviously WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a couple of the keeps weren't vaild neither WP:IMPORTANT. The reason why the article was kept was because nobody rebutted Kappa agruement, but if you look further down, I did by showing that all of those sources are obviously too local, many of them trivial, like "Sierra Vista Mall will hold a community outreach fair at 10 am", thus not really independent of the topic (anything, even local resturants, apartment buildings, nursing homes, local politicians (which fail WP:BIO btw, supermarkets, etc can have that many local sources). WP:HEY doesn't apply nither as the only thing added was an infobox, and the spam wasn't removed. Overturn and Delete Jbeach56 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn As one who commented in the AfD discussion, I stand by my argument that is completely, totally, and utterly spam. The only source cited is a mall pamphlet. The other source(s?) are local, but local notability is not enough to keep an article. The argument to keep was based on a couple of mentions in the Fresno Bee, but local notability is not enough to keep. I honestly can't believe that is was kept, even though there were 11 Delete comments and 3 Keep comments. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse keeping... there are 1,250 potential sources (Fresno Bee, etc.) People will want encyclopedic information on this mall, we can provide it... there's no benefit in deleting this article. --W.marsh 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. Most of the votes were garbage parroting, anyways. Notability has been established. --- RockMFR 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see no notabilty established in the article, unless you think that adding an infobox helps claim notabilty. Again the sources are too local, no sources outside of the city newspaper, and it's only for local interest. Jbeach56 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, only a tiny percentage of people who go to any mall will be non-locals (according to this book). At any rate, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia... there's no reason to deny an accurate article that's useful to only 1% of our readers. Eventually all those 1%s add up and we're not useful to any of our readers. --W.marsh 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question- If we expand upon your idea that local Citations are not good enough, should we remove all Think Tanks (that have an office in D.C.) from Articles about U.S. Politics because they are too local ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's unreasonable. Just because an argument doesn't work when it is taken to extremes doesn't mean the argument by itself doesn't hold water. Furthermore, the analogy doesn't even hold since Think Tanks have large scale effects on both domestic and foreign policy. JoshuaZ 13:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thats my point, if it does not work at the extream, why is it valid on the smaller scale? I mean no argument in this discussion, I mearly want to point out that the idea that too local as a reason, is not valid either. Soley based on the street address of the citation (Think Tank/Newspaper/etc), it can be dismissed as invalid and unworthy of being a source of information? Where does too local end? This entire path of logic will be bad news for Categories like Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_Toronto that are compleatly structured around local notability. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close Dear God, I can't stand articles about malls. The're idiotic and the coverage is highly generic and routine not very different than marriage and baby announcements. Gah. . But yeah the sources seem to exist in this case which is enough to satisfy WP:N so leave it alone. (it would be nice if someone would, you know, actually add them to the article). JoshuaZ 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC) After looking at the sources in more detail I'm no longer convinced they are non-trivial enough to be included per WP:N. Abstaining for now. JoshuaZ 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, consensus to delete was evident. Only one argument to "keep" (Kappa's) had any weight to it, the other two being fluff involving a) using a glossy se-lf produced leaflet as an indicator of notability, and b) "malls are inherently notable". Neil ☎ 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. At best this should have been closed no consensus but even that would be a stretch. Kappa's sources do indeed seem to refute the idea that the mall has no sources to establish notability, but to allow a single argument to trump several others (some of which explicitly stated that said sources were insufficient to establish notability) seems to fly in the face of "consensus". ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion was clear where were the WP:RS that this meets WP:N. The article has none and when someone goes to find them, they will find the same ones that would if taken at face value make any and every restaurant, laundramat, and gas station notable: yellow pages, local papers talking up the businesses that place ads in them, etc. C'mon, we're not paper but we're not the yellow pages either. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, clear consensus to delete here. There's one keep argument with any substance at all (the others are various ATA that misquote WP:N), but that's it. Not even close to "no consensus", either. --Coredesat 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per W.marsh. Tim Q. Wells 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, the issue of sourcing was specifically addressed and found lacking, even after Kappa found some sourcing. I tend to agree that those sources are mainly trivial and mentions in passing, and that they are insufficient for an encyclopedia article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Clear comments are made that the mall has no notable sources. Primary Criterion makes clear that "newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours" are not reliable sources. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have closed as no consensus, but the effect is the same as keep. There is no basis for overturning. Articles like this have been treated inconsistently at Afd. The people who think this an automatic delete should instead work to change the policy on malls. DGG (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, clear consensus at afd, not within closer discretion. All sources put forward are either unreliable, or both biased and utterly lacking in substance. Impossible to create a neutral article without original research. —Cryptic 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - clear consensus for deletion. More importantly, there is nothing in the article to source any notability whatsoever; existence is not enough. TerriersFan 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer - Quick searches such as Google news, Google books, and Google scholar are part of an AfD. In this case, Kappa expressly posted the searches that supported the assertion the the topic passes WP:N with a great deal of press coverage of the topic throughout its history. I did not give much weight to the idea that all 1,250 potential sources are too local, that their being too local is obvious, that many of the 1,250 potential sources are trivial. Of course, if many of the 1,250 potential sources are trivial, then the remaining sources are not trivial, which supports the keep consensus of that discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Valtio – Deletion overturned; sent to AfD. Someone below contended that it has "been debated whether hoaxes are speediable." That debate was settled a long time ago: they aren't (although the articles concerning them sometimes may be speedied under G1 or A1 if those apply.) One person is easy capable of misjudging what is a hoax, and some "lucky" hoaxes become notable in their own right. See here. – Xoloz 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Valtio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article asserted here repeated references to Valtio on Radio Finland, and apparently in the Helsingin sanomat newspaper, which seems sufficient basis for claim of notability. If it is chosen that the article not be restored completely, I would request userfication, so that I can attempt to find sufficent sources to prove the subject's notability. John Carter 16:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn One of the more notable micronations - mentioned in reliable and independent sources. I think that's enough to pass WP:N. Its head of state has also gained an audience with the Estonian, French, and Brazilian ambassadors to Finland. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's imaginary - that's pretty much asserting non-notability. If overturned this wouldn't survive AFD as it lacks multiple independent sources. --Coredesat 22:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably should be overturned but note: not because it is a "memorable micronation" or because of any cultural or "diplomatic" matter, but because it is (or seems to be) a notable comedy hoax creation. The Finnish wikipedia has an article on it, categorized under "Humor". However the article does needs a serious rewrite to reflect it is not a "micronation", but a comedy/humor item. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse overturn. Article needs more detail and additional sources, but it's certainly real and worthy of documentation in WP. --Gene_poole 07:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article starts "Valtio is an imaginary micronation started by Ari Peltonen" sets the tone. Whether hoaxes are proper speedies has been debated; I usually send them to afd, but this wouldn't survive there so why waste everyone's time and extend the drama. The representatives of any fake micronation can be refused audiences at embassies and otherwise subjected to the same treatment as Mr. Peltonen would in his personal capacity and there is no indication that any of the events described (a) happened; (b) were reported in a reliable source; or (c) were events involving Valtio or just plain old Mr. Peltonen. I have been to embassies, if I start Suarezia as my micronation and go to some more, do I and Suarezia get articles, too. I hope not. Carlossuarez46 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please note that Peltonen also received audiences with three heads of state. That may well qualify as notable, I believe. Also, I have attempted an automatic translation of the source, but found the results to be, basically, incoherent. I have asked the editors of the Finland WikiProject to review the reference and comment here. I hope that one does so soon. John Carter 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Do you have a reliable source for that he "received audiences with three heads of state" in the capacity of leader of his country, like a summit, or just that some heads of state have sufficient time in their schedules to have meetings with interesting people with gripes. If it was a leader-to-leader meeting, some mention must have been made by the media of the (real) country in question - most heads of state like to promote their international meetings especially summits. The distinct lack of any of these mentions belies the claim. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response' - Evidently, it was indicated in the article which I am seeking translation to. And, yes, as indicated in the article linked to, the subject is repeatedly mentioned, evidently on Radio Finland. The argument that the creator of the article did not cite those sources, as stated above, is seemingly a fallacious one, as by my reading the creator of the article seems to be more of a Finnish speaker than otherwise. Also, frankly, I sincerely question whether the editor himself has necessarily sought out every possible source for every article he has ever written, and referenced them accordingly. Like I said, I think we would be best served waiting for a translation of the article which is lsited as a source. John Carter 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until such time as an English translation of the supporting articles is available. No objection to userfying per John Carter to await proper sources. EdJohnston 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... The only good online source I can find for this is the Ruotuväki article at http://www.mil.fi/ruotuvaki/?action=read_page&pid=96&aid=1556 (Ruotuväki is the official newspaper of the Finnish Defence Forces). That article seems to pretty much support the content of Valtio. Apparently the topic has also been covered on Radio Helsinki (Mr. Peltonen's employer) and "Nyt", the weekly supplement of Helsingin Sanomat (which owns Radio Helsinki)... --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe the page from the Finnish Defense Forces is in fact the source cited for the old article. Personally, regardless of whether the nation itself is thought of as a joke or not, I have to think that the military operation which seems to be described on that page to "retake" Valtio qualifies it as notable enough to have a separate article. Still waiting for some help with the translation, though. I do note however that the above editor is from Finland, and states in his comment that the content of the cited source seems to support the content of the now-deleted article.John Carter 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedied as a hoax, but hoaxes can not be speedied. WP:CSD is unambiguously clear about this. the admin who deleted it should reread deletion policy.I doubt it will stand, but it has to go to afd. So should those who support the deletion. DGG (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list - CSD A7 doesn't apply to fantasy countries (Micronations) and none of the other speedy deletes apply. WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria is clear that hoaxes are not subject to speedy delete. Problem hoaxes might tip the speedy delete consensus scale, but a fantasy country is not a hoax and this was not a problem article. Fantasy countries can meet WP:N, and the article did cite to Mäkäräisten Valtio. This fantasy country has only been around a year, but is headed by a known comedian who seems good a generating publicity. AfD might be a better place to discuss the article, particularly since the references probably are in Swedish or Finish. Comment Hufvudstadsbladet is the highest-circulation Swedish-language newspaper in Finland. Their September 29, 2007 article entitled "Really bad music" (RIKTIGT DÅLIG MUSIK), has a few sentences on "Valtio" and Ari Paska Peltonen, who the article says is a radio DJ, journalist , author, and comedian. This article mentions Ari "Paska" Peltonen. In the deleted article, there was Mäkäräisten Valtio, a posting on the Finnish Defense Forces website. Citing that source, the deleted article says "19th of June, 2007 the Finnish Defence Forces newspaper Ruotuväki send a group of soldiers to take back the territory claimed back by Valtio." However, I couldn't confirm via the Finnish to English translator. -- Jreferee t/c 02:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Troll (Warcraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedy deletion was inappropriate. It would have been appropriate to open an AFD for this instead of speedy. If the content was to be merged into a more appropriate article, that can't be done now, as the content is gone. Yngvarr 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and if necessary list at AfD. An article of this length and having lasted so long ought to have been taken to AfD even if it met speedy deletion criteria, and I do not think this one does: the deleting admin argued correctly that it was too much 'in universe' but this is not a speedy deletion criteria. A7 does not cover fictional characters. Sam Blacketer 11:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn consensus has never supported applying A7 to fiction, and even if it did, being a part of a notable work would be a claim of importance. --W.marsh 14:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn major creature/race from an extremely major series of games. Definitely not a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Molly_DBO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Molly_DBO (www.mollypages.org/dbo) is a open-source, free, java O/R mapping framework. The deletion reason for Molly_DBO was (as far as I can tell) lack of relevance to wikipedia. This does not make sense to me.

Note, similar O/R frameworks (such as Hibernate) have wiki pages, so it CANNOT be said that information about programming and java frameworks are not consistent with wikipedia. Molly_DBO has no commercial or spam or adult content at all, it was just a informational blurb on a non-commercial O/R framework, please undelete. Javadesigner2 03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from the closer. The article made no attempt to assert any notability. Nothing about why this product does anything more then exist. The primary reason for objecting to the deletion appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Being an 'informational blurb' is not in and of itself a reason for an article to exist. Vegaswikian 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but it was deleted as Spam, and that does not seem to apply, as the article was a plain straightforward description. "Molly DBO [website http://www.mollypages.org/dbo] is an Object Relational mapping tool for Java. It takes a thin-layer over JDBC approach and handles all database transactions in the database itself. Each table in the database is instantiated as a corresponding Java object." Notability is another matter, and it should go straight to afd. DGG (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was deleted as a7 and g11. That a7 was for 'No claim of notability'. Vegaswikian 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But computer programs are not among the classes of things that can be deleted via A7: real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content . Still no valid speedy criterion. DGG (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Booting (chat room slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

4 keep to 5 delete seems like no consensus, not delete Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Police 911 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted in August 2007 for being unreferenced, POV, and incoherent. I'm not sure what the original article said, but the game does exist; GameFAQs has an entry on it, and I've played it myself (I posted a review on that site; oops, WP:COI! As for the other two reasons – not a good reason for deletion, it can always be cleaned up, and here, I'm willing to clean it up. The only reason why I ask now is because I was just reviewing Police 911 and found it awkward that both the original and the sequel were in one article. hbdragon88 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 October 2007

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

This is one of the most important chess organizers in the world. He is president of the Turkish Chess Federation which has 125,000 members. There are many current news articles about this person. No valid reason was ever given for this speedy deletion. The Admen who did this has since left Wikipedia.

He has a biography on the Turkish language version of Wikipedia. http://tr.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Ali_Nihat_Yazici

  • Endorse deletion. Copyright violations are a "valid reason" and non-negotiable. If you can present reliable sources attesting to his notability (I'm not sure that even national-level "chess organizers" are inherently notable) a recreated article may be possible. It's also beside the point whether the deleting admin remains active unless there was a pattern of abusive deletions. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Since the user is not necessarily asking for a restore (just a removal from the cascading page), is this the correct place to make such a request or should be request be made as a {{editprotected}} over on Wikipedia talk:Protected titles/March 2007? Does anybody know? This "cascading" feature is new and it is not clear if a different procedure should be used.--Leaveextra 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as copyvio, but unsalt to allow the creation of a new article. AecisBrievenbus 13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt only if someone has an article written first. This copyrighted bio was added four times over a period of several months. If the title is unprotected without an article to go in its place, the copyvio will most likely return. Chick Bowen 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubed! I am going to be bold and create a stub article for this. I cant comment weather or not the page was a copyvio, but I will choose the safest avenue, a rewrite. -- Cat chi? 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ali Nihat Yazici should redirect to Ali Nihat Yazıcı. -- Cat chi? 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Now, what can be done about the other three biographies that were simultaneously "salted the earth" by User:JzG, who has since left Wikipedia? These are Julio César Ingolotti, Geoffrey Borg (AfD) and Panupand Vijjuprabha (AfD -> copyviol speedy). These were all "salted the earth" because, he said, that there was a history of copyright violations by me. However, this was not true. I was the original author of the original articles about these four persons. At that time I was a member of the Executive Board of Directors of the United States Chess Federation and these four individuals here the official nominees of the USCF for election to the Executive Board of FIDE, the World Chess Federation. These four were also the presidents of the chess federations of their respective countries, Turkey, Paraguay, Malta, and Thailand, thus easily making them sufficiently notable by the standards of Wikipedia. The idea that I would copy the work of others is nonsense as everybody knows that I write my own stuff. I do not personally know any of these four men, but since we nominated them to the top positions of FIDE, it was among my duties to write biographies of these men and posting these biographies to various places around the Internet. Thus, when User:JzG claimed that I was violating a copyright, he was accusing me of copying my own work. In short, the earth should be "unsalted" with respect to these four persons. Sam Sloan 11:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can only work on a case by case basis. If the individuals are notable stubs for them can be created. I know Turkish so I could help with this article, but for others I would not know where to start. -- Cat chi? 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chitauri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please see my plea on the talk page. Reason I saw were insignificance and that they were a rip-off of the Skrull. The former is a matter of context and the latter is just flat wrong. As far as insignificance being a reason, we have a page that lists 400 fictional races from Star Trek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabbycat (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 October 2007

  • Endorse. AfD was open for 18 days and not a single keep argument was made. I'm confused...this is perhaps the most obvious, properly done AfD I've seen...and I don't see any arguments about it Star Trek in there... Smashville 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 days. Forgive me if I don't constantly troll over the articles I think are interesting, gloring over every word. It used to be there. I wondered something about the lizards one day, tried to see if "info-central" could answer my question, and found it gone. The best argument was something about the funny pages. So because I didn't get to voice my opinion in that finite time frame, the matter is shut? Your "no arguments were made in 18 days" reasoning doesn't seem like an actual argument for deletion, which should be based on the article's content, I would think. Stabbycat 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguments presented were that the Chitauri themselves were not notable. That's why the article was deleted. Note that DRV is for discussing procedural problems with an AfD, not a chance to re-visit the debate. So, yes, effectively "the matter is shut." If you feel the Chitauri satisfy the Notability guideline, and can provide sources to back that up, you can re-create the article. -- Kesh 22:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the policy is to keep an AfD open for 5 days...yes, the fact that it was open for 18 days is significant. There was absolutely nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. There were 18 days to make a valid keep argument...you're not supposed to vote count, but when an AfD is open for 18 days, receives all deletes, then that's about as procedurally correct as it can be. Smashville 17:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 18 days? Closer to 16 days by my reckoning, but surely more than 5 and many don't even last that long (some of us remember the 3-hour close that was upheld here too). Outcome of debate seems pretty clear. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kazuki and EDI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It's about a e-book but someone deleted it for no reason.

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

:Koshare Indian Dancers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

respectfully, please undelete-saw this PROD too late, which said simply "closing prod", the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting maintains a list of pending deletions and merges, and we are very good at establishing notability and repairing articles to useful Wikistatus. I am certain that had any one of us seen this PROD, we have the resources to save this article, or to merge useful content either into a regionalized Scouting article or into a newly-found Scouting biography, and we would like the chance to save it. Thank you for your time Chris 05:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have the text now, thanks! :) Incorporating the stub elsewhere. Chris 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was AfD'd and then speedy deleted on the grounds that the content was the same as an article that had been deleted after an earlier AfD. The speedy deletion was premature and inappropriate. I was the one who recreated the article. It could not possibly have been the same content as the previous article because I didn't have access to the previous article. I recall writing notes on the talk page regarding my reasons for recreating the article. I can no longer see the talk page, but I recall that my reason was that this theological seminary is a key part of a important and somewhat controversial subgroup of the Independent Baptist denomination. The red links to the deleted article are hints to its notability. I have zero affiliation with this outfit (I am merely curious). --Orlady 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My point is that the content I contributed was not the same, since it was my original contribution. If the deleted page was the same as the one deleted previously, perhaps someone else had replaced my version with a duplicate of the original.--Orlady 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point of CSD#G4. No one's claiming it's a deliberate recreation; just that since the content is quite similar and added no information beyond the previous incarnation, the old AfD still applies. Endorse deletion. Chick Bowen 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot compare the articles because I cannot see them, but to the best of my recollection, the article I wrote included information that probably had not been in the previous version. For just one example, the version I found in Google's cache, which I think is the one I contributed, includes the words "The institution enrolls men for graduate programs in preaching and pastoral theology, leading to the Master of Divinity (M.Div) and Master of Theology (Th.M.) degrees. In keeping with the belief that that 'God ordained men to provide the spiritual leadership of the church in the preaching/pastoral function,' the seminary does not award degrees to women, but does enroll women interested in taking courses for personal enrichment or vocational development." From what I can infer about the deleted article, it did not discuss this peculiar aspect of the school. As for notability, I lack the expertise to document the situation in an article, but DBTS seems to be a very intellectual seminary that is a principal center/source for writing and teaching of fundamentalist Christians (i.e., believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible) who oppose the King-James-Only Movement. It is claimed as a an alma mater by many preachers, it publishes a journal, and it conducts seminars on subjects such as creationism. --Orlady 17:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I can see both articles, and they are considerably different--the new one is certainly superior to the AFD'd version and has a good chance of passing AfD. Orlady, I have emailed you a copy of both deleted versions. 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Thanks! After seeing those two articles, I'm guessing that the admin who made the deletion was accidentally looking at the old article in two different tabs, instead of comparing the old one and the new one. (I've been known to make that sort of mistake myself...) I have expanded the newer version of the article, including more specific reference callouts, at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Orlady/Stuff_I%27m_working_on#DBTS . How do people feel about restoring that version? --Orlady 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It relies awfully heavily on the organization's website. Are there more reliable sources that could be used? Chick Bowen 16:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, heavy reliance on the institution's website is a problem with many articles about educational institutions. Compare the following articles (selected from my watchlist): College of Idaho (college website is the only cited source), Chestnut Hill College (college websites are the sole cited sources), St. Olaf College (college websites are the sole cited sources), Free Will Baptist Bible College (sources not identified; college website is apparently the only source), Austin Peay State University (only sources appear to be college-related websites), and Augustana College (Illinois) (only one of the cited sources is not a college-related website). Citations to independent reliable sources appear primarily in connection with problems or controversies related to the schools. For example, see Chapman University (which appears to be primarily based on the institution's website, but has several citations to news about current controversies) and East Tennessee State University (which is rather carefully annotated, but still depends almost completely on institutional websites for topics other than sports controversies). I don't think anyone would argue that incompletely sourced articles about educational institutions must be deleted; rather, additional sources should be sought for all of these articles. --Orlady 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of DBTS, there are hundreds of ghits, including ministers' bios, blogs (some of which may be sermon archives), and lists of institutions. Some of these are fairly informative regarding the institution, but few of them are reliable sources for citable encyclopedic info about it. --Orlady 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples of somewhat informative, but non-RS and/or non-useful, ghits: http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=dbts (includes a short profile) - http://www.libdex.com/data/33/16886.html (directory listing) - http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/ (faculty member's website) - http://www.parsippanybaptist.org/ministers.html (minister bio) - http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/free-sunday-school-lessons-authors.html (author bios) - http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=20315 (online forum posting recommending DBTS) - http://allenmickle.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/william-r-rice-lectures-at-detroit-baptist-theological-seminary/ (blog posting about DBTS lecture series) - http://www.ntresources.com/theology.html (refers to articles by DBTS faculty) - http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/my-story/ (long personal article about theological topics, including DBTS' views) - http://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/a-day-at-dbts/ (blog post about the school) --Orlady 04:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion basically the same article as deleted. The G4'ed version did nothing to overcome the issues that led to deletion in the first place: no sources, no accreditation, no notability. This should be re-created in user space to let the community see whether such an article can be constructed that satisfies WP:N with WP:RS. The community has said this subject lacks notability - a draft that does not address this fundamental problem is not substantially different than the deleted article on this critical score. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. You ask for the article to be recreated in user space. I thought I already did that. Have you looked at the version on my user page? Do you want it moved somewhere else? --Orlady 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying the version in your userspace fails to address the concerns from the first AFD, mainly lack of reliable sources, third party sources. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he said that the G4'd (i.e., speedy-deleted) version failed to satisfy those concerns. The version in my user space is expanded from the G4'd version. Furthermore, I still contend that the G4'd version was vastly improved from the version that was originally AFD'd. The article that was discussed in the original AFD consisted mostly of the DBTS mission statement, a list of the administration, and a "to the glory of God"-style history of the place. That's not what I have written. --Orlady 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I re-read his comment and it is slightly confusing. But more importantly, your version lacks any third party sources. Simply because your is better than the AFDed or G4ed ones, doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I suggest you look at WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:RS. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my less than perfect grammar or ambiguous wording. I was addressing the deleted versions. In any event, what is currently in your user space suffers the same problems as the afd'ed version. No RSes to show N. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, subsequent to the above comment, I added some additional referenced content to the article. Five of the 16 listed references (including 2 added since the above comment) are now totally independent of DBTS, including a German publisher that has republished its journal on CD-ROM and two websites that attack DBTS for its role in leading fundamentalist Christian believers astray. --Orlady 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this may or may not be the case, but it is no reason for speedy, and the given reason , G4 does not apply. If the content is different from the deleted article, and it has any show of notability, it needs a full discussion at afd, not here. DGG (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The text is "substantially identical": although the new writer's claim of independent composition is obviously true, the text conveys the same information, makes the same claims of notability, and offers no new sources (and no reliable sources, either.) G4 applies. Xoloz 12:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 Deletion this clearly was substantially the same as the deleted version. Possibly relist the userspace version. This makes different claims of importance/significance, in my eyes the most significant of which is the claim that it has had a significant role in moving American Fundamentalism away from the King-James-Only Movement. I am not certain if the sourcing for this is reliable, or truly amounts to notability for this college. The claims seem stronger for the church which founded/runs the college. I believe that the church is probably notable and that the best solution is to write an article on the church with a section on the college therein and a redirect at the college's name. GRBerry 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quantum consciousness and ion channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Quantum consciousness and ion channels {{{reason}}} Quantum Consciousness and Ion Channels. 9 October 2007: False claims of original research despite academic reference for material. Persephone19 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endose deletion. Afd was here and looks pretty decisive to me. No reason given to overturn consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified the WikiProject; hopefully editors there can offer more conclusive commentary. — xDanielx T/C 19:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Examining the deleted article in the light of Pete.Hurd's extraordinarily careful extended comment at the AfD, it seems clear that it was decided correctly. The combination of the two topics was an example of OR synthesis. . DGG (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn while this does have the flavour of WP:OR by WP:SYN and, IMHO, is pseudoscience, it also passes the bar set by WP:FRINGE (which is a pretty low bar, but there you have it) since a couple of the papers cited as references did directly discuss the topic presented in the article (e.g. Bernroider,G.(2003)- Quantum neurodynamics and the relationship to conscious expereince - Neuroquantology,2:pp.163-8). These references were buttressed by many other "fluff" references which would certainly have amounted to OR by synthesis were it not for the couple that were on point. In the AfD I suggested mergeing (along with Quantum brain dynamics) into Quantum mind. These are all (IMHO whackjob) fringe theories, with documentable attention, debate, and cross-over into bonafide mainstream scientific peer reviewed journals. The rationale for merging into one article is the Quantum brain dynamics and Quantum consciousness and ion channels article authors have each been sticking to their own articles, which robs wikipedia of an actual comprehensive treatment of the idea as a whole. Some encyclopedic value would be gained by "forcing" the authors of these pieces to craft one coherent comparison and contrast article. Quantum mind is the obvious place to do this. As User:Persephone19 said in the original AfD, "... the Quantum Mind discussion page does not suggest a great deal of consensus." to which my response is "excellent, lets lock them together in a room and either some learned debate emerges from their interaction (preferred outcome), or we delete them all!" Pete.Hurd 01:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I agree with those above that the AfD discussion seems reasonable. I'd also note that this isn't even notable (neuroquantology counts as fringe in my book). --Dpryan 05:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was properly conducted and showed a consensus to delete; no good reason to overturn this has been presented. Sam Blacketer 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps Pete's view can be accommodated by simply adding the small amount of specific material to "quantum mind". The article does not have to be undeleted for that--I can supply a copy by email. DGG (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good idea, in fact, since I'm really arguing for a merge, there doesn't need to be an undeletion, just a very strong encouragement that User:Persephone19 work on Quantum mind (preferably along with the authors of Quantum brain dynamics) to make a comprehensive merged article. Pete.Hurd 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion reasonable arguments at afd, reasonable close. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

12 October 2007

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

This article on an AVN Award winning porn director was deleted for being "very short with no context", however, I feel the article qualifies as a stub. Epbr123 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not my field but seems pretty obvious.PORNBIO was just rejected as a standard, but in general this does not appear a valid speedy. for A1 or A7. Content was Michael Zen is a pornographic film director.[1] *1996 AVN Award – Best Director (Film) – Blue Movie[2]. DGG (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the deleting admin and do not wish to formally vote. The reason for deletion under CSD A1 is that all the information in the article was already available in the table of winners in AVN Award: the name, the fact that he directed pornographic films, the fact that he won an AVN Award in 1996, and the name of the film that won the award. If the article had added any more detail then it would not be a valid A1 but with just that information, the article is superfluous to the table. Sam Blacketer 08:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would Epbr123 be willing to expand the article? That would seem to solve the A1 problem. Chick Bowen 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed it would; if you have information to add I will happily recreate it immediately. Sam Blacketer 17:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could add more info, but from your comments it seems the problem with the article was a lack of content, rather than a lack of context. Are you sure there was a valid reason for speedying? I wouldn't want to see any more similar articles deleted. Epbr123 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't comment on other articles because they have to be assessed individually. The context comes with the content: I'm sure he did not spring from the womb an adult film director, so how did he get into the field? Is there anything particularly innovative about his direction techniques? Et cetera; as Rawlston says, it isn't enough to tell us what a man did, you've got to tell us who he was. Sam Blacketer 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are the kinds of questions I'd expect in an FA review rather than a speedy delete review :) I admit that out of all the stubs on porn stars I've made, this is one of the few that didn't have any personal info. If you would like to undelete the article, I will add a little bit more. Epbr123 09:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been a great number of these one-sentence stubs ("So-and-so won an award") put up by this editor lately. (A truly HUGE number, if you count his stubs on English towns.) In conjunction with the same editor's mass-tagging for deletion of more substantial articles, his actions seem highly questionable. Hence, partly, the RfC which has been brought against him. If this editor would take time to work on these articles first, rather than putting up stubs in the belief that they are safe from deletion on the award-technicality, his contributions would appear to be more valuable. Dekkappai 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the award for this article seems much more substantial than the more specialized awards justifying many of the other stubs, such as "2005 XRCO UNSUNG SIREN". subject to correction, I wouldn't necessarily consider that last one a plausible claim to notability. As for town stubs, they've always been considered a valuable addition to WP, regardless of motive for writing them. DGG (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the subject is worthy of an article since he won an award. But this stub accomplishes nothing more than a red link at the list of awards. I would even suggest that "2005 XRCO UNSUNG SIREN" provides more new information than this stub did. All I'm suggesting is that the editor do some work on a stub before starting literally thousands of them for others to improve, especially after he's stepped on so many people's toes by mass-AfDing in this same category. Dekkappai 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify my position, for the record: My opinion on the article conforms to what appears to be consensus so far. I.e., if Epbr123 puts forth a little effort and does some real work on the stub by providing some sourcing and some information-- then by all means, restore it. Dekkappai 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'lll certainly agree about that. DGG (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, article had no content. Admin deleted correctly. We are better off with a red link to encourage someone to write some actual content. Most one sentence substubs rightly get speedied. Neil ☎ 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think editors are more likely to add content to an article that already exists; especially inexperienced ones who would be unsure how to create an article and wouldn't start off by establishing notability (leading to a speedy delete). An article's potential is more important than its current state. PS. the article did have content; it's the duplication of the content, and the context that's being disputed. Epbr123 10:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Enquiring Minds – Continued deletion as CSD A1/A3 endorsed. A rewrite is welcome, but it will need to be more than just an infobox and track listing, which is what was available here. "Articles" with no sentences whatsoever cannot establish context, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. – Xoloz 12:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Enquiring Minds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable album(s) by notable artist. Also including Both Worlds *69 and Enquiring Minds Vol. 2: The Soap Opera. Deleting admin has not responded to request for restoration. At very worst information should've been merged into Gangsta Boo main article. Exxolon 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

expired PROD, so it can be re-created. DGG (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I was about to overturn these PRODs when I noticed the articles each consisted only of an infobox and a track listing. If undeleted they should immediately be speedied as A1 (no context) or A3 (no content). It should be noted that Gangsta Boo seems to have notability concerns itself. --Coredesat 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to the creation of an actual article (rather than a directory entry) on these topics. Eluchil404 05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin. As contested prods, I don't have a problem with the recreation of these articles. However, like Coredesat said, on recreation they can and probably should be speedied, making the process rather pointless. Do you have plans and means to expand these articles, using some reliable third party sources, so that notability is established? If so, then there is no problem when you recreate them. Otherwise, keep deleted. Fram 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn why is this being debated, PRODs can be challenged and at worse these articles can be changed into redirects. Catchpole 11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is being debated because another admin has indicated that if overturned, they should be speedied immediately. What's the point of having an undelete / redelete just for the sake of process? Anyway, creating these articles as a redirect to the artist page is a good solution as well, of course. Fram 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tealeaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

CSD SPAM Davidewart 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) No valid reason was given for this deletion. The content listing was valid, continually edited and even contained competitive links for complete fairness.[reply]

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

I do not think there was any sort of concensus obtained here. The comment by the closer is misleading - not only was there no super-majority, there was not even a simple majority (6-6 by my count). There are serious, good faith, comments on both sides, and active efforts to improve the article during the AfD. The closer felt the delete arguments were stronger, which is certainly a plausible position, but it's far from concensus. LouScheffer 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly endorse deletion - While simple vote-counting may show a slim consensus (or none at all, in one case), a comparison of the rationales behind the votes is clear. The closing admin properly weighed the content of the positions and noted that the reasoning behind the keep votes was relatively weak compared with the policies and guidelines mandating deletion. It takes more than one hand to count all the policies and guidelines that are applicable in deleting this listcruft. The arguments as to why we should ignore WP:N, WP:OR, WP:FICTION, and WP:V are unconvincing. /Blaxthos 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure based on strength of the arguments. Many of the keep arguments amounted to little more than "It's useful", "It's harmless" or "Well organized". Well intentioned comments, but they do not address the concerns of the nominator. The closure here was perfectly reasonable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 Comments: First, I though a deletion review was for procedure (was a consensus obtained?) as opposed to content. Second, while there are some bad arguments for keep, there are some very superficial ones for delete, as well. Presumably consensus, if any, should be attained by comparing the good arguments on each side. Throwing out the poor comments, we have Blaxthos, Eric119, sgeureka, Verrai., and the closer Stifle for deletion, and DGG, LouScheffer, Mandsford, Marhawkman, and Emperor for improvement. This does not seem to indicate any concensus. LouScheffer 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I was unaware that we had selected you (or anyone) to determine who's comments count and who's do not. Did you bother letting the other editors know that their opinions should not be considered? We elevate administrators based on trust, and generally trust them to properly evaluate and close deletions (as was done here). I find it absolutely abhorrent that you have taken it upon yourself to decide whice comments are valid. /Blaxthos 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion. AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These are primarily the same people who participated in the AfD. Could people not associated with the AfD read it, and see if they think any concensus was reached? LouScheffer 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't see how the closer could have close it any other way. The Keep reasoning was mere fluff, not based in policy, and never overcame the delete reasonings. Comment - How is transparent aluminium (the fictional application of Aluminium) related to chocolate -- Harry Potter's fictional cure for the Dementors depression? There is not one reliable source that discusses the topic of fictional applications of real materials. Compiling one example after another created an indiscriminate collection of information. The closer noted that in the close. -- Jreferee t/c 21:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, article was OR synthesized rubbish, and was rightly deleted. Neil ☎ 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure For the record, I didn't participate in the AFD. Most of the keep votes were of the Its Useful/I Like It Style, whereas the delete ones adressed issues such as OR, Synthesis, Verifiability, etc. The Admin interpreted the debate correctly. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore It is admitted that there was no consensus to delete; the admin chose the arguments he preferred. The arguments for keep were based in policy The overall subject was admitted to be notable and the material was not OR but in fact sourceable , and sourcing had begun for the individual items to demonstrate it. But this was my argument there, so of course I think it a valid one. A reasonable try at constructing a rather usual article. Perhaps the best solution is to permit recreation in part but with each item fully sourced. DGG (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion based on strength of argument. The article was unsalvageable OR. --Coredesat 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus never has and never will be a vote count. Strength of argument is more important. To quote DGG (most likely out of context, but it works nonetheless), "Fifty people giving foolish reasons do not make consensus." --Kbdank71 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the delete arguments were clearly more based in Wikipedia policy than the keep arguments. --Stormie 05:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, not because I think this was the only possible closure, but because I believe this was within the range of reasonable administrative discretion. It is likely I'd have come up with a different closure of no consensus, but on further consideration this is the right answer. WP:NOR problems aren't overcome when every fact in an article list is sourced; WP:SYN points out that we sometimes need more, as when facts are arranged so as to make a point. The article restricted itself to cases where "the fictional usage is related to the real usage, and this connection is the intended topic of this article". With that clause present, the article violated WP:NOR by being a synthesis to make a point, without it the list would be indiscriminate. The WP:NOR argument was made relatively late in the discussion (I think by Trident13 first) and the clause was introduced because of that argument, but I don't see a viable policy compliant path for this article until someone finds reliable secondary sources on the general phenomenon. GRBerry 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This redirect was deleted without a valid reason. It may be a user unfamiliar with the term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.138.31.76 (talk • contribs)

  • Overturn no reason given for deletion... obviously overturn until that changes. But since this was not protected against recreation, DRV wasn't really needed, technically. --W.marsh 18:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of German Americans – Deletion overturned. GRBerry and DHowell make excellent points. If the parent article German-Americans is notable, it is not immediately clear why a list of such would not be encyclopedically useful as a supplement to that notable article. Closer did not explain why such a list was inappropriate, but assumed it was so, and seeing no evidence to the contrary, imposed his assumption. This (at least according to consensus below) shifted the burden of proof in the wrong direction. If the parent article is notable, assume a sourced list supplementing that article is encyclopedic, absent evidence to contrary. Relisting at editorial option. – Xoloz 12:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of German Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Strong Overturn Wow. Looking back at this it's truly amazing. I'd really love to know how the majority of all of the other ethnic American groups survived the last mass deletion effort, but, by and large, the largest contributor was deleted. This is all very unbalanced, socially ignorant and absurd. The "concensus" verdict didn't make much sense, especially with extremely similar pages in existence. -- Alexander Lau 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even close to a cross-categorization. That's the definition of an ethnic group. Cross-categorization would be ethnic group by occupation, for example -- two entirely different buckets. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly and finally may have moved us forward on this issue. We let these lists of <x> Americans get way out of hand. See Lists of Ethnic Americans. AfD is the place to address them. -- Jreferee t/c 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very page you linked to makes it pretty clear that AfD is not the place to address them, as the results have been haphazard and arbitrary: there is really nothing which distinguishes this particular list, or any of the others which have been deleted, from the many other "List of <x> Americans" which have survived AfD. Also, the that discussion shows an emerging consensus that ethnic group lists should not all be deleted; if anything there were valid arguments that lists based on non-notable ethnic categorizations should be deleted, but I don't believe anyone is arguing that German American is a non-notable ethnic group. DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn reading the close, the closer admitted the cogency of each set of arguments, agreed they were each based in policy, and chose which set he preferred. This is not the role of an admin; the role is to judge the consensus of the reasonable policy based arguments, not weigh different considerations of policy against each other. The community does that. Over-categorization was just one of t he issues discussed--it is not necessarily obvious why this a very broad intersection like this is wrong. Perhaps we need a policy discussion on this, perhaps at not, to establish whether this type of list is permitted , rather than trying to do it by trying to delete them one at a time. DGG (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Admins are perfectly free to weigh in with opinions, but opinions go to the bottom of the discussion, not to the top. Consensus for deletion was not given. ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As per above, perhaps actually reading the closing statement would help. Most of the opinions about keeping were based on German-American being a notable ethnic group. But the AFD wasn't on German-American, it was on List of German-Americans. Neil ☎ 12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it. It's the typical "I get to decide which argument is valid" admin powergrab that's become so prevalent around here. That you don't understand the rules on spinout lists is just the icing on the cake. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a "powergrab" and I understand the "rules" on spinout lists, thanks. The role of the closing admin is to assess the arguments - if not, we'd have a bot closing AFDs. Yeesh, it's not a difficult concept. Neil ☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight overturn - reasonable arguments on both sides. The debate essentially comes down to the significance of a particular cross section in relation to each list member, and as this is really just an issue of different standards for different editors, I think it should be left to (lack of) consensus. — xDanielx T/C 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I think this was an honest but mistaken close. There are bad lists but this one was reasonably well annotated and cited. The closer relied on the "principal argument" that the list documents a loose association, yet it is one that is considered important by society. I'm skeptical of the relevance myself, but we derive our work from secondary sources; if a secondary source can be found that documents a person's ethnicity in this manner, that's sufficient for me. Somebody else made the judgement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly Neil's argument above argument is among the plausible ones, but it should have been made in the discussion. If there's a approximately balanced discussion and an admin has an opinion on it, he should add his views to the others, and then someone else can evaluate. I have a definite opinion on it too, but I argued it in the discussion; I would not have closed, and used my own opinion as the reason as if it had more weight than anybody else's. DGG (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What argument? You mean where I explained my close? How would that have been an argument to make in the discussion? Did you read the closing statement? Again, yeesh. Neil ☎ 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - Thoroughly sourced and encyclopedic article about the second largest ethnic group in the United States. Previous delete decision was made against consensus, previous DR was similarly closed "delete" against consensus, and current consensus is to keep and improve such articles, if the ethnic group is notable. In this case, the ethnic group is certainly notable. Badagnani 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, for crying out loud. Nobody has, at any point, suggested the ethnic group was not notable. We have a great article about the ethnic group, at German-Americans. The delete decision was not against consensus, because over half the "keep"s made the exact same (deliberate?) error you, Dhartung, DGG and Trialsanderrors did above - they were, and you are, defending the existence of the German-American article, which was not, never has been, and probably never would be deleted. This is the list. Not article, list. List, not article. Article does not equal list. List does not equal article. List != article. They are not the same thing. You are saying that the ethnic group is notable. Nobody has at any point suggested it is not. In the AFD, most of the "keep"s were based on the ethnic group being notable, and did not address the list of part. Is it so difficult to parse? I really do hope the closing admin here realises that most of the overturns here are (probably deliberately) ignoring the closing statement, ignoring what article this DRV is about, and obfuscating the true discussion in order to get their nice yet wholly unencyclopaedic list back. Neil ☎ 09:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I chose my words carefully, so please watch your tone when you imply that another editor doesn't know what he is talking about. My comment was based on evidence, namely: 1) the content of the article before its deletion (against consensus) and 2) the behavior of the deleting admins. It's interesting that you yourself were the admin who upheld the deletion, very much against consensus. As regards this article and the similarly deleted list of Norwegian Americans (and several others), now that these impeccably sourced and annotated articles are gone, since there was no effort to merge the content into the articles you mention, the information about who exactly is of these heritages is absolutely gone. This is a severe problem for our users who come here looking for this information, and a very poorly considered decision. It is not unreasonable to maintain a well-sourced and annotated list of Norwegian Americans (or any other ethnic group notable enough to merit its own article), as many of our users will require such data for their research. Badagnani 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn: per consensus here. Leuko 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the problems with this article apply to the others, but results differ. The damned that you didn't (nominate them all together) problem. Is it German citizenship or ethnicity? Or a mish-mash, WP:SYNTHesis of the two? If ethnicity, no one has adequately explained how German you must be to be on the list, why that much German - and not more and not less - is not arbitrary (or WP:OR or WP:SYNTH), what reliable sources tell us that everyone on the list is at least that much German. These lists also fail for another inescapable reason: views of citizenship and ethnicity are of passing validity, fluid, and are fully capable of reinvention. Was Einstein a German-American? Shouldn't we consult the local German laws at the time of his emigration to the US to find this out (as we would with any other person) - then you might be surprised to learn that he wasn't German ethnically or by citizenship under those laws. Is the Queen of England German? (I realize she's not American, so wouldn't be on this list in any event, but inquiring minds want to know where someone of her pedigree ought to fall). What about Jackson Browne? He was born there, to a US serviceman and his American wife. But accident of birth doesn't confer rights in most countries - Germany included - so by German law, he's not German. Again, a morrass. And as I've said why should WP be in the business of classifying people by our view of their ethnicity? Without any real-world implications this seems the height of folly and makes us look more like a racial site than an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's no morass. We must be reasonable in everything we do. In Jackson Browne's case, if he has no known German ancestry, and reliable sources do not state that he self-identifies as German American or that others have labeled him as German American, we would not include him in the article. However, as the article would be well sourced and annotated, if it were decided via consensus that he should be included (i.e. if there is a section of that list devoted to Americans who have been born in Germany, whether they are of German ancestry or not--something I personally don't necessarily support), all of what we're discussing about the qualifications for his inclusion would be discussed in the annotation following his name. Badagnani 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I think that it is uncontestable that ethnic Americans are notable groupings. It is also well established policy that it is acceptable to have both a list and a category for members of notable groups. As such, the policy arguments for keeping are quite valid, and were not given due weight by the closing admin. The proper closure of this discussion was "keep" by the strength of the arguments. The article clearly needed a cleanup; not all of the sourcing was reliable, and the inclusion criteria needs to be better defined - but it should not be our definition, it should be the definition of reliable secondary sources. The unreliably sourced material needs to go, and the people who are not themselves identified as a German american need to be cut. Most of the concerns of those opining delete can be addressed by appropriate sourcing. What we want is people who are notable as being a German American, not merely people who are notable and one obscure source, possibly not even a reliable one, has said that they have some German ancestry. I also note that closing admins are wrong to discount "It's useful" arguments in a deletion discussion - we exist to be an encyclopedia, and the "useful" articles are exactly the ones we should have - provided that the use is an encyclopedic use. Deleting useful articles, lists, and categories harms the encyclopedia, and we should always put the encyclopedia first in our considerations. GRBerry 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing admin dismisses the keep arguments by saying they justify the German-American article, but not the list. But if the notability of a topic does not justify a corresponding list, what does? He also dismissed the "it's useful" arguments, despite the fact that the very essay which suggests that "it's useful" by itself is a bad argument also says that usefulness can be the basis of a valid argument, and that simply saying "'it's useful' is not a valid argument" is not a valid argument in itself. On the other hand, the delete arguments, for the most part, did nothing more than assert that the list was "loosely associated", or complain about the lack of well-defined inclusion criteria. But there has never been any evidence of a consensus that WP:NOT#DIR was meant to prohibit lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups. Policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus supporting it, and not simply based on one's personal opinions about what policy means. And arguments that the inclusion criteria is not well defined ("How German does one have to be to be on the list?") are addressed by better defining the criteria, not by deletion. It is clear from both the AfD and the preceding DRV that there is no consensus to delete lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per deletion policy, this list should have been kept. DHowell 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and keep these and other such categories that were wrongfully deleted. Hmains 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

11 October 2007

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

This biography of a professional wrestler was deleted in an AfD debate in June. It was nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G4 today and I deleted it as a recreation. The creator, 72.74.216.208 (talk · contribs), has asserted that the new page is substantially different and that the subject of the article is notable. As what I know about professional wrestling would fit comfortably on the back of a postage stamp I have brought it here with no recommendation from me. Please note that if the result of deletion review is to overturn or to relist, the article will need to be removed from the Protected titles list. Sam Blacketer 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I should note, I am not the original author. I noticed the article this afternoon from the already existing templates requesting editors to establish the subjects notability, provide references and wikify the page. I did so, reformatting the page in line with other wrestling related articles I have previously created through Wikipedia:Afc. This included a substantial rewrite, although I admittedly assumed the external links I had provided would satisfy providing references until I had a chance to provide additional cited references. The article was speedily deleted by another editor shortly after these changes, apparently assuming that this article had been recreated from another version which had been previously deleted. I believe my rewrite at least invalidates the claim that the article is a repost of a former deleted article, the reason given for its deletion, however I can provide further specific references if needed. 72.74.216.208 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. It seems that the reasoning for the delete was a lack of notability. No matter how the article is rewritten, it won't make the person notable. Smashville 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you'll note the most recent entry in the deletion log, the reason used for deletion (Criteria G4: reposted after previous deletion.). Under this, the article's deletion was deleted as being suspected to have be a reposting of a previously deleted article not due to the subjects notability. I had already established the subjects notability prior to its request for speedy deletion. 72.74.201.144 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The article has already gone through AfD and the subject was determined to be non-notable. The wrong speedy-delete reason is not a reason to overturn. Smashville 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I'm unaware of the content of the article at the time of its prior AFD debate, the version I wrote did establish notability of the subject. I've outlined my reasons, many of these points being used in several wrestling related articles, of the terms the subject meets according to Wikipedia's notability policies. I realize the external links I proved may not have been enough as far as references go, I am however able to provide reliable references in accordance with WP:RS. 209.213.84.10 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for comment. It's not a G4, because the article isn't a recreation. However, I still don't see even an assertion of notability in the newest incarnation of the article, which makes it a valid A7. Could you elaborate on why the subject is notable? Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've responded to Mr. Blacketer on his talk page, the article passing the following according to WP:BIO:
  1. Chet Jablonski has competed, and won championship titles in, World Wrestling Entertainment's developmental territories the Heartland Wrestling Association and Ohio Valley Wrestling. He was, until very recently, the promotion's heavyweight champion. He has also made several PPV appearances in Ring of Honor and held the tag team title with Kasey James in IWA Puerto Rico, an major international promotion. (The person has received significant recognized awards or honors)
  2. He has faced several notable wrestlers in those same organizations including Tank & Chad Toland, Matt Stryker, Johnny the Bull, Nigel McGuinness and CM Punk. All of these are considered notable competitors, specicifally noted for the exact same achivements Jablonski has attained. (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field)
  3. Jablonski was listed four times in Pro Wrestling Illustrated's PWI 500, an annual listing of the top 500 professional wrestlers in North America. (The person has demonstrable wide name recognition)
  • Keep. Article is friggin' awesome. Bobsbasement 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus at the AfD was that the article failed WP:V, WP:A, and WP:BLP. The recreated article did not overcome these deficiencies but recreated copy that had substantially identical deficiencies as the deleted version. The changes in the recreated page did not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. CSD G4 applies. It would not make any sense to have a consensus delete and then to permit one editor to bypass that consensus by recreating a deleted article without significant new information. To preserve our consensus system and keep individual editors from overriding consensus, Wikipedia maintains DRV as the placeto review article recration requests for those articles deleted at XfD and speedy deleted. Making up new text from which to recreate an article might be new, but it is only significant if the reason for deletion have been overcome. The recreated article still fails WP:V and WP:A and has not overcome the AfD consensus. The article was properly speedy deleted under CSD G4. -- Jreferee t/c 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May I ask what exactly constituted as libelous or otherwise negative information in regards to my version ? I believe my rewrite was quite NPOV, although you are correct that the external links were not considered reliable references by themselves. I did not simply "make up new text" however, my additions were based on research from various sources which I can provide if given the oppertunity. If anyone would care to see my previous articles created through Wikipedia:Afc, I hope I might be given the benifit of the doubt. 209.213.84.10 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I have already explained, the links in question were not used as cited references. I added those specific links as part of a general formatting rewrite, however I did not use these websites as cited references nor have I ever argued these were reliable sources. I had intended to further work on the article later that evening, which included specific cited references however the article was deleted several hours after my initial edits. I should note my additions did add significantly new information, such as his early career as well as his championship title reigns and his PWI listings. Also, if you'll note the introduction, the deletion review was suggested by Mr. Blacketeer not myself. As the version I had previously not longer exists, I don't see how I can submit it to WP:DRV or Wikipedia:Afc. 209.213.84.10 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect sir, I was asked to explain the situation by Mr. Blacketer. I do not wish to debate or otherwise discuss the prior Afd debate. However, I can easily cite reliable sources for his title reigns and other achievements at either the Puroresu Dojo, Solie's Title Histories or of course Gary Will's Wrestling Title Histories. I am also able to cite appearances at notable wrestling events and against notable opponents by ProWrestlingHistory.com, 1wrestling.com as well as the Pro Wrestling Torch and Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer newsletter. These are sources I've used in many of my prior articles (George Wells (wrestler), Glenn Kulka, Dean Higuchi, Mark Rocco, etc.) and are used frequently as reliable sources in professional wrestling related articles throughout Wikipedia. 209.213.84.10 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation in user space and then we should decide Given the re-creation I think it appropriate that the community is not asked to buy a pig in a poke here. While reasonable minds may differ on whether there areWP:BLP issues, there are certainly WP:RS and WP:V and WP:A issues that should be solved in a userspace draft before we take it on faith that they will or have been solved. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SMART Recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted on June 2nd as part of a mass deletion of pages of organizations that provide services similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. The deleting admin (Coelacan) is no longer active, and so cannot respond to questions about it. The reason given for the deletion was wp:csd#a7. LifeRing Secular Recovery is a large, established organization that has hundreds of meetings each week. Since then, this specific page has had two attempts to create pages that violate the SMART Recovery copyright. It is important to recover the original SMART Recovery alcohol treatment page. Robert Rapplean 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted as part of a mass deletion of pages of organizations that provide services similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. The deleting admin (Coelacan) is no longer active, and so cannot respond to questions about it. The reason given for the deletion was wp:csd#a7. LifeRing Secular Recovery is a relatively large organization (>5000 members) that has around 100 chapters across the nation. Robert Rapplean 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted as part of a mass speedy deletion of pages of organizations that provide services similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. The deleting admin (Coelacan) is no longer active, and so cannot respond to questions about it. The reason given for the deletion was wp:csd#a7. *Request for comment. is a medium sized organization (>1,000 members) that has meetings across the nation on a continual basis. Robert Rapplean 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article was not a copyvio but it contained nothing but unsourced pov and original research and even bits with possible BLP concerns. I'd be willing to look at this if you could find some real world sources for the article. The answers mirror of the article is here for anyone who wants to view the deleted text. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be neutral, pro and con coverage of this organization [92], so it's certainly reasonable that we could have an article here. But Spartaz is right... what was deleted seemed like just rehashed versions of their official literature... not very encyclopedic. Maybe someone should just start from scratch? --W.marsh 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Moderation Management is too moderately sized. Bobsbasement 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The statement "founded in 1994 and now supports both face to face groups, listservs and chatrooms worldwide" is enough to overcome CSD A7 importance/significance. No other speedy delete criteria applies. The deleted article also referenced New York magazine and CNN. AfD rather than speedy delete seems the appropriate place for a consensus decision.-- Jreferee t/c 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The articles cited not only provides an assertion of notability, but in my opinion proves it. given this publicity ,the size of the organisation would appear it relevant. But certainly not a speedy. DGG (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I can find any assertion of notability in the text - and I can't see how the part quoted by Jreferee amounts to such an assertion. The significance of this program is still not asserted at this review. I do not believe all programs with 1000+ members are notable. If third party sources discussing the programm exist, I would have no objection to recreation but I don't think a case for the undeletion of the original has been made. WjBscribe 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted I believe it may be possible to write an article on this topic, but that the actual claim of notability for the group will be severely limited by the WP:BLP policy, due to the nature of the online confession that led to the group having any notability. It also appears that the concept is more notable than the group with the same name (as some press refers to that concept but not the group) and that the concept itself is of only limited notability (as that press described the concept as "obscure"). I disagree that the bit Jreferee quoted is an assertion of notability, and the entire article needs to be rewritten from the ground up in accordance with WP:INDY and WP:FORGET. I suppose, since I do think there is an assertion of notability in the article, that we could restore and AFD, but I'd rather just see a good encyclopedia article written solely from independent sources than waste time with AFDing the deleted version. GRBerry 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It's mildly amusing that some people think that "founded in 1994 and now supports both face to face groups, listservs and chatrooms worldwide" is an assertion of notability or importance or significance. It ain't - there are many organizations that were founded in 1994 (was that a good year for being founded?) that have face-to-face, listservs and chatrooms: whether they are parish organizations, dating services, X-rated picture swapping services, sewing circles, or what have you. NN. No assertion of N. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kanakuk Kamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as the result of an uncontested prod, with the reasoning that it failed to provide sufficient evidence of notability. I disagree - this was a deletion done in haste; a cursory glance at Kanakuk's homepage or a quick Google search would've answered that question. With over 15,000 students visiting a Kanakuk camp each year [93], combined with widespread recognition among the Protestant Christian community in the U.S. (do a quick Google of "kanakuk" and "youth ministry"), there's no question about this being more notable than the average youth camp which sometimes pops up here. Please don't be too trigger happy when going through prods. Overturn deletion (and please restore a redirect at Kanakuk). 66.90.145.25 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Samnaun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1|AfD#2)

No consensus was reached on either vote. Amplification - I have twice nominated an article for deletion as it consists of only one sentence, and twice it's been closed out by Punkmorten (talk · contribs · logs) without consensus: Samnaun AfD#1 and Samnaun AfD#2 As you can see, at neither time was any consensus reached. (Most likely, Punkmorten will mention my comment on the second nomination where I called him a "moron". Yes I said it, and yes I know that comment was wrong. There was no excuse for that comment and if a sanction is enforced against me as a result, I'll comply with it.) PunkMorten claims that consensus was already reached via WP:AFDP and that a consensus on this article is not needed. WP:AFDP is a guideline and not a policy. The official policy WP:Notability states that notability must be shown in the article. This article did not show it. The votes themselves did not show consensus of any kind. Without any kind of consensus, Punkmorten then removed the AfD tag and proceeded to enlarge the article. (After the second AFD was filed) In both cases the closing admin was Punkmorten. I am asking that this be looked into, and if I'm wrong, feel free to let me know in any way you see fit, including sanction for my admitted violation of WP:CIVIL However if I'm right, and no consensus was reached I would like to have this AFD reinstated and let whatever consensus be reached that needs to be reached. -- KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closure not supported Once again, WP:AFDP is an essay and therefore cannot be used to prove notability. WP:Notability, on the other hand is a guideline and therefore can be used to prove notability. This article did not show notability, stayed in a one line state from it's creation in March of 2006. Consensus was NOT reached on either vote, nor could it, except that it be based in the essay of AFDP. NO Consensus was reached and therefore both closures violate the steps shown in the deletion process. -- KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Consensus has demonstrated time and time again that all towns/villages are notable and the speedy closing was an attempt to save editors time. But it seems the nom took the closure personally and then created this bigger time-waster after having unleashed a personal attack that included name calling [94], a true violation of WP:CIVIL. At the time of this DRV creation, the nom claimed the article "consists of only one sentence" when in fact it had already been expanded beyond one sentence [95]. The nom is clearly confused and seemingly vindictive. --Oakshade 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There is really no debate, this is about as black and white consensus you will ever see. RFerreira 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I've seen scores of deletion debates of towns and municipalities, and the only one I can remember that resulted in deletion was because it was an outright hoax. Absent such a claim, the speedy closure was perfectly reasonable. —Cryptic 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse.Yes, WP:OUTCOMES is an essay...but...it's based on the outcomes of AfDs. It has been established time and again that any inhabited geographic location is notable. Nominating it a second time was a time waster, taking it to DRV...seriously, why? Smashville 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AfD#1 and relist. The close of AfD#1 was out of process. Even if articles on cities, towns and villages inherently include a reasonable assertion of importance/significance to overcome CSD A7 (which is not established policy), how can we possibly conclude in advance that every city, town, and village in the world has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? That does not make any sense, which is why the general notability guidelines list no such expectation for every city, town, and village in the world. And of course, closing an AfD after only a few hours and only one editor argues that the topic meets CSD A7 is going to piss off someone. Civil behavior and respecting each Wikipedia right to have an opinion always trumps content. AfD#1 should have been left open long enough for a consensus to develop, particularly since the nomination was clear on the deficiencies to be discusses. The posting of AfD#2 was out of process since it was too close to the close of AfD#1. AfD#1 should have been brought to WP:DRV instead of posting AfD#2. -- Jreferee t/c 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS has long concluded that towns are inherently notable just by their confirmed existence, even if they are not the the subject of significant coverage by secondary sources. Many towns in every country (including the US) have zero coverage. But they are confirmed in existence and population by various sources like government records, reliable maps like google maps or Times Atlas. WP:NOTABILITY states very clearly at the top "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Consensus has repeatedly found population centers as one of those common sense exceptions. --Oakshade 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Regardless of whether or not it was improper to close the AfD so speedily, it is patently obvious that (given prevailing attitudes towards notability of towns & villages, and given that the article is now referenced), any relisting would a complete waste of everyone's time. I have no idea what User:KoshVorlon is trying to achieve here. --Stormie 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure to do otherwise is an exercise in bureaucracy. And WP is WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Cities, towns, municipalities are inherently notable. End of discussion. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Belldandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The case was closed as "irrelevant", it should have been either allowed to continue on or closed as keep as per the vast majority of comments. AFD's aren't just about the standpoint of the nominator on a specific article. There was a reasonable concern over notability and I merely taken it to AFD contradicting my own views. -- Cat chi? 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Given that the wording of the closure doesn't change the result, a keep. I merely seeked clarification with this but as pointed out below it seems unnecessary. -- Cat chi? 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse close — very-pointy nomination. --Jack Merridew 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it that I see your post here JUST 2 minutes after mine? -- Cat chi? 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Because I'm sick of your disruption. --Jack Merridew 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly am I disrupting? -- Cat chi? 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse, speedy close and suggest block of nominator if they continue to refuse to let this rest. I count 15 keeps, 3 merge suggestions, and not a single vote to delete. Comments made by nom during the discussion (such as "I am allowed to make nominations contradicting my personal views on any topic and this isn't the first time I have done so") strongly suggest the whole thing was, and continues to be, a WP:POINT violation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why the HECK wasn't it closed as a keep? -- Cat chi? 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Because the closer detected its WP:POINTiness (not much of a feat, really), thereby invalidating the AfD as a legitimate consensus-building tool. Look, I agree with you that these articles should be kept, but the way you're going about it is very, very wrong, and ultimately likely to hurt your case rather than help it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore close The original nomination was a WP:POINT nomination to demonstrate Cat's ownership of the articles. Speedy close was the only valid option for the closing admin. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close haggling over whether the closer used the word "keep" or not is ridiculous and bureaucratic. --W.marsh 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
St. John Bosco Interparish School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was closed as a no consensus, even though an issue with the sources weren't met. None of the sources were independent of the subject, or reliable and a concern was met, but ignored, while the comments in the keep side was very weak, only because of those unreliable sources were added Overturn and Delete. Jbeach56 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - With some of the delete reasoning focusing on importance/significance (a non policy argument), sources added to the article during the AfD (at least one was valid), and a few editors moving away from delete, the closing admin could reasonably believe that consensus was not clear. After doing a search, I agree that the topic probably does not meet WP:N. Put the article on your watch list and list it at AfD. If the close was keep, waiting three months before listing AfD#2 would be typical. Since the close was no consensus, one month might be sufficient before listing AfD#2. Just don't jump the gun by quickly relisting at AfD, 'cause you'll end up with a snow keep and may have to wait three months after that. -- Jreferee t/c 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - give it a few months and come back if it hasn't been better sourced. The deletion arguments fell into bad arguments as much as vice versa. 128.118.161.244 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep for now. However, suggest re-nominating the article again in a month or so if it hasn't been substantially improved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the result, no consensus is a perfectly sound closure here. Clearly there was no strong sentiment to delete but no strong sentiment to keep, and that's the beauty of no consensus - there's no prejudice against renominating it if no one bothers to improve it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse perfectly sound no consensus.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If it isn't improved in the next few weeks or months, nothing is preventing any one of us from re-listing it. RFerreira 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I might have closed this differently, but within admin discretion. If it isn't improved soon, it'll likely be nominated and deleted. The warning shot over the bow has been taken. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slipknot's 4th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_Plenty of sufficient info Dark Executioner 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

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

10 October 2007

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

UNDELETE_REASON 66.99.2.103 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) This was deleted twice on CSD:A7 grounds. The article written in own words was not copied verbatim.[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The second (October 10) creation still has whole sentences and clauses in common with the summary here, as well as following its general shape. Writing it in your own words doesn't mean changing some words to synonyms, it means writing it from scratch. Chick Bowen 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The deletion per CSD G12 copyvio applied. The living actor playing the fictional TV character gets importance/significance from that. In this case, CSD A7 probably applies since a importance/significance of fictional TV character would seem to be something separate and apart from the TV show. In any event, the topic probably would not survive AfD since there is little independent reliable source material (see Google books). -- Jreferee t/c 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ubuntu Christian Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#2)

This appears to be an example where the people in favor of keeping didn't know what arguments to make. In particular, there were many WP:ILIKEIT keeps. Under that basis Alkivar closed the matter as merge/redirect. However, the topic does have multiple, independent reliable sources. Examples include [96] and [97]. Alkivar also brought up the concern that the article as it stood had serious puffery and COI issues. However, I would be willing to pare down the text to the verifiable NPOV material. Note that the relevant AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubuntu Christian Edition (2nd nomination), since there was a previous AfD that closed as keep. JoshuaZ 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Nomination for DRV withdrawn. I'm now convinced that we don't need a separate article on this topic. JoshuaZ 20:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closer For the record, I am not entirely opposed to recreation of said article, I just feel the current time it is not worthy. I am not convinced the subject is noteworthy as a minor variant distro, and as much of the article body was essentially a duplication of content from the main umbrella distro Ubuntu its placement in the List of Ubuntu variants is more appropriate. Its ranking on neutral site DistroWatch is below the top 30. Ranking for the last 6 months places it at #31, Ranking for the last 3 months places it at #35, Ranking for the last month is #49. If anything this shows its popularity was merely temporary and already waning. I think its placement in the list of variants is more appropriate until such time that it actually establishes its popularity. Linux distributions appear and die virtually overnight, its as easy to create as a band... picking a name and a website. Perhaps we should instead be setting some sort of criteria by which we can determine a distributions value and include it at notability (software) or something?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No consensus seem to be the consensus. The close deviation from the discussion does not seem to be supported by policy. Also, Ubuntu (Linux distribution) makes no mention of Ubuntu Christian Edition, contrary to the closing statement that the article was duplicated from the article on Ubuntu itself. Substantial new information includes information from Network World, ExtremeTech.com, and U.S. Catholic. Of course, if behaviour regarding the article makes it unlikely that the article would meet WP:A, that would be a different story.-- Jreferee t/c 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No its on List of Ubuntu-based distributions instead, which is the spin off from the variants section of the main article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the reviewing source says something that confers notability, for example (and purely hypothetical, in this instance)"10 million units sold" or "used by the state department", wouldn't that review then be verification of notability under WP:V? - perfectblue 14:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a statement of fact from a reliable secondary source, that is good grounds for a notability claim. A mere review of a products functionality, neither asserts nor proves notability IMO. If these reviews said something like you stated, we wouldn't be here at drv, because I wouldn't have closed it as I did. Remember, I'm an inclusionist, I don't believe in deleting stuff lightly, and in this case I merged the valid data.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from original nominator As per my remarks on the original debate, I don't believe there's enough to be said about it to deserve its own article - the primary reason for merging. Nobody has actually responded to this by saying it is different enough to deserve a page distinct from the other minor Ubuntu variations - see my replies later in the thread. That's the primary reason for the merge, and hasn't been addressed by anyone in the AFD nor here on the DRV - what can be said aside from the fact it's Ubuntu with a few non-notable applications bundled, hence the reason for the merge? Could a full article be written that's more than a couple of paragraphs long, and would go beyond what could be said in the merged List of Ubuntu-based distributions? I say no, and that's hardly been addressed by those arguing keep. Whatsmore, an AFD "only" 2 months after the last one is hardly bad form - please WP:AGF. I personally endorse until the primary deletion reasoning is actually addressed, and someone can give a good reason that it deserves its own page beyond WP:ILIKEIT. -Halo 17:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case any one wonders how I stand... Endorse closure as original deleting admin.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure It is privilege and duty of the closing admin to weight the arguments given - and it seems to be alot of arguments were basically WP:ILIKEIT. I see no fault in Alkivar's closure. CharonX/talk 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er yes. I'm not arguing that they weren't ILIKEITs. My point was that there's a much better argument to be made for keeping the article than was made in the AfD. An article shouldn't be deleted simply because the people who wrote it aren't familiar with which arguments fly at AfDs and which don't. JoshuaZ 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article should, however, be deleted because it's a minor variation of Ubuntu, where everything that can be said would fit inside a paragraph of another page, hence the redirect. -Halo 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Sexuality and gender identification categories – Deletions endorsed. Prior deletions of other (more "mainstream") gender/sexuality categories do belie the accusations of bias here. The consensus below endorsed the uCfD determination that these "status" categories (like "signs of the zodiac") do not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism. – Xoloz 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Transsexual Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Genderqueer Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Queer Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Lesbian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Bear cub Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Gay Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Femme Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Heteroflexible Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Homoflexible Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Bisexual Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Polyamorous Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Pansexual Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Category:Asexual Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The ucfd was closed 5 days after it started, but no consensus had been reached. And considering that these have been up for deletion many times, I didn't see any real sign that consensus has changed. Closing admin said "The result of the debate was delete all based on strength of arguments." I'd like a little more time for consensus to be reached and arguments on both sides to be presented. Kolindigo 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue "we just did this". I argued that the deletions were "against WP:POINT in that the mass deletion was an abuse of process, failure to assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, gaming the system and just flat out disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point." -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. Your exact words were "You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing these up for deletion again." You also said "it's only reasonable to assume that if these were deleted then every cat InsertYourOwnTitle Wikipedians would/should be deleted as well.", another non-reason to keep. You did not, in fact, touch upon any of the POINT, AGF, Abuse of process, nor did you explain here why any of that is true. --Kbdank71 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that on the actual CfD discussion. This isn't the actual CfD discussion. Review is to expound on why, and that's what I'm touching on here. Further, I don't need to touch upon any of the POINT, AGF, Abuse of process, nor do I need to explain here why any of that is true because people can go read the text for themselves at [WP:POINT]], abuse of process, assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system. I'm not here to re-write what's already been written but to point it out. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is DRV, not CFD take two. Second, if I was going to say overturn because the nomination was abuse of process, or POINT, or whatever, I would explain why, or I'd be prepared to have my opinion discounted. Anyone can read the policies, but that doesn't tell them why you think they apply here. --Kbdank71 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they can't read the policies and comprehend why without me having to hold their hand, then I guess that's between them and their jesus because that's a problem above and beyond me. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse based on the strength of the arguments. It's kind of borderline between delete and no consensus but to be realistic most of those arguing to keep this were basing their arguments on precedent alone. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The arguments for 'keep' consisted primarily of arguments based in precedent alone or in the principle of self-identification for its own sake (which is not what user categories are for). On balance, the arguments for deletion were not really rebutted and claims that the categories are useful were not accompanied by any substantial explanation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - while the number of persons on both sides of the issue was equal, the strength of the arguments was not. Most arguments of keep varied between "bias against the categories (or their members)" and "we've already discussed this", neither of which I acknowledged as a strong argument. Rationale for this is that 1) Decisions have been made to delete all sorts of categories, including Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, which was actually decided 3 months prior and 2) consensus can change. --After Midnight 0001 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn based on prior precedent as well as lack of consensus in this CfD. There's really no need to be excessively stringent with matters like these. The benefits are unsubstantial (fosters community somewhat, may occasionally be useful for finding editors interested in a specific field, might be useful for demographic analysis, etc.), but there's essentially nothing to weigh them against. The rationale for WP:HARMLESS is (slightly ironically) that there tend to be subtle harms associated with inclusion of articles, like marginal detriments to navigation or managability; in the case of these categories there really aren't any non-negligible negative ramifications (e.g. if this category is incomplete, its existence doesn't reduce the integrity of WP). These categories have always been used for identification purposes, not social networking purposes. The frustrated "keep" !votes understandably neglected to reiterate rationales that had been given many times in the past; I don't see that as a reason to disregard those rationales. — xDanielx T/C 04:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The delete reasons included not necessary, does not help collaboration, and divisive (sets a battleground for identity politics). The keep reasons seemed to focus on precedent, bias, and contempt (for the UCfD nomination). The delete reasons were stronger. The more than five day discussion was sufficient time. -- Jreferee t/c 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Similar types, on the other side of the political mess, have been deleted (though one might argue, plausibly, those were bad decisions too). For instance, Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians. Why should this be different? 128.118.161.244 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, or tentatively relist based on the strength of the deletion arguments, and the lack thereof with the keep arguments. That being said, there is the chance that the arguments have changed beyond that of contempt, and therefore another CfD can be held, but I doubt that has happened.--WaltCip 10:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments One point I saw mentioned more than once in the UCFD discussion, and repeated here, needs to be addressed: the deletion of the Heterosexual Wikipedians category should not be used to buttress support of these deletions, or of the subsequent deletion of its parent category, Wikipedians by sexuality (which was a blatant "point" nomination, less than 13 hours after the deletion of the heterosexual category). Heterosexuality is a trait shared by anywhere from 90%–97% of the population, depending on which source is consulted, and is far too wide and diffuse to be a useful category; additionally, few of its adherents are consciously aware of their orientation, whereas sexual minorities are probably more aware of their own, because it differs from the default position. I supported the deletion of that category; I have never taken a position on these cats, although I believe some should have been merged if they were retained. (There is no need to have four usercats to describe bisexuality, for example.) Another issue is the whole thing about userboxes and usercats—with the exception of the two lesbian userboxes, none of the GLBT userboxes associated with these cats added the cat to the user's page, which meant that all of the people who were in these categories had actively sought them out, which is quite different from the usual 'add a userbox to one's user page and inadvertently add a usercat as well". Lastly, to those who have argued that the cats were useful for collaborative purposes, while the cat is certainly easier, the "what links here" function can be used as well, since there is no push to delete the userboxes. Horologium t-c 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that I did not use the deletion of the Heterosexual Wikipedians to buttress support of these deletions. I used it to counter the argument that persons who argued for deletion of the categories were somehow biased against those members of the categories. --After Midnight 0001 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So you should be sure to remove cats User en, Wikipedians by alma mater: Duke University, Francophone Wikipedians and French Wikipedians from your user page then. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete The strength of the arguments was for me on delete. Neozoon 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there is no consistent consensus about these categories.DGG (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVERTURN I find it strange that we can classify ourtselves in anything but sexuality. I also propose mediators to investigate the issue since I find the deletion part of a homophobic push to erase sexual orientation-related categories from Wikipedia altogether. I see many of those who endorse seems to be concerned about creating disputes based on these categories. But I cannot see personal identification as divisive. Battlegrounds for identity politics has long been there and since Wikipedia does not exist outside the context of society at large, it cannot escape the reality of identity and its associatedd politics. In additoon " avoiding conflict" is a common excuse for homophobic achool administrators to remove any gender expression from school districts (disbanding GSAs, for example) and its ultimate goal always seem to be the removal of community identity and thus the protection and discussion it deserves. --Bud 08:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn based on previous discussion. The generally weak arguments from this most recent discussion were understandable in light of the affront taken by how frequently these categories are attacked. Some of the outrage was a bit over the top, but still understandable. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 21:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, stop crying homophobia at the drop of a hat as if the world can be divided into pridegoers and reggae singers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - ∅ (∅), 13:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now I will assume good faith that this is just the start of removal of all categories that are of an equal importance or less important to the users. So, whoever has started the clean up better keep going or else the assumption will begin to stretch credulity. You can start with various sport teams, tv shows, game shows, leisure activities, etc. that users categorize themselves into. If not, this will likely be back at DRV and those who are screaming bias above will have a much better case if this was a one-off deletion. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but no. Yes it's a part of removing self-identification cats, but I don't think any of the examples you gave qualify for self-identification. An individual may be gay, they may be male, they may have blonde hair, they may have 10 toes, they may have brown eyes, they may be of a certain ethnicity/race, they may be married, they may be a parent, they may be a child, they may be an adult, they may be of a certain age, they may be of a certain generation, they may have been born under a certain sign of the zodiac. Every one of those is more a "state of being" than interest. Yes, they also may include interest, but typically that's not what the categories are being used for. For example, there was an large issue when the individual zodiac categories were merged into "Wikipedians interested in the zodiac". After the merging started, people made it rather clear that they had no interest in the zodiac, but merely were using that as a userpage notice, and what they felt was a a cool way to be grouped with others of their sign. It had nothing to do with interest in bulding the encyclopedia, or even in community building. It was just a "feel-good" statement. And while I support those on a userpage (though positive, and not negative), there is no need for a category for that. Compare to where a person is from; what sort of education thay may have had; what profession or skills they may have, such as knowledge of more than one language; what they spend their time learning, whether it be pop culture, or literature, or music, or art, or science, or mathematics, or history, or computer software, shouldn't matter. Those things which they show interest in are likely the same things that they will be likely to show interest in collaborating on. And we couldn't just rename this to "Wikipedians interested in LGBT culture/issues" (or some such name) exactly due to the self-identification problem, such as we had with the zodiac cats. Because, if we did rename, then we'd risk miscategorising Wikipedians, and that must be avoided. - jc37 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If I had seen this debate, I would have argued to "keep". But based on the arguments present, the closer closed correctly. Deletion review is not AFD II. Neil ☎ 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kevin Locke - Bassist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As below for Charlotte Collinwood I was trying to past 'hangon' as it was deleted Dylanmills 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

perfectly valid and verifiable resume of an exellent musician I have seen several times recently. Dylanmills 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted twice on CSD:A7 grounds. The second deleting admin userfied it at User:Tbay01. This article was about a local history museum. I understand that it may be controversial to say that all museums have sufficient notability to have articles, I believe that an article that states that its subject is a non-profit museum has enough of an assertion of notability to escape A7. For what it is worth, there are a few mentions of this museum in outside sources ([98] [99]) and is a member of the Oklahoma Museums Association [100]) (It also appears in many of the museum and attraction directories on the web, but I understand that that in and of itself is not enough to confer notability). I would like to see this article kept, or given a full hearing at AfD. Dsmdgold 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. As the second deleting admin, I userfied the material because I believed there was a chance that the creator might expand it to assert notability; however, I do not believe notability was asserted within the article. Personally, I live within several miles of two non-profit museums, both operated out of somebody's house. (One is a museum to a locally born actress and another, more reputable, collects artifacts related to a locally prominent ethnic group.) If the article can be expanded with an assertion of notability and particularly if verifiability exists, there is nothing to prevent its being properly recreated. As WP:CORP indicates, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources". It also says that "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". If reliable independent sources are found, by all means, the article should be created. My note to the article's author explains how to do that in a form that would not be tagged for A7 again. --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a chance that an article can be expanded, it should not be speedy deleted. As for the content of WP:CORP, to quote another notability guideline (WP:MUSIC)"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." I would expect that an article about either of the two museums you mention to not be speedied, although I expect that at least the former would not survive the other deletion processes. Dsmdgold 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Since it has been userfied, everyone can see the content. A7 is about whether there was an assertion of notability. So, can the nominator say what is the assertion of notability that they believe was in the article? GRBerry 13:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that certain categories of article subjects have an inherent assertion of notability, including things like towns, published authors, and certain types of institutions, including museums. So, as a stated above, the statement that the subject of the article is a museum is, to me, an assertion of notability. Note that I am not saying that all museums should have articles, but rather that I believe that museums need a more thorough examination than is possible with speedy deletion. I would also note that in a very quick search, I found the two independent sources mentioned above, which at the very least would move the article towards meeting WP:CORP. Dsmdgold 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that this certain class of articles should be excluded from WP:CSD#A7. I wonder if it wouldn't be more beneficial to debate that at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where, if consensus is with you, changes might have more widespread application. Respectfully, I find it rather perplexing that you have chosen instead to formally debate the deletion of this particular museum, if it is the inherent notability of museums you wish to posit and not some specific assertion within the article, and without any attempt that I can see to resolve the issue in discussion first with me or the other admin who closed the speedy, as set out at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose. Did the note I left here lead you to believe I'd be hostile to the presentation of new information? Or that if you suggested to me that the deletion was controversial, I'd be unwilling to at least take it through a different deletion process? I promise you that I'm not chomping at the bit to do away with all museum articles or even this one in particular. :) --Moonriddengirl 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have erred, and if so I apologize. However, since there were two deleting admins involved I thought that having a unified discussion would be more beneficial than attempting two separate discussions. I also felt that I had brought new information to the table: that the Museum has been covered in at least two independent sources. Yes, I am positing that articles on certain classes of subjects are excluded from A7. This however seems to me to be established practice. It may seem novel to argue that museums are one of those classes, but only because this is the first time I have seen a article on a museum speedied. (I have asserted elsewhere that all museums are notable.) It seems obvious to me that museums, as a class, have enough notability that would make them immune to A7. (Otherwise this would have been a speedy candidate, as there is no other assertion of notability.) Dsmdgold 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you need two discussions, unless you want both versions of the article restored. A glance at the deletion log suggests that the first one was merely a shorter version of the more recent one which I userfied. I have a different view on the inherent notability of museums than you do, but I'm not interested in stubbornly insisting that a deletion is non-controversial (as CSDs are meant to be, unless inherently harmful to the project like a copyvio or attack page) in the face of evidence otherwise. I made the material available to the creator, after all, precisely so that he or she would have it to work with if importance could be asserted. But as far as museums and A7 are concerned, while it may seem obvious to you, at least two other editors than I (the other admin & the nominator who tagged it both times) have considered it otherwise. I don't know how often museum articles are created and considered for deletion—as far as I know, this is the only that I've encountered—but if you believe they should be an exception to A7, you might want to pursue making that explicit. --Moonriddengirl 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As implied above, I have no problem restoring the article for the editor to expand (at least the one I deleted); I would have done so without the discussion on request. I would be bold and restore it now, but I've never been involved in a deletion review and am hesitant to buck process. If there's a snowball precedent here as at AfD, please, by all means, revive the article. --Moonriddengirl 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Speedy deletion is never preclusive of a recreated article that asserts notability. The version deleted does not. Not all non-profit museums are inherently notable. The collection rivals that of a typical antiques mall - and we've never held that whether something is for or not-for profit bears any relation to notability. If these contents are an assertion of notability (or the theoretically higher significan[ce] or importan[ce] literally required to avoid A7), then nearly any antiques mall, antiques show, and many better antiques shops are suddenly notable. WP≠YP (wikipedia isn't the yellow pages). I also tend to think that articles brought here after speedy, rather than requesting the deleting admin for userfication are likely to be unimprovable - because the drama-less and most obvious way to make the article better would be route not taken. Carlossuarez46 02:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

9 October 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
USS Thagard NCC-652 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

User:71.185.28.192, a former member and leader of this organisation's page, asked me to undelete the article, so I placed a deletion review request of it here. JIP | Talk 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is now ample press from reliable national and local media outlets to meet notability requirements. I would like the chance to improve the original article - perhaps someone could paste the text on my talk page. Relaxing 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 October 2007

[edit]

7 October 2007

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

Since deletion the popularity of Benfer has risen dramatically. There is a Wikipedia page for Neil Cicierega, another internet celebrity, and according to Alexa, his sites, lemondemon.com and eviltrailmix.com, both rank two to three hundred thousand times lower than Benfer's site knoxskorner.com. He is now also involved in other forms of media than animation, including a hugely successful podcast, music, and video blogs on YouTube. Smurfy 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - See also the AfDs and DRVs for Robert Benfer, Jr, Robert "Knox" Benfer, Robert Benfer (animator), Knox (animator), Knox (flash artist), Klay World. There might be more. -- Jreferee t/c 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There was also Klay World: Off the Table (deleted 4 times) Villain (Knox movie) (deleted 3 times) Villain (2007 film) (deleted 3 times) Villain (2008 film), Knox Wiki, and who knows what else. Last year there was a pretty persistent wikipedia spam campaign by Knox using a number of accounts. Fortunately none of the articles stayed around very long, most being speedied or quickly AfDed, and due to the vigilance of the community the overall level of disruption was small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide real world reliable sources? That's really a core requirement to overturn any deletion on notability. Spartaz Humbug! 16:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion another perenneal candidate, no evidence of additional reliable sources... or indeed any reliable sources at all. This has been deleted dozens of times under a number of different aliases, and there's good reason it hasn't stayed around long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - With so many admin deletions of the article, we may need to see a draft article in your user space before allowing the article to be recreated. Dr. Robert A. Benfer, anthropologist at the University of Missouri at Columbia meets WP:N. Robert L. Benfer, clay animation, has little press coverage. A sentence mention in each of Washington Post (December 15, 2005) and Monterey County Herald (December 20, 2005) Good to know (Search for Robert Benfer) is all the press coverage I found. His website lacks any In-The-News coverage. There might be more listed in an alternative weekly newspaper. -- Jreferee t/c 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse but permit re-creation in user space and then ask again, as Jreferee says. Seem the reasonable course. if he's now notable, you'll be able to show it. DGG (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The history looks clear. Evidence of any substantial alteration in notability is absent. Doczilla 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises RedSox – Restore; list at MfD by editorial option. The consensus below is that T1 does not apply to userspace; this consensus has been reiterated several times in different fora for many months, so the result is not surprising, and represents common practice. The vocal minority of editors in disagreement with this position would be better served by opening discussion on a proposed CSD U4 than by attempting these speedy deletions. The question of divisiveness is properly addressed for userspace content at MfD. In this case, listing there is not automatic -- first, concerned editors should consult with the editor to see if s/he might agree to a tamer verb. – Xoloz 11:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises RedSox (edit | [[Talk:User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises RedSox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(along with User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises Yankees)
These userboxes were deleted under CSD T1. The Red Sox one read "This user despises the Boston Red Sox," and the Yankees one read "This user despises the New York Yankees." I understand why Jc37 deleted them, and I totally support the effort to rid Wikipedia of things that might cause dislike or division between groups of its users. But isn't this taking that principle a little too far? I honestly don't think that these userboxes would ever cause any sort of division or inflame anyone to the point where it would affect working on the encyclopedia. Disliking a sports team, no matter how intensely, is all in good fun. I mean, it's not as if it said "This user despises all Red Sox fans" – I have plenty of friends who are Red Sox fans, and while we often rib each other about it during baseball season, we're still good friends; it would never get in the way of any kind of work or project or anything. Moreover, he speedily deleted them without notifying me in any way or giving me any chance to respond. Also, CSD #T1 only applies to templates in the "Template" namespace, and I don't think it was serious enough to qualify for G10. It's only a userbox, for goodness' sake. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 02:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as the one who deleted them. (Commenting as requested : ) - This falls under the standard "one man's meat is another man's poison". I have deleted several of these, and have commonly heard "But what about x userbox, that's way worse than mine..." I understand that for some people hating the opposing team, or the hated villain from a film/show/play/video game, or wrestling star, or a television programme on an opposing time slot, or of a similar genre to our favourites, may be "all good fun" for some people. However, it's not necessarily "all good fun" for everyone. Sounds pretty close to the definition of polemic or divisive. See Wikipedia:User page which states that such may be removed by any editor, and Wikipedia:Userboxes which rather concretely lays out what should be considered divisive. The guidelines under Wikipedia:Userboxes are a result of literally several years of propoisals and discussion following quite a bit of controversy. I don't think it's a bad thing to ask Wikipedians to "Express what you like, not what you don't like" or the related "Avoid words such as dislike, despise, hate, and loathe". Essentially avoid negative and negative comparison userboxes. So unless there is a good reason to IAR in this case, I think that these should stay deleted. - jc37 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not proposing that we ignore all rules here or anything; I just think that we're over-emphasizing the letter of the law here over the intent of them, which is to prevent "inflammation" between users. This is something we Wikipedians do far too often. Seemingly countless extremely vicious arguments have arisen about whether or not something violates a rule like this one (in this case, whether disliking a sports team might make some people antagonistic toward each other), but I have yet to see a debate arise because something actually did violate a rule (in this case, something like a Red Sox fan starting an argument with a user who dislikes their sports team). At most, the rules should be guidelines, things to look out for that could cause this "inflammation"; a person should determine whether the spirit of whatever it is in question is truly to divide or inflame, and I've already explained why disliking a sports team is all in good fun and would never truly inflame anybody. The WP:UBX page lists a few words to avoid, among them "despises"; now, if I were to have a userbox that said, "This user despises Jews," that would obviously be extremely divisive and inflammatory and would merit immediate deletion. But if I were to have a userbox that said, "This user despises chocolate ice cream," though it uses a word on the list of words to avoid, its purpose is not to divide or inflame, and therefore it shouldn't be affected by this rule despite using a word the rule says to avoid. The same, I'm saying, is true of disliking a sports team, because it wouldn't actually cause real animosity or antipathy between two users beyond that which is, as I said before, all in good fun. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentIs it not as much as "Ignore All Rules" to overturn, but rather has been "Ignore all Rules" to delete, as the requirements for speedy deletion are clearly laid out, and T1 explicitly states it only covers the Template: namespace. The fact that this clarification and explicit restriction (as all namespace related CSD normally apply only to the namespace they cover, other than the General criteria) was added after an attempt of widening the scope of T1 to include other criteria and to apply to "pages used in a template-like way" was rejected by the community also gives additional hints at the spirit of when T1 is applyable. CharonX/talk 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, absurd deletions that should be overturned in the name of common sense. this is just baseball--that sort of wording does not imply violence or true hatred--its the way people talk about these things in good spirits, & marks the difference between sports and warfare. If it had been ethnicity, that's something else. Even politics, probably something else. But baseball? The Dodgers broke my heart when they moved out of Brooklyn, but not in the same sense as if it had been a RW lover. DGG (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I'm a bit biased when it comes to this, hailing from a continent that has been plagued by hooliganism in sports, but I can certainly see how this qualifies as potentially divisive (T1). What may be good fun to you and your friends may not be good fun to others. And when it's not, it can easily distract us from our goal of building an encyclopedia. But I'm not opposed to sending this to MFD instead. AecisBrievenbus 12:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Without having seen the acutal text of the boxes in question it is kinda hard to tell (and I don't know for which side I'm supposed to assume good faith for - the userbox and its creator, that it was not that bad or the deleting admin, that he made a IAR call on an evil userbox) but this is (as long as it does not go into e.g. personal attack territory, other other CSD:G areas) beyond the point. CSD:T1 states explicitly (emphasis added by me): CSD:T1 Templates that are divisive and inflammatory. This applies only to pages in the Template: namespace, although outside this namespace, other criteria, such as general criterion 10, may still apply; see Wikipedia:Userbox migration for further discussion. So, T1 directly says "only use me in template namespace". CharonX/talk 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as long as we permit all manner of "potentially divisive" userboxes - just look at the guideline: use of "believe", "favor" etc. is potentially divisive - like nearly all of them at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics and many in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music. If we're willing to ignore the guideline to allow divisive political and musical statements, why is sports different? It isn't. Carlossuarez46 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Do you really put "despises" in the same category as "believes" or "favors"? I sure don't. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CSD:T1 explicitly states it is only applicable on the "Template:" namespace. CharonX/talk 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. First off, T1 isn't used for userspace. Second, as others have said, despite the language, this isn't really a "divisive" or "inflammatory" userbox. It's baseball, and intense rivalries are a very common thing. I doubt anyone with this userbox really hates the Yankees, at least in the sense they actively oppose them advancing in society or they would slug Derek Jeter if they met him on the street. --UsaSatsui 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - WP:Speedy does not apply in this situation. Comment - "Despises" is one of the potentially divisive userbox words listed at userboxes. BlastOButter42, be a chum and perhaps select a different word from thesaurus that is not on the userbox potentially divisive words list. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate without a word like "despises". Surely there's no need to use words of hate when identifying your sports loyalties on Wikipedia? There's no need to undelete a "despises" userbox, but just create one with more dignified wording and there shouldn't be any problem. We don't need to have userpages advertising any kind of "despising" here. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse per Jreferee; "despises" was a poor choice of words. "Detests" would probably be too harsh as well. How about this user "just doesn't like" [insert sports team]? DEVS EX MACINA pray 01:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - "Despises" may be a bit over-the-top, but deletion is way over-the-top. Suggest further discussion to find a less extreme phraseology. Dhaluza 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on wording. Perhaps this is culture-relative to some extent, but in this context I would read "despises" as intentionally unserious, sort of self-caricature. If the Red Sox had done something condemnable I would read it differently, but since they're just a baseball team and these preferences tend to be openly arbitrary/idiosyncratic, I wouldn't read "despises" as an actual judgment of the team's standing in any sense. — xDanielx T/C 08:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree, that's pretty much what I had in mind by using the word "despises". -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than encourage others by using one of the list words (despises, dislikes, hates, loathes), perhaps one of the following will serve your needs: This user abhors the Boston Red Sox ** This user abominates the Boston Red Sox ** This user is allergic to the Boston Red Sox ** This user is sickened by the Boston Red Sox ** This user chills the Boston Red Sox ** This user contemns the Boston Red Sox ** This user derides the Boston Red Sox ** This user detests the Boston Red Sox ** This user disdains the Boston Red Sox ** This user disregards the Boston Red Sox ** This user eschews the Boston Red Sox ** This user execrates the Boston Red Sox ** This user feel disgust for the Boston Red Sox ** This user flouts the Boston Red Sox ** This user misprizes the Boston Red Sox ** This user neglects the Boston Red Sox ** This user put downs the Boston Red Sox ** This user rejects the Boston Red Sox ** This user renounces the Boston Red Sox ** This user repudiates the Boston Red Sox ** This user reviles the Boston Red Sox ** This user run downs the Boston Red Sox ** This user scorns the Boston Red Sox ** This user shuns the Boston Red Sox ** This user slights the Boston Red Sox ** This user snubs the Boston Red Sox ** This user spurns the Boston Red Sox ** This user trashes the Boston Red Sox ** This user undervalues the Boston Red Sox ** This user view with horror the Boston Red Sox ** This user wipes out the Boston Red Sox. I realize that the list words are not exclusive, but why give people another reason to be agitated by specifically using one of the listed words? -- Jreferee t/c 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Inflammatory, I think not. Its baseball folks, not politics, religion, etc. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To all those saying overturn because "it's not so bad, it's just baseball", and just asking that the word "despises" be changed, What word or words would you come up with which would cause the userbox to follow "Express what you like, not what you don't like."? - jc37 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - consensus clearly is to allow this, and even more polemic userboxes, especially in someone's user space. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination). 128.118.161.244 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid CSD T1. ^demon[omg plz] 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

6 October 2007

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

I request the Pardus (computer game) page be undeleted, as I feel the decision to delete it was based on extremely biased input.

The suggestion to delete the entry for Pardus was done by user:TheSeer. TheSeer bears a long-time grudge against the moderation team at Pardus; he hosts the site parduswatch.com, which consists of nothing more than criticisms toward moderators and developers associated with Pardus and support for another site which is equally negative towards Pardus.

Over a year ago it was discussed whether to delete the Pardus entry or not, for, I believe, notability concerns. At that time, over a year ago, it was decided that the Pardus entry would NOT be deleted. Since then the game has expanded considerably and gained a significant amount of publicity; deleting it now makes no sense.

Please reconsider this decision and restore the Pardus entry. Thank you. Utchka 19:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just want to transfer the deleted content to Power Rangers Wiki. Could you please let me acess to last content and authors list? Barraki 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Fart – Keep closure endorsed. The consensus below is that WP:NOT a Dictionary doesn't need major alteration (although minor rewordings are welcome.) The sociological and historical examination of certain significant words that have been the subject of such scholarship is the proper domain of an encyclopedia, and beyond the realm of a mere dictionary definition. – Xoloz 14:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have given this matter a lot of thought over the past several days, but have finally decided that a review of this AfD closure is still in order. If the consensus here is that the article should be kept, then I can accept that and take further steps to bring policy in line with practice.

Here's the story. On a whim, one day, I typed "Fart" into the search box. Childish, perhaps, but I was bored. To my surprise, what came up was not an article on flatulence, but rather a fairly brief discussion of the word "fart" itself, with some historical and modern usage examples. This seemed to me to be an obvious case of a dictionary definition, and of having two articles on one topic (namely, fart and flatulence, which I consider to be synonyms). I checked the talk page to see if the article had been deleted or nominated for deletion before. I found there at least two instances where its deletion or redirection had been discussed, but no consensus reached, and a couple more cases where a redirection was proposed but no discussion occurred. I interpreted this as consensus to redirect, and did so.

My redirection was reverted, with justification. I had no problem accepting that a redirect without discussion might not be universally accepted. I then took the next logical course of action and nominated the article for deletion. In retrospect, I could have brought this up on the talk page, but I didn't think that was necessary for what I considered a obvious case of a dictionary definition. I had previously successfully nominated the article Booger (word) for deletion (here), and saw this case as nearly identical.

Well the deletion discussion (linked above) was beyond my wildest imaginings. I had thought I had a solid argument, firmly grounded in policy (specifically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary), but I was heavily out!voted.

Seraphim Whipp (talk · contribs) performed a non-admin, snowball keep closure on the AfD. By pure numbers, the AfD was clearly snowballing toward keep, but I feel that Seraphim Whipp did not sufficiently take into account the quality of the arguments presented. I asked her about it, and she got a second opinion from an admin that concurred with her closure.

Nonetheless, I still feel that the clear wording of the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy -- which I interpret as saying "articles about words go in Wiktionary; Wikipedia is for articles about non-word concepts" -- trumps the reasons given for keeping the article. If WP:DICDEF was only a guideline or an essay, I could understand arriving at a consensus to override it, but it is a policy. My understanding is that policies should only be contravened in exceptional circumstances, and that the arguments presented in the AfD did not make a case that this was such an exceptional circumstance.

Succinctly, an article about the word "fart" belongs in a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we do not have articles on the words "heron", "canoe", or "absolve" -- we have articles on the concepts those words represent. Obviously, we do have articles on some words, mostly vulgar slang, but as these are exceptions to the policy, they should be rare and exceptional.

If this discussion concludes that the word "fart" and others like it are valid exceptions to the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy, I think we need to change that policy document so that it reflects actual practice, along with coming up with some guidelines on which words are deserving of articles and which are not. After all, Booger (word) was deleted, and I still at this point don't see the difference between that dictionary definition and this one.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Powers T 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. AfD was valid. Furthermore, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" means that Wikipedia does not contain definitions. The article in question is not a definition; it is a history of the usage of a word with a complex past, and in particular, the modern scientific definition of flatulence does not cover the medieval and Renaissance use of the word fart detailed in the article (yes, I wrote much some of that,[now that I like at it, much of what I once wrote in that article is gone] so take it as you will). As for your examples, we do not have entries on the words "heron" or "absolve" because they are not interesting words. We could have an article on the word canoe, which has an interesting history. Chick Bowen 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the outcome of the AFD. The article fart is entirely consistent with WP:DICDEF. Please note that WP:DICDEF speaks of dictionary definitions. This article is not a dictionary definition, but an etymology of the word, with its perception in various cultures, i.e. an encyclopedic article. Redirecting fart to flatulence should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. AecisBrievenbus 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As stated WP:DICDEF does not simply disallow definitions, it defines what critiera make an article more than a definition, which are clearly met in this case. Merger with a more general topic is not automatically indicated. --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse considerably more than a dicdef. Carlossuarez46 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With due respect, is everyone reading a different version of this policy than I am? The one I'm reading says Wiktionary has articles that are "about the actual words or idioms in their title," and this is specifically contrasted with Wikipedia, which has articles that are "about the ... concepts ... that their titles denote." Is an article on the word "fart" not clearly in the former category? Am I missing something blatantly obvious here? Powers T 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing: WP:DICDEF specifically says "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing... are duplicate articles that should be merged." "Fart" and "flatulence" seem to be different words for the same thing. Do you all disagree that they are different words for the same thing, or do you consider that policy statement to be incorrect? Powers T 00:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the article in question isn't really about the concept of flatulence (although it is of course connected); the article is primarily about the word "fart." An example with obvious parallelism is nigger. The article nigger has many of the qualities of a dictionary definition, but it goes into far more depth than any dictionary would. If we really wanted to meet the letter (in particular, the word "denote") or WP:DICT, we would probably have to move fart to Etymology and usage of the word "fart" or something of that sort, but it makes sense to give a significant consensus supported by a strong precedent (fuck, shit, nigger, etc.) credence over a word which a user added to a guideline without discussion. I think User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words sums up the spirit that most Wikipedians share on this issue pretty effectively. — xDanielx T/C 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please Read WP:DICDEF. An Article about the word belongs in wiktionary. The example given; Octopus on wikipedia is about the animal. octopus on wiktionary is about the etymology and usage of the word "octopus". Taemyr 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, but this is what I still don't understand. "Etymology and usage" belong in a dictionary, don't they? And isn't the policy clear on that? Powers T 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, information on the etymology and usage of words belongs in a dictionary, or at least some condensed form of it. But inclusion in a dictionary isn't mutually exclusive with inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, I think, fairly widely accepted that the line is to be drawn based on substantiality of information, rather than the nature of that information. This is generally supported through the discussion which formed the WP:DICT guideline. Consider this Larry Sanger quote:

But why not just combine a dictionary and encyclopedia, so that we could use the one for the other? The trouble with this proposal is just that encyclopedias provide more information than is typically needed when one consults a dictionary. It would be silly to come to Wikipedia if all you wanted to know is the meaning of the word--and usually, when we (as some of us often do) consult a dictionary, that is all we want to know.

        • The point seems fairly agreeable. There are plenty of accessible online dictionaries out there, and including trivial definitions has only marginal benefits for readers. Articles such as fuck or nigger do follow a dictionary-like structure somewhat, but they provide the reader with (relatively) comprehensive in-depth information that s/he couldn't find in a Webster's handbook, and so essentially meet the spirit of WP:DICT. — xDanielx T/C 06:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent summary, XDanielx. Substantiality of information is key. --Dhartung | Talk 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume by "substantiality" you don't mean "length"? Since WP:DICDEF specifically says, "Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited." The important thing to me is not what could or could not be found in Webster's, but what could or could not be found in Wiktionary, which "is not paper either". Powers T 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but they certainly do aim for brevity over depth, albeit to a lesser extent than paper dictionaries. Wikipedia has fairly stringent standards for inclusion of articles, and fairly loose standards for inclusion of content within articles; Wiktionary has very loose standards for inclusion of entries, but rather stringent (though somewhat vague) standards for page content. See e.g. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. In a nutshell, Wiktionary doesn't want detail. Wikipedia has a few paragraphs regarding the question of vulgarity as it pertains to fart; Wiktionary has a few words. — xDanielx T/C 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Consensus was clear on the AFD. Taemyr 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. To overturn a consensus as clear as this one, you would need a solid policy violation. The one provided is WP:DICDEF, but this article arguably goes well beyond a mere definition. An expanded section on the acceptance or non-acceptance of the word, is description beyond what you would find in a dictionary. That dictionary entries define terms, does not mean that an entry which defines terms is a dictionary entry. I see no policy violation in the consensus opinion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think perhaps the shortcut "WP:DICDEF" is a little misleading; the policy says very little about "definitions", only providing a brief description of a good definition. I see it asserted multiple times here that "the article goes well beyond a dictionary definition," which is true, but dictonaries, and Wiktionary in particular, include much more than definitions -- "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth," to quote the policy. I would say that the acceptance or non-acceptance of a word is exactly what would be expected in a non-paper dictionary. Obviously, folks can disagree, but just saying "the article is more than a definition" doesn't address the actual issue. Powers T 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the result of the discussion was pretty unambiguous. As has been stated, good arguments were presented that the material in this article does not violate WP:DICDEF which was the only real argument for deletion. All policies and guidelines are open to interpretation, which is why community discussion is so important - often the interpretation made by one user does not match the interpretation of the community as a whole. That the community seems to interpret DICDEF as not applying to this article is evident; there exist no grounds upon which to overturn this closure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Considering fuck once had featured article status, the argument that we cannot have articles on words is ridiculous. Smashville 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Comment - This probably is one of the few topics where reliable source material can be taken from 10,000 year old cave writing. There are endless of reliable source material from which this topic can be developed. Just because a word belongs in a dictionary it does not logically follow that the topic for that word is not encyclopedic. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" but it also is true that "A dictionary cannot substitute for Wikipedia." Moreover, if the article does not address the major aspects of the topic, the solution is to add information on those major aspects, not to delete the article. -- Jreferee t/c 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that consensus is that the policy as written does not currently reflect the consensus of the community. I still find the differences between the two AfDs on "booger" and "fart" to be, frankly, baffling, but I must be in the minority there. Nonetheless, I'll be opening discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary over how to determine what the consensus is on this topic, and how to modify the document to better reflect that consensus. Powers T 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm going to change my vote here to Overturn and Redirect. After rereading WP:DICDEF, this is the very kind of article it is written about. No one in either this AfD or the DRV has given a reason as to why this is not more than a mere dictionary definition? There is not a single argument that successfully argues that this is not a mere definition. Every argument is either, "It's notable", "It has multiple meanings", "It's well-written" and "It contains an etymology". None of those are valid keep reasons and actually support the fact that this is a definition. It makes me actually wonder if anyone has actually bothered to read the policy. Smashville 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reviewed the definitions provided at answers.com (from Merriam-Webster American Heritage and Sci-Tech). Flatulence is "excessive intestinal gas". Farting is the "expulsion of intestinal gas through the anus". The answers.com Medical Encyclopedia entry on the former indicates that the gas can be expelled either through the anus or the mouth (belch), or result in bloating. I don't see any of these as synonyms. Flatulence is the broad topic, yes, and farting is one of three ways the body handles it, and one with the most cultural impact. I actually think that the articles are misbalanced in this respect, as there is much material in the flatulence article that belongs in the fart article. Our articles seem to reflect a political situation on Wikipedia rather than reality. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Diane Huxley (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Diane Huxley|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a legitimate reason as the page is activly being considered for merging Lucy-marie 15:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Included on list of social networking sites. Previously deleted due to notability. Currently contains a number of references which fully meet Wikipedia's standards. Provides references of equal credibility to other sites listed on list of social networking sites.

Saracity123 12:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly no consensus for keep. Easily as many calling for delete as keep, not to mention those calling for keep failed to meet the burden of proof to provide evidence, instead making comments like "go look it up yourself". AfD isn't a vote and regardless of the amount of people who speak to one side of a discussion if the argument is without merit its not valid. The two sources (once found) are extremely tenuous at best, and once that was pointed out those calling for keep failed to speak to that.Crossmr 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. The preponderance of the argument was that the article could be sourced if someone would take the time. I've expanded it just now, perhaps enough to satisfy your objections. But AFD is not a vote. It's one thing to insist that editors making claims in article back up their sources, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect that editors participating in an AFD discussion be willing to consider the existence and quality of sources that have not been included at the time of nomination. An argument limiting itself to what may have been provided by an irregular user of Wikipedia unaware of notability guidelines is going to be necessarily weak. --Dhartung | Talk 10:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As was pointed out by two different people during the AfD, you need to back up your claim. Simply claiming that you saw it in the New York Times and the Wall Street journal without providing those sources is akin to saying nothing at all. Anyone can make any kind of claim anywhere, its why we require proper sources. When an article is up for deletion, simply saying the source is "out there somewhere" doesn't make a clear case for why it could be kept. In fact the two sources that were provided during AfD (and only one was directly provided on the AfD itself) didn't meet the criteria that was laid out by the guidelines. I can make all kinds of unverified claims during AfD about the notability of something. If we start keeping articles based on random editor Xs unsourced opinion during AfD, we'd never delete anything. Most of the people who come here to spam their website will swear up and down that they've seen notability all over the place for it. As far as satisfying notability goes, its a little better, but I have some comments. At least there is now 1 where it is actually the subject of the article (1st one). however 5, 6, 7 are completely trivial mentions. 4 is about the parent company as pointed out during the AfD. 2 and 3 are questionable, at least the cnet article mentions the "community" in the headline. If there is one more article available where AsianAvenue is clearly the subject and not sharing the limelight with a larger issue that would be ideal.--Crossmr 14:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me take you back in time to this edit in which both the WSJ and NYT articles you critiqued in the AFD were already present and "provided" for you. You may quibble with the relevance of the sources, but my assertion was grounded in the same material available to any editor. Your implication that I was making claims without backing them up is groundless. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you interpret the guideline that way, but not all editors do; and you seem to be relying on outdated language that was once in WP:BIO particularly. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It does not require that the article's topic also be the primary topic of the article, as you assert, and language that conforms with such an interpretation has previously been rejected. WP:CORP is even more flexible, saying that The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. This would seem to allow using more sources if some of them are weak. But these are not weak sources. We have a comprehensive business profile from the New York Times, the nation's "paper of record". We have substantial articles about incidents where the website received publicity as a primary actor, particularly the SKYY protest, which was covered in multiple sources of unimpeachable reliability. We have coverage in several places where it is naturally considered alongside its sister sites and competitors, but the coverage is "significant". Some of this coverage is in the Wall Street Journal, the "paper of record" for US business. That's plenty for WP:CORP. This smacks of a campaign based on some animus, and you've come very close to accusing me of having a conflict of interest; I object strenuously. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen press releases usable to establish notability. Anyone can make a press release. In this case (by which I mean the links that Jreferee provided) all provided links were press releases or a blog of an already considered story (we consider the original story not the blog). WP:WEB would be the most apt notability guideline, and clearly states The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.. I question whether or not asianave is really the subject of that vodka article. Its clearly not the subject of the nytimes article that was put forth during the AfD as the subject was clearly the parent company.--Crossmr 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Crossmr, would you do me the courtesy of addressing claims that I have made, instead of claims you wish I had made? As I have stated repeatedly since my first comment in the AFD, the sources provided (WSJ and NYT) are by themselves sufficient to establish notability per WP:CORP. I am not and have never said that a press release or a blog is a basis for notability. The language in the notability standard is, once again, "significant" coverage by "multiple" sources. I don't feel I need to state this again. And if being headlined as the base of a protest that caused a corporation to take action is not significant, then perhaps you and I simply cannot agree on the meaning of the word. --Dhartung | Talk 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD not much consensus to do anything. Some more opinions would've helped the first discussion. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and close this review. The sources are clearly provided, and were provided in the article. That people didn't regurgitate them for you when they were there to begin with means nothing. Besides, this can go two ways; the onus is on the deletion people to at least bother to do a search, otherwise you'll end up with WP:JNN, which is perilously close to what your vote was. Clearly passes guidelines mentioned above. 128.118.161.244 07:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg – relist. There is a clear consensus here that the close of the original IFD was improperly done in that the closing admin determined the outcome by using their personal judgment on a point that is properly subject to community consensus. There is not a clear consensus here as to whether their judgment, and thus the outcome, of that IFD was correct, and the original IFD discussion was not focused on that point. The right way to determine the community consensus on this point is to hold an IFD again, focused primarily on whether or not the image, as used, met WP:NFCC#8. The IFD closing admin will have to give due regard to both the guideline WP:NFC and the consensus of the IFD participants, so the IFD participants should address both the policy and the relevant portions of the guideline in their opinions. – GRBerry 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|Original deletion proceeding)

This image was deleted by an administrator despite a 15-9 majority of users who were involved in the dabate to keep the image. Wikpedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators clearly states that "when in doubt [about the result of the debate], don't delete". In this case the result was not only "in doubt", but clearly was substantially in favor of keeping the image. That image was included in the article on intelligent design for over a year. Plainly it got caught up in a recent effort to remove images that had commercial implications attached to them. For all practical purposes, this image is completely free to use in conjunction with any WP article that is relevant to the topic it addresses. It can be seen at this location and also at this location. Moreover, we actually had a TIME executive participate in the Wikipedia discussion about use of such covers, and it was made clear that Wikipedia is free to use these cover images in any articles that are relevant to the covers. The use of this image was quite significant, perhaps essential, in showing how the mass media in the United States depicted the intelligent design controversy to the general public. Kenosis 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion. Fair use was demonstrated and consensus was clear. The image was deleted improperly and should be restored forthwith.  –  ornis⚙ 07:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I feel fair use is establshed per Kenosis Supergluez 12:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and restore image, as nominator. ... Kenosis 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was fine; the closing admin applied our non-free image policy WP:NFCC rather than just counting votes. Fair use alone is not the relevant issue. The article currently describes the cover as showing "God facing off against a chimpanzee", which conveys the idea perfectly well via text alone. The fact that the cover art is relevant to the subject is perfectly expected and not on its own a reason to use the image, and there is no evidence that this particular cover art is notable more than the average Time magazine cover is notable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The administrator's job is not to play God in interpreting the NFCC, particularly not the ones that involve subjective interpretations (NFCC#1, #3, and #8). ... Kenosis 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing administrator is supposed to consider the site policies and ensure that the close is in agreement with them. There is no requirement that the close needs to agree with the majority of editors who comment. This isn't "playing God", it's using the discretion that we expect admins to use when closing deletion discussions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've been over this before, including on the administrators' noticeboard. Obviously it's a "hot potato", this sort of unilateral overruling of consensus on grounds of the admin's subjective interpretation of criteria that are inherently subjective judgments. If one were to apply the NFCC tests strictly in all cases there would be no fair use images on the wiki -- which is, of course, what the "no fair-use" advocates see as the ideal outcome. ... Kenosis 20:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walter Isaacson. We'll need to look up the date and diffs of the conversation, in August 2007. The content of the conversation and the location of the IP address (consistent with the location of the Aspen Institute) was adequately persuasive that it did in fact appear to be Isaacson, something that many of the regulars in image deletion debates will likely recall. ... Kenosis 09:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a quick search, I found one relevant link/diff here, which has been updated to link to the original comment, also archived at NFCC. R. Baley 09:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took awhile for me to sift through the old IfDs. The original conversation in which Isaacson participated was in late July and early August 2007, here. ... Kenosis 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course TIME editors wants us to use their cover photos - it's free publicity for TIME. But if they don't want to reciprocate by releasing the cover photos under a free license, then we should just ignore their claims, which have a n obvious conflict of interest. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason that it doesn't affect whether or not the image met WP:NFCC didn't really have anything to do with conflict of interest. Most of the non-free content criteria are to limit the the use of copyrighted material since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not because Wikimedia could be sued because of images it hosts. 17Drew 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no reason for the image to be deleted to begin with. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Restore deletion. One person's interpretation of NFCC#8 should not be able to go against the overwhelming consensus opinion (everywhere I saw discussion anyway) that the fair use of an image meets all criteria. I would also like to note that official NFCC policy is so (not?) widely accepted that no one bothers to even date the archives anymore (and that 10 archive pages, ~250k per page, have been generated in the last 5 months (link). R. Baley 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer - 15-10, not 15-9 (but that's irrelevant). Policy trumps consensus if the consensus has no real ground to stand on. Even if that policy is our fair use rules (personally, I think they verge on the ludicrous, but that's not the discussion here). The image was solely being used to illustrate, with no critical commentary, and the IFD debate was correctly closed by the rules at the time as a "delete" - it failed NFCCs #3 and #8, and nobody was able to prove otherwise. Kenosis's hyperbole in saying I was "playing God" is unhelpful, and his constant attempts during the IFD discussion itself back in August to tell the closing administrator how to close it were also unhelpful. Many of the "keep"s were gems such as "it is relevant" or "it shows it exists". Debate was closed correctly, based on the rules. Neil ム 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE "and his constant attempts during the IFD discussion itself back in August to tell the closing administrator how to close it were also unhelpful" : Those two comments mistakenly characterized as "constant attempts to 'tell' the closing administrator how to close" actually read as follows: "Comment to closing admin. The recent experience of administrative overrides of consensus leads me to post this comment. A review of this discussion, thus far, appears to indicate 15 participants in favor of keeping this image as NFC for its stated use. Specifically the rationale is for uses related to intelligent design, the creation-evolution controversy and any directly related topic forks. Seven, perhaps eight, participants in this debate have advocated deletion, if I am counting the positions correctly. The basis for those advocating deletion appears to be NFCC#8, which by its subjective nature (as an editorial assessment of whether it "substantially helps", etc.,) must be decided in a consensus process. Since, as of this comment, there are 15 keeps and 8 deletes, would it be fair to say there is no consensus to delete? ... Kenosis 19:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)"
    To which Borisblue responded: "I'm going to refrain from closing this hot potato, but I just want to note here that consensus in wikipedia is not determined by vote counting. Borisblue 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"
    After some additional back-and-forth arguing between Seraphimblade and Duae Quartunciae, I then added:"Comment to closing admin. Make that 15 keeps to 9 deletes, maybe 10 deletes if you include Borisblue. ... Kenosis 06:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)" . That's not telling the closing admin anything (at least not in the sense of intending to be an "instruction" or "command") but is a summary of a careful reading of each participant's explicit statements and explicit preferences so as to avoid any hasty applications of WP:AADD, an essay page, as sometimes happens when the closing admin's preference disagrees with the clear majority or otherwise seeks to impose an outcome differently than is advised by the administrative guideline WP:DGFA. ... Kenosis 15:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The image may qualify for fair use but does not add anything significant to the article but decoration. Using the image fails WP:NFCC #8 and the copyright tag requirement for critical commentary. The admin acted correctly in interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy, which overrides local consensus. -Nv8200p talk 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - The closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly. The determination of whether or not the image should be kept came down to whether consensus agreed that the image facilitates understanding of the article topic. The closer seem to state that consensus agreed that the image facilitates understanding of the article topic. However, the closer determine that such a consensus was wrong. Since the question was subjective as noted by the closer, wrong and right are not really the right approach to close the discussion. No consensus seemed to be the consensus, particularly since the issues were not adaquately discussed by anyone other than the closer. The image should be relisted, using the closer's remarks as the nomination comment so that everyone may direct their keep/delete reasonings to that which needs to be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 22:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pardon me. I would have brought this issue up before, except the two-paragraph explanation of the closer (closing administrator) is placed above the linked section in the IfD as seen here, and thus escaped my notice when I reviewed it in preparation for filing this DrV.
      ...... The decision of the closing admin is clearly erroneous. The justification that the closer offers for deleting is based upon a single passage from WP:NFC that is not a policy, but a guideline (i.e., a "suggested approach"), that was incorrectly cited as policy that would allow a closing administrator to overrule a majority preference to keep the image. The closer explains the decision to unilaterally override the entire discussion in the following paragraph (submitted by the closing administrator in this edit), which reads:

      Duae Quartunciae makes the point that WP:NFC#Images states cover art for identification purposes is permitted, but omits the second half of that policy ("only in the context of critical commentary of that item"). No critical commentary of the the cover image (the "item") is present in the article, so this argument for keeping is unconvincing. I am not convinced by the arguments the image facilitates understanding of the topic more than the text already does, and there is no critical commentary of the image itself. Although the majority of participants are calling for the image to be kept, those calling for deletion have the far stronger argument based on Wikipedia policy. Therefore, delete. Neil ム 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

      Only the WP:NFCC are policy. And Neil correctly observes that #8 involves subjective interpretation and thus must be decided by consensus. Guidelines such as WP:NFC, which the closer relies upon in overriding the clear majority preference, are never mandatory and are always properly controlled by consensus at the local level. What the closer did in the IfD proceeding for this image was to use a guideline in sole justification for the deletion of this image. Therefore it should be overturned, the image should be reinstated, and the matter should be permanently closed. ... Kenosis 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If, as Jreferee claims, there is not consensus that the image meets the requirements of NFCC, then it shouldn't be used. That argument supports the deletion of the image. Focusing on a distinction between guideline vs. policy, rather than on the intent of policies and guidelines, is quite close to wikilawyering. "It's only a guideline, so we can ignore it" is not on its own a sound argument. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting CBM, " Focusing on a distinction between guideline vs. policy, rather than on the intent of policies and guidelines, is quite close to wikilawyering": Close to wikilawyering??? Bullshit. In this case it was the hinge on which the door swung in deleting this image. ... Kenosis 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is some gap between policy and guidelines so that following policy is compulsory but following guidelines is completely optional is not right. But in any case, the image was deleted because there is no consensus to include it in the article, and we don't allow orphaned nonfree images (by policy). — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion -- looks like someone messed up in judging consensus. ScienceApologist 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - we don't use non-free images for decorative purposes and all of the consensus in the world doesn't change our fundamental copyright/content policies. I looked back in the article history to see where it was used and found it here. Folks, this is one of the things that the m:Resolution:Licensing policy was intended to prohibit. We don't use non-free images like stock photos. Any random picture would do here and there's no reason it has to be the Time magazine cover. We could make our own picture of God pointing at a monkey. We could come up with a different idea entirely like a monkey with a question mark over its head. But there is no encyclopedic requirement to use this particular image and thus it does not comply with our non-free content policy. Any admin restoring it ought to be desysopped immediately. --B 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, per nom. A convincing case was made for fair use, and there was no consensus to delete. Guettarda 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you point out that "convincing case" for fair use to me? Several people on this DRV have said that it is fair use (sic) without offering any reasoning behind that claim. On the IFD, the only comments I saw that even addressed compliance with out fair use policies were those of Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs). Nobody here or there has explained how this image meets WP:FAIR#Policy #8. We don't use non-free images for decorative purposes - we only use them when they are essential to the reader's understanding of the topic. In no way, shape, or form is a Time magazine cover showing God pointing at a monkey essential to your understanding of the topic. Even if it were, we could make our own image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --B 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you ever get the feeling you were parroting yourself? The "we could make a picture" defense if lame -- the cover indicates a social phenomenon in a way your hand- or computer-drawn picture never could. Nothing you could do could capture the gravitas of that picture, the gravitas of the topic, the gravitas of the social dilemma. And really, that is the importance of the picture. It's a shame that you can't see that, but then I'll wager that you know nothing of the topic. In fact, NFCC #8 is the last refuge of the image deletionist who is utterly clueless of the actual topic, and who cannot, therefore, be seen as a qualified arbiter of any picture's value to the actual topic. See WP:OFFICIOUS. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replaceability had nothing to do with the deletion with the image, and you pointed out the very reason the image was deleted. The image was being used for its impact, not because there was some information better understood because of it. 17Drew 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Funny ... your comment is less civil than anything I have seen from a person whose ban you support rather vocally. --B 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was a deeply irrelevant comment, and I wonder why you felt the need to make it. A good idea would be for you to remove it, and feel free to remove this response should you do so.  – ornis⚙ 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point is that just because someone disagrees doesn't mean there is something wrong with them. Jim62sch seems to believe that there is something wrong with me because I don't believe that this picture meets our image use policies. There is a reason that I stay away from this topic area. --B 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think you understand the topic, quite honestly. In assessing impact we see importance, in assessing importance we clarify the topic, ergo assisting the reader's comprehension. It's really quite the simple concept. As for your snarky comment, I'll ignore it -- for now -- except to see WP:SPADE (see, as the comment was not directed at a particular person, it is quite clear that it was an observation of WP's inner turmoil). Capisce? 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse The image may meet the purely legal requirements with respect to fair use, but that alone is not sufficient. The image does not satisfy criterion 8 of the the non-free content criteria insofar as it "can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." Furthermore, with respect to consensus, consensus is not limited to individual deletion debates, rather there is also the wider consensus that has created and refined the policies upon which the debate should proceed. An individual deletion decision should not usually (IAR notwithstanding) contradict that wider consensus. CIreland 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Neil's closure of the debate was based on the merits of the arguments and not the vote count. The arguments that it did not meet WP:NFCC#8 were stronger since the arguments to keep were primarily because the existence of the cover and the presence of the image added emphasis to the section, not because there was some part of the topic better understood because of the image. 17Drew 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - looks like it's within the boundaries of that NFCC guideline to me. Saying that it isn't just doesn't make it so any more than saying it is does make it so. Administrators are allowed to ignore the consensus of the community if it's against guidelines, but the arguments were clearly valid. 128.118.161.244 07:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is really a textbook case of fair-use counterexample #8, and the closing admin interpreted policy correctly. Some are arguing that this image is notable simply because it was the cover story of Time Magazine -- but if that's the case then counterexample #8 has no meaning. Further, there is no encyclopedic information about ID that is conveyed by the cover itself, that could not be conveyed just as well (if not as prettily) by simply saying it was Time's cover story. The cover image isn't designed to give information about ID; it's designed to look pretty and thought-provoking attract readers to the article. That's decorative. Of course the article itself is noteworthy and should be mentioned, but the image of the cover is just decorative. These sorts of images are routinely deleted, and literally hundreds of similar cases have been dealt with without controversy. Keeping this image would frankly require a change in policy ("We can use magazine covers, not otherwise notable, if the fact of the article itself is notable"), and this isn't the forum for changing policy. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The IfD was closed properly. Neil was quite right to take into account not the numbers voting keep or delete, but merits of the arguments. WP:NFCC#8 is a much stronger argument than the fact that Time Magazine regularly grant permission to use their covers, or the fact that the cover added emphasis to a section. Regarding the emphasis added, or how it "showed the importance", nobody really made a convincing argument that without the image, people would find it much harder to understand the article. Regarding the "permission", see Template:Permission from license selector and these two messages, especially Kat Walsh's words: "While we appreciate the goodwill of those who give special permissions for Wikimedia to display a work, this does not fulfill our greater purpose of giving others the freedom to use the content as well, and so we cannot accept media with permission for use on Wikimedia only. Derivative uses are also important. The value of allowing modifications becomes clear to anyone who edits the projects, as new work builds on the work of others, and work you cannot change to meet your needs and purposes is not free." Our policy on non-free content is not about how not to get sued; it's about building an encylopaedia out of text and images and other media that are freely licensed and that can be used by anyone for any purpose. We deviate from that, with reluctance, when we find that not to do so would significantly compromise the quality of an article. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IfD closure as "delete" was most certainly not a correct interpretation of "policy". This was an administrative overruling of a clear preference to keep the image, based on a mere guideline, as I indicated in the extended comment a bit farther above. So the admin admitted NFCC #8 is clearly a subjective issue and defers to the consensus on that basis, but then incorrectly cites a non-binding guideline (a guideline written largely by anti-fair-use advocates) and overrules a clear majority on this basis, and this is now being argued to be interpreting policy correctly? No way. This is in effect saying "to heck with consensus -- we're deleting the image anyway". And then after having pointed out the closing admin's error in overruling consensus based on a non-binding guideline, the arguments again come back around to back-and-forth arguments about the subjective editorial interpretation of NFCC #8. This should have been left to the local article consensus to begin with, then in the IfD it should have been left to that clear majority preference to keep.
    ..... As to the argument that "Neil was quite right to take into account not the numbers voting...", this is an argument seen in the essay WP:AADD where "not just a vote [but also a discussion process]" is commonly reinterpreted as "ignore the numbers of votes" when a minority disagrees with a majority and seeks to change the outcome. If that's the argument here, we may as well just skip the pretenses about community participation and let the admins make all the decisions on whatever justification they want . Indeed at that point there's no need for any valid justification -- the closer may as well just say "here's my decision, and thanks to everybody for the input", and be done with it. ... Kenosis 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some points concerning majorities:
  1. I read the original debate but did not comment because I felt that the arguments that I would offer had already been made by others. I may well not have been the only one. I omitted to comment on the basis that the strength of the arguments would be evaluated, not the number of advocates for one position or another.
  2. The reason we debate rather than vote in XFDs is that voting gives the same weight to every argument regardless of that argument's strength. A debate should give greater weight to some arguments than others - which is what happened in this case. CIreland 17:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My review of the IfD indicated that there were cogent arguments on both sides of the debate. The arguments from image-deletion advocates were the same arguments recycled in many image deletion proceedings, and all of it came down to a simple editorial decision. So, in other words, the closing justification for overruling a clear lack of consensus to delete came down to the subjective critierion NFCC #8, a subjective measure, a simple editorial decision about whether the image helps the reader of the article sufficiently enough to use it. And this happened despite the Deletion guidelines for administrators which directs "When in doubt, don't delete". In other words, the closing administrator makes the decision and decides what argument prevails in the debate, and basically tells the participants "thanks for your input--here's my decision". Then let's not beat around the bush and let's call it what it is, please. The closing administrator makes the decision. ... Kenosis 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yokohama Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

respectfully, please undelete-saw this PROD too late, which said "Expired PROD, concern was: no third-party references establishing notability, only incidental mentions of group", the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting maintains a list of pending deletions and merges, and we are very good at establishing notability and repairing articles to useful Wikistatus. I am certain that had any one of us seen this PROD, we have the resources to save this article. This actually falls under a unique piece of Scout history, see Madison Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps, and we would like the chance to save it. Thank you for your time. Chris 01:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I want the chance to redefine my entry to reflect the more elaborate research that has been done to validate my posting RexFollett 05:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Allow the research to be reflecting then reAFD if required. Supergluez 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, not a shred of assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. AecisBrievenbus 17:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I am reluctant to restore this particular nonsense for examination, but will email to anyone who requests. A perfectly reasonable deletion of nonsense. The claim to have done "more elaborate research" is particular amusing in view of the contents. DGG (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator - Oh let me tell ya there is a wealth of information out there about Hanging Brain. It has in fact been seen on movies. There is definitions of it on online dictionaries.. But the act its self to display the scrotum sack in front of a crowd of people at a frat party or elsewhere is a commonly known occurrence around the world at lots of institutions. To deny the long droopy sack of goodies for viewing pleasure on Wikipedia is like going against what Wikipedia was based and designed on. The fundamentals wiki was built on and practices of wiki is to allow people to express new content in a free encyclopedia. And when ya say "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" I assure you this was not made up in school one day.. Hanging Brain has been around since the dawn of time.. Just like the dinosaur.. Another thing I want to point out is everything on Wikipedia was made up at one point in time. Like all the movies and TV shows ya allow to post on here what about that? How can all that crap have more reverence to Hanging Brain? Those TV shows and movies were made up somewhere by someone at one time or another.--RexFollett 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Wikipedia was built on verifiability. In the absence of reliable sources about the subject, it doesn't deserve an article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was depicted in the movie "Waiting..." Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris, Justin Long, David Koechner, Luis Guzmán Directors: Rob McKittrick A hilarious comedy about frustrated waiters, stingy tippers and dicey food, Lions Gate Films' WAITING... stars Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris and Justin Long as young employees battling boredom at Shenanigan's, a generic chain restaurant. A waiter for four years since high school, Dean (Justin Long) has never questioned his job at Shenanigan's. But when he learns that Chett, a high school classmate, now has a lucrative career in electrical engineering, he's thrown into turmoil about his dead-end life. Dean's friend Monty (Ryan Reynolds) is in exactly the same boat, but he couldn't care less. More concerned with partying and getting laid, Monty is put in charge of training Mitch (John Francis Daley), a shy new employee. Over the course of one chaotic shift, Mitch gets to know the rest of Shenanigan's quirky staff: Monty's tough-talking ex-girlfriend, Serena (Anna Faris), Shenanigan's over-zealous manager, Dan (David Koechner), and head cook Raddimus (Luis Guzman), who's obsessed with a senseless staff-wide competition known only as "The Game"... Featuring crazy busboys, unsanitary kitchen antics, and lots of talk about sex, WAITING... is a hysterical, behind-the-scenes look at the restaurant industry, and an affectionate ode to those lost, and thoroughly unproductive, days of youth. "The Game" As what was mentioned above involves "Hanging Brain".. Also 1. hanging brain Definitions at Hanging Brain Definitions The act of pulling one's scrotum (testicles included) through the opening in one's pants or shorts, thus exposing the beauty of one's gonads for all to admire. Named for the remarkable resemblance of the display to a human brain, hanging in the breeze. 2. hanging brain Definitions at Hanging Brain Definitions When your balls hang out the leg of your shorts and you are not even aware of it. This commonly occurs when you lean back and put your legs up, while in a seated position and you're rockin short, loose-fitting bottoms, i.e., short shorts or short swim trunks. Being stoned helps, too. This occurs with a much higher degree of frequency in wearers of boxers than in wearers of more supportive undergarments. Someone also made reference to hanging brain here Someone not wanting to hang brain And here is more references See I am not the only one who knows what Hanging Brain is Punks do it too Oxbow at Privilege, 11:00 p.m. Eugene Robinson's got balls--and he's not afraid to show them to you. Wearing nothing but a pair of grayish tighty-whities, the California boxer-cum-Oxbow frontman looms over a packed crowd of emaciated punks whose fresh black hair dye runs down their sweaty necks. With fists clenched, he looks like he's ready to shatter the jaw of anyone brave enough to throw the first punch. The punks are smart enough to keep their hands in their pockets. Robinson is smart enough to shove his hands down his pants, making the punks go wild. He pulls up his goods, hanging brain in full view of everyone. Cough-syrup-fueled guitars swirl in dizzy fury, the Birthday Party basslines rattle Tracy Pew's bones, and then Robinson opens his mouth and lets out a mournful yowl that could break your heart and your eardrums at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexFollett (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - nonsense coming from the keyboard of creator speaks for itself. JuJube 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Juvenile fantasy.--WaltCip 12:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - where's BJAODN when you need it. Carlossuarez46 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

5 October 2007

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

The AfD for this article states that it fails WP:CRYSTAL, and this was the reason it was deleted. I beg to differ, for reason I provided on the page.

  1. The article does not fail rule 1 of WP:CRYSTAL - The event is extremely notable, and is 100% going to take place. The Roadrunner Records website even says this, and as you know, Slipknot's are a Roadrunner Records label. Here is the link.
  2. The article does not fail rule 2 of WP:CRYSTAL - This rule does not apply to the article as it's name is not apart of the given examples.
  3. The article does not fail rule 3 of WP:CRYSTAL - The article does not extrapolate, speculate or have any original reseach. All information is sourced.
  4. And finally, the AfD cleary states that the vote was a tie, at four votes a piece, so wha makes that an automatic deletion. Common sense dictates that that means the article be kept, as the result was actually "no consensus" which is an automatic keep for an article. Jasca Ducato 22:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails rule 1 with first sentence

Slipknot's fourth studio album will possibly be released in mid 2008,

Failed rule 3 with a lot of unsourced stuff
How care for the tally - AfD is a discussion, not a vote; I weigh the comments and use my discretion in such cases as to whether to delete or keep. And this is basically a plan of how I closed it after seeing no obvious consensus at first sight. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus means an article gets kept, and the article does not fail the rules. All the top line says is when the article will possibly be released. And the link I provided proves that it will be made. Jasca Ducato 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; the album doesn't even have a name, for crying out loud. It'll probably get made, and it will probably get notable. After that, an article would probably be warranted. Not now. — Coren (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Roadrunner Records.com:


This is confirmation of the album's release. Jasca Ducato 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... wait till it's released then. It does patently fail WP:CRYSTAL. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. This is marketing hype. — Coren (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Digitally Imported (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am the closing admin, and my decision was to delete the article. My decision was based on the fact that there are actually 3 keeps, 2 comments and one delete, however, if you look at the keeps, the first was that it is carried on the iTunes tuner service, and that this is a good metric for notability. The problem was that I couldn't really see where there is consensus that this is something that is a good enough metric for determining a station is notable - one other contributor agreed with Haikupoet, and to be frank this doesn't form consensus. The other keep was that there is 64,000 hits for DI.fm... but no explanation of what was being searched on, so I couldn't verify this info. The other two comments were totally non-committal.

It is perhaps notable that the AFD was not submitted properly, and may actually have meant that many who wanted to comment on the debate did not get a chance. I also think that it may be a good idea to relist, but figure that I should send to deletion review for others to comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think "no consensus" would have been more appropriate, to be honest. The AfD presented this source to help w/ notability. Here's another, and being on iTunes helps. It's trivially mentioned here, here. All in all, I think there's enough to make a proper article, though it's clear that the original needs to be trimmed and despammed. — Scientizzle 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, kudos to Ta bu shi da yu for self-submitting this to DRV. — Scientizzle 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers... I'm a little rusty on AFD, so might be making a few mistakes. I'm trying quite hard to give detailed explanations about why I delete/keep something. I'm noticing that more than a few AFDs don't give these... Anyway, sorry if my mistakes or decisions aren't quite right. I'll always add to DRV if I feel that my decision might need review. Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to above and [113] (which are mostly reliable sources, although a few press releases seem to have snuck in). DI is notable because A) it is both one of the oldest surviving and most popular "net radio" stations and B) One of the first and most prominent groups to lobby against royalty increases for net radio. I think the sourcing is there to establish all of this properly. --W.marsh 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I certainly think that both Digitally Imported and sky.fm are notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Phasmatisnox 14:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - DI.fm is quite possibly the largest dance/rave music broadcaster (based on # of listeners) on the internet.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per nom 121.216.39.167 05:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I don't know what's going on, but Digitally Imported is definitely notable. Comparable to Soma FM. Suva Чего? 19:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If the closer has doubts about the delete close and requests a review, no consensus seems the likely rough consensus. If you can't stand by your own decision or conclude that it should be reversed after reflection, then please let others close the discussion. It's not a good thing to be wishy-washy when it comes to deleting the hard work of others. Comment Here is some info. -- Jreferee t/c 23:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

Previous short stub was deleted for lack of sources and content, so I have created a useful article on the same subject DollyD 11:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4. This is an exact recreation of the text deleted via AFD2, with the addition of a supposed source "Juddery, Mark - Outside the Squares - The Bulletin (Australian edition), Vol. 123 Issue 6500 (13 Dec. 2005), p. 64-65" Since this source didn't change the article text, it wasn't actually used in writing the article. (I note that there was a DRV of AFD1 back in January 2006, before we were archiving deletion reviews.) Please let the nomination stand as a challenge to my speedy deletion, even though the nomination caused the speedy deletion. GRBerry 13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Further comment - we clearly need to salt, as we are getting cut and paste recreations of the old text. Compare version deleted via AFD2 to top version (or to any other version from today. GRBerry 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Text is not an exact recreation and contains additional information and four sources have been added as well as external links. These changes address the reasons for which the article was deleted, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. DollyD 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No new information has been brought to light to make any change to the original decision. Subject's coverage in the world of comics remains minor. All subject's creation fail notability guidlines, ergo subject is not notable for WP.218.143.102.89 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editing my sig please. not cool. WTF is up with editing the sigs of nearly every restore argument and not signing your edits??? Creepy. Bobsbasement 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete - All counter arguments thus far amount to "This is notable, sources exist" yet nothing of any real substance has been produced, even after two AFD and two subsequent deletions. Published, even nationallym does not equate to notability. To go to a third AFD would be going round in even more circles and wasting even more time. As mentioned above, until any of the subject's creations are worthy of note, by an obvious extension of logic, a bio article is doomed to non-notability failure.Hen Features 23:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until a proposed article appears in userspace that would merit a return to afd land or would be sufficient that we're convinced it would survive afd, it's a pig-in-a-poke and the article is proper G4. Carlossuarez46 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a completely new draft article. How do I create a sandbox to put it in? DollyD 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Pink Chickens is a very well known kids comic in Australia.203.12.147.209 09:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Restore I believe that the sources, of which at least The Bulletin and Digital Strips are frequently been used as a citations for Wikipedia and can be considered reliable, confirming the fact that the subject has been regulary published since 2001 with two well-known creations in nationally distributed, high circulation magazines including Mania, Krash, Hyper and Nintendo Gamer definitely constitutes notability. 203.220.107.71 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Psychiatric abuse – Restored, sent to AfD. The AfD closer's reasoning, as expressed below in the DRV debate, is not unsound. However, even he stipulated that the article was improved during the course of the first AfD; it is unclear whether all AfD commenters had the benefit of viewing the most recent revisions, and the number of sources presented below. The suggestion that this article has OR/SYN problems, and that it constitutes a COATRACK, is serious and not without merit. There remains hope, though, that further discussion can resolve these difficulties. By the numbers, this DRV is fairly evenly split -- the course of argumentation provides good reason to believe that five more days at AfD could substantially improve the article, and clarify the community's feelings regarding it. – Xoloz 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Psychiatric abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closer cited a strong majority for delete, which is an unfortunate characterization, since AfD is not a vote. Notwithstanding this, the closer sided with the commenters who asserted that the framing was invalid, but further research during the AfD showed ample sources to support that violations of the WPA "Declaration of Madrid" represent at least one currently valid framing, in addition to the many historical examples. Since this framing was added to the article lead late in the AfD, it was not considered in the discussion. The article itself has a troubled past, and needs further research to reach an acceptable standard, but the topic itself is encyclopedic, and sufficient reliable sources exist to improve it, if editors would only use them instead of referencing the seat of their pants. The article should continue to be improved by regular editing, not deletion, by policy. Although the edit history and talk page are ugly, they should be preserved to guide future editors in covering this important, yet controversial, topic. For example, in doing the additional research on this it was revealed that the Declaration of Madrid is not covered in WP, and the limited coverage of the Declaration of Hawaii that was included in this article was lost with its deletion. What else will investigation of the additional unincorporated references in the further reading section and other related sources reveal? Dhaluza 10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those unable to see the article now that it has been deleted, I have copied my last attempt to reframe the lead using reliable sources below:

  • Psychiatric abuse is a generic term for real and alleged mistreatment of people under psychiatric care by doctors, middle-medical personnel or orderlies.[3] There are several highly polarized views of varying standards about what constitutes "Psychiatric abuse". Actual mistreatment can range from simple malpractice, to human rights violations up to and including torture[3][4] and euthanasia.[5] The term is used by scholars to describe state sanctioned oppression and abuse against dissidents.[3][4] It is also used by critics of Psychiatry to criticize mainstream treatments believed to be clinically effective, such as electroconvulsive therapy.[6]The the World Psychiatric Association’s 1996 "Declaration of Madrid" is an internationally accepted standard for ethical psychiatric care, and many recent claims of psychiatric abuse cite violations of its provisions as the basis for this determination.[7][8][9]
  1. ^ but the reference was "Personal Bio Michael Zen". IAFD.com. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
  2. ^ "AVN Awards Past Winners". AVN.com. Retrieved 2007-10-08.
  3. ^ a b c Gluzman, S.F. (1991). "Abuse of psychiatry: analysis of the guilt of medical personnel". J Med Ethics. 17: 19–20. Retrieved 2007-09-30. Based on the generally accepted definition, we correctly term the utilisation of psychiatry for the punishment of political dissidents as torture.
  4. ^ a b Debreu, Gerard (1988). "Part 1: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse, and the Ethics of Medicine". In Corillon, Carol (ed.). Science and Human Rights. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2007-10-04. Over the past two decades the systematic use of torture and psychiatric abuse have been sanctioned or condoned by more than one-third of the nations in the United Nations, about half of mankind.
  5. ^ López-Muñoza, Francisco (2006-12-07). "Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry : Psychiatry and political–institutional abuse from the historical perspective: The ethical lessons of the Nuremberg Trial on their 60th anniversary". Cecilio Alamoa, Michael Dudleyb, Gabriel Rubioc, Pilar García-Garcíaa, Juan D. Molinad and Ahmed Okasha. Science Direct. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2006.12.007. Retrieved 2007-10-04. These practices, in which racial hygiene constituted one of the fundamental principles and euthanasia programmes were the most obvious consequence, violated the majority of known bioethical principles. Psychiatry played a central role in these programmes, and the mentally ill were the principal victims. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ^ Lebensohn, Z.M. (1999). "The history of electroconvulsive therapy in the United States and its place in American psychiatry: A personal memoir". Comprehensive Psychiatry. 40 (3): 173–181. Retrieved 2007-10-05. Networks of former patients such as NAPA (Network Against Psychiatric Abuse) have aligned themselves with various antipsychiatry organizations
  7. ^ Okasha, A. (2005). "WPA Continues to Pursue Concerns About Chinese Psychiatric Abuses". Psychiatric News. 40 (3): 24–24. Retrieved 2007-10-05. The Madrid Declaration is concerned with the protection of the rights of our patients and the nonabuse of our profession.
  8. ^ Munro, R. (2002). "Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and its Origins in the Mao Era" (PDF). HR Watch. Retrieved 2007-10-05. The Chinese authorities' frequent imposition of this extreme measure on individuals (mentally normal or otherwise) whom they regard as posing only a "political threat" to society stands in clear and direct violation both of the World Psychiatric Association's 1996 Declaration of Madrid... {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ^ Helmchen, H. (2000). "From the Hawaii Declaration to the Declaration of Madrid". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 101 (399): 20–23. Retrieved 2007-10-05. At that time, the WPA was concerned with the abuse of psychiatry and psychiatrists by some governments in the world. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This small sample of incorporated references from mainstream respected sources provide more than ample evidence that a valid encyclopedic context for this subject exists. Many more cited and uncited refs were added to the article during the AfD, and lost in the deletion before they could be explored further. We do not delete articles on encyclopedic topics simply because they are controversial, or because editors have done poor research in the past. The current state of an article is not grounds for deletion, lack of supporting source material is, and that is clearly not the case here.

Editors have expressed strong personal feelings over this article, but we properly devalue editors' opinions, and instead rely on the opinions expressed by published authors writing in reliable sources. I hope commenters will consider this before commenting below, so this DRV does not become simply an extension of the AfD discussion. Dhaluza 10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - I have invited Chris to reconsider his close but apparently that has already been requested so I will post my concerns here. I dispute ChrisO's recent close of psychiatric abuse on two grounds. 1) IMO, it was clearly a case of "no consensus" with 7 clear keep vs. 9 clear delete. Both sides had strong arguments. There was no consensus. 2) I challenge ChrisO's neutrality on the subject as he is an anti-Scientology crusader and that topic has Scientology interest. He should not have been the one to close it. It is an actual or perceived conflict of interest and reflects badly on the project. --Justanother 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please support the statement that "ChrisO is an anti-Scientology crusader," as I thought he was a Scientologist. I haven't examined the situation closely and I'm too busy and lazy to do so now, but if you add a personal reason like the bias of an editor you should provide a diff or two, please do so or strike out your statement--thanks. KP Botany 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris is an off-Wiki (and on-Wiki) critic of Scientology. His real name and history as a critic of Scientology has been mentioned and is well-known to the editors in the Scientology series but I am reluctant to disclose his RL identity without his express approval. He can mention it himself if he cares to. I have no objection whatsoever to Chris' editing in general and in the Scientology articles in particular, however he should refrain from exercising his admin responsibilities in Scientology-related articles. (I mean where such use would be at all controversial. 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)) --Justanother 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I thought he was a Scientologist for some reason--still, I would generally appreciate a diff with a comment of this nature, because if he is an anti-Scientologist and he improperly proceduraly and COI closed an AfD he should get at the very least a warning to make sure this doesn't become a habit of his, and a block if it is a habit. I don't like regular Wikipedia editors ignoring their personal biases and COIs in this manner at all, especially administrators. I don't care to or need to know his real name for any reason whatsoever. KP Botany 03:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, without my making a project of it, here is one. Nothing wrong with it, just that he is a critic of Scientology. --Justanother 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If careful editors can differ about what side of the issue he is on, I think that shows he does not express his bias. DGG (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Let's do away with the impression of impropriety when it comes to administrative actions. KP Botany 07:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closer's explanation (that this is inherently POV and OR) is hard to buy, even notwithstanding the obvious lack of consensus to that effect, the definition is sourced to a scholarly journal article called "Abuse of psychiatry: analysis of the guilt of medical personnel" and there's zero reason to doubt the person citing it. Sure, the article could have contained original theories and data, but the existence of the sources cited shows that a proper, even excellent, article could exist based on verifiable information. There seems to be confusion here along the lines of deleting a workable article as a punishment because it had some POV issues at some point, which obviously is something we need to avoid, otherwise George W. Bush and most other articles would have to go. Okay, it's a controversial topic that many would prefer to just not think about... but the sourcing seems excellent. If the sourcing is there... it seems a bit biased to delete it anyway. The close just seems to ignore the lack of consensus then go on to make an erroneous claim to override that lack of consensus... it should be overturned. --W.marsh 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Procedurally, I had no sense from the AfD discussion that there was consensus. Thus the administrator must have been relying on hhis own judgment. Accordingly, a Caesar's wife standard should apply to the selection of administrator to do the closing. It would appeat that ChrisO's expressed attitude toward Scientology would raise questions and that someone else should have done it. The tainted nature of the closing would seem to require that it be undone or that the closing record be evaluated by one or more admins not involved in the discussion, in Scientology, or psychotherapy, or, at least, psychiatry. DCDuring 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my striken comments I was continuing the AfD. Although the deletion may have a useful temporary function as a "time-out", it seems as if there is encyclopedic content.

As to the term, the proto-article above refers to legally sanctioned or government-administered abuse of the professional image of "psychiatry" to provide cover for repression. In principle, any armed group (or otherwise powerful group) could perpetrate such abuse within its sphere of influence. This seems a well-defined and important topic. It seems too large a subject to be a mere component of, say, "human rights abuses". Many professions are part of such abuses (law, medicine, teaching, engineering, scientific research). Each might deserve an article. There may be some difficulty in limiting the subject matter if the government involvement in abuse involves some government or legal involvement (inspection, reimbursement, legal structure enabling private-sector abuse). Perhaps the same boundaries as would apply in a human-rights abuse article would be applicable here. Should "human rights abuse" be the 'main article' for "psychiatric abuse"?
The problem here is that this became a battleground among tendencies: defenders of the psychiatry profession and pro- and anti-Scientology. IMHO this makes makes precision and strict enforcement of a definition almost as important as enforcement of WP standards. I hope that strict enforcement of a definition is feasible.DCDuring 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC) DCDuring 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn. I agree that originally the article (which was under construction when nominated) had WP:NPOV and sourcing issues, but don't see what was wrong with the most recent revision -- it was pruned aggressively (perhaps too aggressively IMO), and there was still a plenitude of solid content. I don't think this is an inherent POV fork any more than, say, corruption, corporate crime, or rape -- the title implicitly condemns psychiatric malpractices, not psychiatrists in general. Of course there is the potential for editors to put POV-pushing material in the article, but that's only a content dispute. Consensus-wise, the AfD was split roughly even; not really a "clear majority." — xDanielx T/C 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I didn't vote keep nor delete in Afd because I wasn't sure about the article. However, I think that the article improved consistantly. Clarification of definition is still needed but it needs more time for editors to establish consensus. It shouldn't have been deleted now and some content was clearly notable. Options like merge or rename have been also omitted. -- Stan talk 01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete properly AfD isn't a vote, so don't treat it like one when closing particularly contentious AfDs. Read WP:AfD to learn more. KP Botany 02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A totally confused AfD, with no consensus for anything--and such would be the only reasonable closing. Going by !votes is particularly inappropriate here since most of the debate was expressed as comments without specific keep or delete views--the people commenting understood that the situation needed further discussion, the closer did not. DGG (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, you're ignoring the basis of the delete arguments, which was on the basis of OR and that the construction of an article in this form made it an attack on a profession. Much of the information in and of itself was valid and indeed is elsewhere on WP.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid that it's misleading to say that "Psychiatric abuse" is merely a generic term, because this term is used extensively within Scientology. As a generic term, it refers to a narrow set of improper uses of psychiatry by individuals or regimes. As a Scientology term, it refers broadly, arguably encompassing all psychiatric treatments (since Scientology does not appear to acknowledge any proper uses of psychiatry). The two views are incompatible and, from the standpoint of the academic literature, the Scientology view is what Wp calls a "fringe" theory. (N.B. Generally, fringe theories are given their own article rather than mixed with a mainstream view.) Originally, the article exhibited clear OR problems. While the article shifted during the AfD to deal more with the generic usage, the POV problems remain serious and, IMO, insurmountable due partly to the article title. Why have a mainstream article about a narrow set of abuses, i.e. the generic usage, under a title obviously associated with a Scientology's broad critique of psychiatry in toto? In addition, a POV problem is clear because nearly all the material (whether in the article's earler or later stages) could be placed either in Psychiatry#Controversy, Anti-psychiatry or Scientology and psychiatry. As a result, the article was functioning in effect as a POV fork. While there may be useful content in the latest version of the article, wouldn't it make sense to deploy that content in either an existing article -- or at least an article with a neutral title? (In the AfD, folks suggested several neutral titles that could be used immediately.) HG | Talk 02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I almost agree with you! However, neither Psychiatry#Controversy, Anti-psychiatry nor Scientology and psychiatry cover psychiatric abuse but question psychiatry itself. Psychiatry#Controversy questions Psychiatry, Anti-psychiatry covers a movement and Scientology and psychiatry covers the Scientology view. But what about the generic term which defines real "recogniced" abuse which is even recognized by the WPA?! Regarding your concerns, you might be right. The term is used extensively within Scientology but despite that it is also used by scholars, press and even psychiatrists. A cult with 100 000 members worldwide shouldn't dominate the definition of a common term and shouldn't be the reason not to cover it. The odd use of this term by some movements and groups could be mentioned and explained wich would make the article even more valuable. -- Stan talk 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scientology aspect may have been implied, buy the article could have stood without it. many anti-psychiatry people are not psychiatrists--there are quite a variety of social, political, and religious orientations which can lead to this stance. I'm going to withhold my admitted POV view about why such varied convictions have a common element that lead to this position. I suggested in the afd that the article be divided to cover the varied aspects. the version as it existed was for whatever reason outrageously unbalanced, but the solution is to balance it. DGG (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than argue about this in the abstract, I'm willing to try to show how some article content may be allocated elsewhere in Wikipedia. This would include the professional ethics issues as well as the anti-psych aspects, Scientology or otherwise. This may take a few days and could benefit from input, esp from the various editors who suggested such an approach. I've requested a content restore, above. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See links below. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Apologies for coming late to this discussion, but as the closing admin I stand by the decision to delete this article. As originally constituted, the article was a synthesis of miscellaneous incidents strung together to create a narrative - it was a blatant example of original research to advance a particular ideological position, seriously violating WP:NPOV. The original article was little more than a personal essay on "why psychiatry is bad". It underwent major changes during the deletion debate, during which some of the POV problems were addressed but the article became more of a dictionary definition of the term "psychiatric abuse" - however, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In addition, as HG points out above, the article's title and basic premise is insurmountably POV; as it stood, the article served as a mere coatrack on which to hang any incident that someone, somewhere has labelled "psychiatric abuse". Finally, I refute the outrageous charge of personal bias on my part. The article is about psychiatric medicine, not Scientology (though it's interesting that some people seem to be implicitly arguing the opposite - doesn't that support HG's contention that it's a POV fork of Scientology and psychiatry?). My decision was taken purely on the basis of long-standing Wikipedia policy. -- ChrisO 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Added). The overturn arguments that have been presented aren't very convincing. Many of them are attempts to re-run the AfD ("it's a notable topic, so it must have an article!") - as WP:DRV#Purpose says, "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." A number of claims have been made of bias on my part, which is nonsense given that I had no previous involvement with this article, nor have I ever expressed a view on Wikipedia (or anywhere else as far as I know) for or against psychiatry. A majority of editors supported deletion, and I judged (as set out above) that the arguments advanced by the deletion side were convincing. I recommend that editors read WP:DGFA and pay particular attention to the following passage: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. ... Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." The bottom line is that whichever way I closed the AfD, one side or the other (or both) was bound to complain. That's an inevitable part of closing any controversial AfD and the various attacks and insinuations about my supposed motives aren't unexpected. Closing it as a deletion was supported by policy and well within admin discretion. -- ChrisO 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The DRV process was not used to continue the AfD as you assert--in fact I added a comment to that effect at the start. The reason for this DRV was both to point out that your closing statement indicated debate itself was interpreted incorrectly, and that significant new information added to the article during the AfD was not considered in the discussion, and to point out the deletion decision was contrary to policy. The passage I added above indicates that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, so that new argument falls flat. Closing a controversial AfD may be a thankless job, but that is not an excuse not to do a good job of it. The fact that you have repeatedly had to modify and expand your deletion rational is a consequence of your own actions, and the frustration you are expressing here should be directed at yourself, not the community. Dhaluza 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Reply There is no "long-standing Wikipedia policy" to close AfDs based on a majority. In fact, it's just the opposite. Please read it before getting all huffy at me when any admin on Wikipedia could have closed that instead of you with your obvious conflict of interest. Oh, and that is the reason you gave, the primary and initial reason you gave for closing, "obvious."[114][115] That "several editors" pointed out something else that you consider secondary to the wishes of the "obvious majority" seems almost an afterthought--the beforethought should have been your not closing the debate due to your biases. KP Botany 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments in support of your closing decision all relate to the article itself, not the discussion, which gives the impression that you were primarily evaluating the article rather than the discussion in closing with delete. This gives the impression that you were actually casting a super-vote, rather than being an impartial mediator, despite your denial of bias. Dhaluza 11:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's nonsense. All of the grounds that I cited above (the "long-standing Wikipedia policies" that I alluded to) were articulated during the AfD debate, and I found them convincing reasons to delete rather than keep the article. Policy trumps consensus. -- ChrisO 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the dictiionary argument was never made in the AfD, that argument is new to this discussion, and uniquely your own. Also policy never trumps true consensus--policy is derrived from consensus. You may ignore arguments contrary to policy in deciding rough consensus at AfD, but you must ignore them equally from all. Dhaluza 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your claim that "policy never trumps consensus" is complete nonsense and shows that you don't understand how policy works. WP:NPOV and WP:OR are non-negotiable and cannot be overridden by editors. If there had been 100 editors claiming a right to override OR and only one arguing against that proposition, the dissenting editor would have won the argument. Policy is established by the Wikipedia community as a whole - it can't be overridden by editors who don't like what it requires. -- ChrisO 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Policy trumps consensus" has been the standard for a very long time. To quote WP:DGFA: "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." -- ChrisO 00:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are taking this out of context. Policy only trumps narrow consensus, it cannot trump broad community consesus, because that is what creates policy in the first place. Policy must never be allowed to take on a life of its own or followed blindly into the woods. The NPOV example you cite is a special case of an existential threat to WP from libel lawsuits, and this is why Wales has called it non-negotiable. But I have not seen anyone who has seriously argued that we should ignore NPOV in this case (although there are disagreements over how to acchieve it), so that's a red herring you have thrown in to this discussion. You did not address why, as the closer, you are the one making new arguments at DRV. This is rather unusual in my experience--it is ususally the partisans who do this. Dhaluza 11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse. The reasons for the deletion are well put by ChrisO above. Dhaluza if you feel that Declaration of Madrid and Declaration of Hawaii need better coverage then you are most welcome to make or expand pages on them. In fact much of the material contained in the article either is mentioned or should be mentioned in their own articles - it was the synthesis into this article which was the problem. As I have said, expand an Ethical issues in psychiatry page by all means.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I question the reason for the deletion of what is an obvious attempt to create an NPOV article where there was an article with a dubious NPOV status before. Perhaps add another article or section to cover how the term is used in Scientology if you must. --Shawn K. Quinn 10:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article. Written not bad at all, and constantly imroving, very fast. Every improvement i wanted to do was done before me. When it was nominated for deletion, i already said (and if i havent said, i wanted to, i dont remember) that it was a very stupid nomination. There wasnt a majority on Delete. There was a similar number of those who said Keep. Many Keeps vern't counted because they stated themselves as Comment, and then said what should be improved. Which means a Huge majority said Keep. Besides, it's not a vote. By all the demands this article should have stayed. M.V.E.i. 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly not a vote...we dont keep because of ILIKEIT either - the basis of the delete arguments, which was on the basis of OR and that the construction of an article in this form made it an attack on a profession. Much of the information in and of itself was valid and indeed is elsewhere on WP.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There many, many things wrong with the article, and only a clean slate gave any chance to the little bits that were of any use a chance to be properly used. Circeus 13:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is a notable topic. There should be another topic on ethics of psychiatry, as Merkinsmum suggested. Steve Dufour 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The article at the time of deletion was thus a coatrack article which was certainly deserving of deletion. It was an original research synthesis of a number of different things which have at one time or another been called "psychiatric abuse" by various different groups. The term "psychiatric abuse" is of itself a loaded term that makes NPOV almost impossible, with wildly divergent uses by different groups: for example, some psychiatrists use it to describe medical malpractice in the fields of psychiatry, some commentators use it to describe political oppression disguised as psychiatry, whilst some anti-psychiatry campaigners use it describe all psychiatric treatment.If there is to be a new article, it should be a rewrite from scratch under Ethics of psychiatry. Declaration of Madrid and Declaration of Hawaii should also be created, and perhaps a separate specialized article on Political abuses of psychiatry. -- The Anome 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a very interesting case. The subject matter is certainly valid. However, as many Netizens know -- and, indeed, based their decisions on --, the term is a classical Scientology attack concept, and as long as there are Scientologists in good standing on Wikipedia, there will be Scientology's propaganda in this article. Alas, Wikipedia's current policies and processes are incapable of dealing with counterfactual POVs and their pushers properly. Damned if you delete -- because then, Wikipedia can't represent this topic -- and damned if you don't -- because then, it's destined to become overflowed with CoS' PR. Accordingly, I can not vote either way, and my vote is Improve the policy, then revisit this question. When there'll be a policy facilitating weeding out propaganda from Wikipedia's articles, the article should be restored, and policed accordingly. If the policy improvement should, instead, result in deciding that articles whose wiki-style editing is bound to become incessant revert wars because some people feel such articles have insufficient propaganda content in them, the article should be deleted. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Scientologists are a problem, here on WP the anti-Scientologists are a much worse one. Steve Dufour 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this, but I think giving people who are willing to abuse Wikipedia ammunition in the form of administrative impropriety is going to create more problems than we need. The article was a worthless piece of crap. The topic being developed well is "abuse in the mental health institution," not necessarily "psychiatric" abuse. The state-sponsored torture with psychiatrists as a tool is a different article. Whoever the problem is with dealing with this article, I'm disappointed in the lack of care in handling the issue. It could have been a clean delete that didn't lend itself to revisiting the issue. But when that does not happen, even more issues arrise because of the failure to deal in a straight forward matter. It's siimple: if you have biases one way or the other, don't close the AfD then let your biases become yet another issue to waste valuable editing time over. Good comments, though, Digwuren. Propaganda is rather well used by all sides in most debates these days. KP Botany 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The root cause of the problem is not bias in closing the AfD, it was bias in starting it, or more specifically bringing a content dispute to AfD contrary to policy. AfD is not a dispute resolution process and deleting an article is not the way to improve its content, or Wikipedia's coverage of a subject area. Dhaluza 11:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the previous AfD involving the article was closed because of a "majority to delete", and, since a majority vote doesn't determine consensus, I think the article deserves another shot there (if only to be deleted again). Hope that explains things, and happy editing, ( arky ) 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - those seeking overturn on basis that information was factual and well sourced (indeed the lengthy commentry in the AfD), are I feel missing what should have been the point of the objection to the article; namely the problems of its very remit & scope. Likewise pro/against scientology discussion seems off-topic as the article was not about merits or otherwise of psychiatry itself. That certain events have occured was, I agree, included with reasonable citations to verify. The problem was the article title and the scope of items that were felt appropriate to be included - and so forming a synthesed overall topic of unrelated parts (the parts singely do exist, not the given form of the collection). Clearly very real abuses of the use of psychiatry were made by some authoritarian regimes, but this is not to say that those with real psychiatric illness were not then appropriately/poorly managed by psychiatric services. That scientology holds that psychiatry is the wrong approach to deal with mental illness, is irrelevant to appropriateness of including these topics as being notable here in wikipedia, as surely there is universal belief that governments should not detain its disenters in psychiatric hospitals. The second group of cited cases involved cases of patients being sexually abused by other patients or the guards/nursing staff and had nothing to do with psychiatry itself or indeed state-authorised repression (ie no bearing on what individual diagnoses were nor on what treatment they were or were not supposed to be given, or even whether one feels that psychiatric illness even exists), but rather the abuses had every thing to do with supervision of institutional inmates, management of institutions and issuses of independent review body access & inspection. Hence these examples were not problems with psychiatry but with institutions (and again I do not primarily dispute any of the examples in the article or that citations were given) and so applies equally to prisons, boarding schools etc and of course these 2 examples are not directly to do with a county's court proceedural system or a school's quality of science teaching. It was the inappropriate mixing of state abuse of pschiatric internment together with cases of (unauthorised) abuse of inmates that, to me, seemed to be irredemably at fault with the article and consituting original research and synthesis to link (by inclusion) in a single article. I would have no problem with specific articles on "State misuses of pschiatry" & "Abuses of institutional inmates" (need slightly better phrased titles). So sure, recall the details and the relevant citation details into more appropriately focused articles. But I doubt scientologists, with very differing views on the assumptions of psychiatric illness, hold any different views from the non-scierntologists over the awful cases of Russian detention of disidents, or the utter incompentance of management who fail to watchout for and prevent sexual abuse of inmates - we all agree these were bad things, so lets move away from Scientology issues to the real flaws in the combined structure of the article and its proposition for deletion, and allow the notable cases to be described in appropriate titled/scope articles. David Ruben Talk 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately, we can't move away from the Scientology issue because the article was on a topic considered dear to Scientologists deleted by a known anti-Scientology editor. The Scientology issue need not have been raised at all, had the article's AfD been closed for a proper reason (not for a majority vote) and closed by a non-biased party. KP Botany 23:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this rather broad and overarching definition of synthesis as being discussion of a collection of similar but different things called by the same name, and I think this is why WP:NOR only addresses synthesis to advance a point. But even if we accept this view, that still does not preclude reframing this article in summary style disambiguation to point to the various topics you outline, which is done through normal editing, not deletion. Dhaluza 11:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but without prejudice to recreating under a more neutral title and purview. As I commented at the AfD, I think this deletion was entirely proper. This is a case of a variety of notable incidents being shoehorned into a WP:COATRACK article. I think this can be fixed with editing and, ideally, restrictions on egregiously POV-pushing accounts, but I would strongly suggest starting fresh here. I or another admin can provide material from the deleted article to use. If the topic is political abuse of psychiatry, then there are plenty of solid sources as the DRV nominator has mentioned, and an article could be (re-)created. But the WP:COATRACKy anti-psychiatry stuff needs to be presented in the proper context of articles which already exist, rather than being POV-forked here and lumped in with actual, neutrally documented abuses of psychiatry. MastCell Talk 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Psychiatric abuse will be a necessary DAB or redirect page. I don't see how it is in any way a matter of WP policy either psychiatrists or CoS members like or don't like the title of the article. The main question ought to be whether there might be users who might be looking for the subject matter and might not be able to find it because it was not under the title that they thought of. Whether someone is looking for material about how psychiatry has been abused by government or how it has abused patients, they might well recollect a phrase they heard from their CoS friend or some flyer. Why should that not lead them to where they want to go? Even if all the content of "Psychiatric abuse" were deleted, the redirect or DAB page should remain. DCDuring 00:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; regardless of whose it is, the article is currently a coatrack of POV snippets. No prejudice against a clean recreation (although I'd prefer userspace first), but even then I expect the title could be made a little more neutral. — Coren (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Our review depends partly on whether the article was (in effect) a POV fork and/or a synthesis of information that belonged elsewhere. Accordingly, I've copied some of the deleted text to existing articles, mostly in line with suggestions made here or in the AfD. This will give folks a chance to examine the plausibility of the deletion decision. So far, I've moved the disparate text to Soviet psychiatry, a Falun Gong article, Psychiatry#Professional ethics, Psychiatry#Political abuses of psychiatry. From the latest version, I didn't see much worthwhile text to move to Scientology and psychiatry, though interested editors might check earlier versions and the references. I hope this is useful. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the fact that you have copied some of the content elsewhere now requires at least a history only undelete under the GFDL license requirements. When pasting material, a wikilink back to the source is required in the edit summary (the notes in your workshop copy are not sufficient). Dhaluza 11:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question. Thanks, good point Dhaluza. While I work on that, let me ask a question. (Sorry in advance if this is the wrong forum.) Without prejudicing the outcome of this DRV, what objections would be raised to my recreating Psychiatric abuse as a disambiguation page, as others have recommended, to guide readers? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's probably best to wait for the results of this DRV before re-creating anything. The result could be to overturn, or the article could also be recreated from scratch if the deletion is upheld because the existing content was not usable (which does not seem to be supportable since you were able to re-use some content). Dhaluza 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd certainly be willing to do a history only undelete so that we can meet the GFDL requirements. -- ChrisO 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Meanwhile, here's the sample dab. Incidentally, as it turned out, there wasn't much useful content that wasn't already covered by existing articles. Well, except for something on professional ethics, which arguably isn't about abuse itself. HG | Talk 15:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse With iffy consensus, the closure was within admin discretion. NOR synthesis is the strongest argument Chris lays out in his decision making. Marskell 11:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion with "iffy" consensus? What kind of policy is this? We don't give admins discretion to delete, we require them to evaluate the discussion to determine if rough, not iffy, consensus exists. If no rough consensus for delete exists, the default is keep, not the admin's judgment. Dhaluza 11:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do, in fact, give admins discretion. "We require them to evaluate the discussion to determine if rough, not iffy, consensus exists." So it is a vote then? Just count the numbers? No, it's consensus within policy. The closer has laid out serious POV and NOR policy violations. Marskell 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is not a vote, AfD is an arbitrated process with a threshold of "rough consensus" for reaching a decision. For this process to work, the arbitrator (closing admin) must not only have a NPOV, they must not do anything to suggest that they have a conflicting POV. This close fails on both counts. The closer not only has previous involvement expressing opinion on similar subjects that creates a perception of possible bias, he also makes arguments supporting a POV as his own, rather than citing others expression of this POV. This is not the kind of discretion we either give admins, or that they should expect to get from the community. And your suggestion that we lower the standard from rough to "iffy" consensus does not represent community consensus, nor is it likely to attract it. Dhaluza 14:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The closer not only has previous involvement expressing opinion on similar subjects that creates a perception of possible bias" is outside the ambit of DRV. You are essentially accusing the admin of bad faith; if you want to discuss a pattern of behaviour, this is not the right forum. If "rough consensus" is in obvious violation of policy it is within admin discretion to act against that consensus—the title of this article, let alone the content, was a NPOV violation. When I say "iffy" I mean that the 60-40% range presents a case that could go either way. The admin must choose based on the strength of the arguments. Marskell 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree that discussion of possible conflict of interest is outside the scope of DRV and I disagree that raising that question is an accusation of bad faith. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators raises the question of conflict of interest specifically:

              As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.

              Therefore, it is entirely within the scope of DRV to look at that issue. I do not know if ChrisO participated in discussion on the relevant pages and I do not have to find out. It is not a far reach from that guideline to realize that someone that has made a bit of a career both on-wiki and off-wiki of "debunking Scientology myths" should NOT be the one to delete an article that some say smacks of Scientology and Scientology "myth". And I am not accusing Chris of "bad faith", simply of making an error in not realizing that he had a conflict of interest issue. And is that not what we do EVERY time we bring an article here for review, "accusing" the closer of making an error? This is the forum to discuss both the manner of closure and the nature of the closing admin as regards a real or perceived conflict of interest. --Justanother 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is this a 'last word' conversation? I've had my share of those lately, so I hope not. "...don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in." Did ChrisO participate in this particular discussion? If not, I extend him the same good faith I extend to any editor. If the issue is "someone that has made a bit of a career both on-wiki and off-wiki of "debunking Scientology myths" should NOT be the one to delete an article ", then you are, in fact, outside the ambit of DRV. Was this a sound close? Yes, it was, IMO. RfC is over there Marskell 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Last word" meaning who gets the last word? IDK but you made a couple of new arguments and said that I, for one, was accusing the admin of bad faith. Sorry if you have a problem with my desire to respond to your arguments. You can have the last word since I guess you want it. --Justanother 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's the frustration of seeing one half of an argument being taken to task endlessly. It's not as if the overturns are being systematically argued over. Marskell 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You needn't fret. This may be an indication that the overturn arguments simply haven't merited much need for further rebuttal. Which overturn argument(s) do you find (or fear to be) compelling, Marskell? HG | Talk 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • A lot of the overturn arguments strike me as invocations of WP:ILIKEIT, which is a singularly unconvincing argument. -- ChrisO 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Really? I only see one overturn that could be interpreted that way (perhaps you could point out the rest?). Most of the overturn arguments are actually addressing the interpretation of the AfD discussion, which is proper for DRV. Many of the endorse arguments are addressing the article itself, labeling it as POV, OR, Coatrack, etc., which could reasonably be interpreted as WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Dhaluza 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • For the record, no, I didn't participate in any discussion involving this article. I have no particular views pro or anti psychiatry, so I certainly can't be accused of bias in that direction. -- ChrisO 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have no desire to pick at the overturn arguments. State your peace and move along. And my principal argument was not that I felt it was POV, but that it was within Chris' discretion to interpret the AfD as such. Marskell 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'll add a question: what does "not a vote" mean? It means that arguments are weighed, not just numbers. The closing admin has clearly explained how he interpreted the arguments. Marskell 11:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, for all of the valid reasons already given in the AfD and explained above by others. It was an original research POV synthesis of unrelated topics gathered under a POV article title. Separate articles could be created to cover, for example, Soviet or Chinese state political abuses under the guise of psychiatry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me - that being part and parcel of the issue; self-serving so-called "diagnoses" and abusive "treatment" by so-called "mental health professionals". Long history thereof. But then I am the Scientologist so I may have a predictable POV. However I am not sure that your comment speaks to the propriety of the AfD close, it seems more suited to an AfD discussion itself. Do you think the AfD was closed properly?--Justanother 17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not "mental health professions" - more political psychiatric abuse by establishment. --Mattisse 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing was rather sudden, I must admit. It took me by surprise, but then, I don't know the rules about how long these sorts of discussions are supposed to linger on. But if I had known it was going to be suddenly deleted I would have put the parts I worked and sourced correctly into my sandbox first. --Mattisse 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I should have said was that I had no sense that there was a consensus so I was quite surprised when the article was deleted. As I said above, it was unexpected and would have saved a few referenced paragraphs I put in there to use on something else. --Mattisse 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn. The argument "coatrack" is invalid. The definition of the term in the title is not invented. The given examples are what they are: examples, and not a way to promote a certain theory, i.e., the article is not an OR essay. The article may easily be converted into Wikipedia:Summary style series about psychiatric abuse. The root article does not have to be large and include details of specific cases, i.e., the article is easily salvageable by heavily trimming its subsections about particular cases. There are quite a few references about psychiatric abuse in general, not just about Soviet psikhushkas or various sects. `'Míkka 23:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. If the psychiatrist actions do not violate the laws of the local area, it is POV to include the Scientologist view that such actions still constitute abuse. If the psychiatrist actions do violate the laws of the local area, then the Scientologist view is irrelevant. The article was nothing more than a POV fork designed to elevate the Scientologist anti-psychiatry movement's views to those of the legal definition of negligence and political/human rights abuse as in the Soviet Union. DGG's AfD post was clear and the closer appears to have understood from DGGs post and the other posts that this article was nothing more than a POV fork. -- Jreferee t/c 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore the article. There are numerous well documented examples of psychiatric abuses in many countries, including former Soviet Union. These cases have nothing to do with Scientology.Biophys 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the content on the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, etc. is already being covered, both in Psychiatry (recently added, as noted above) and by long-standing country-specific articles. Plus, another editor has been working on Category:Political abuses of psychiatry. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There are ways to deal with the problem of coatrack appearing in articles, but supporters were making no attempt to follow policy, resulting in POV fork. PRtalk 07:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice. The article's subject certainly deserves a place, however a clean start and NPOV in the title as well as in content is necessary if it is to be an encyclopedic article rather than an exposure. As it was, deletion is endorsed. Recreation of an article about the subject is also strongly supported JennyLen☤ 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree with the above statement that any talk of restoring etc. must include a change to a NPOV title that more clearly reflects the content of the article. --Mattisse 17:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Really? I can request a page move for a deleted article? --Mattisse 01:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn: Psychiatry has a both long history of bold (though pitifully ineffective) efforts at progressing beyond primitive therapies as well as a lasting legacy of nefarious abuses, such as Zane Parzen's serial assaults (and the trail of suicides from Chicago to San Diego that he left in his wake). Suppression of the sort of significant facts about the history of psychiatry, that the article should lay bare (e.g., Eli Lilly's systematic legal efforts to whitewash the tragic scandal surrounding its abusive off label prescription marketing campaigns), would simply be dead wrong. Ombudsman 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was not concensus to delete. Violations of NPOV and NOR are not reasons per se for deletion, and the points are debatable. Many arguments are in favour of a rename and extensive re-work, which are arguments against "delete". While delete followed by a clean rewrite under a better name can work, it is far from ideal. It creates possible GDFL violations. In this case, the artcile history should be preserved. I believe that the original title could, with care, support a NPOV article although a rename to allegations of abuse of psychiatric patients is a reasonable suggestion. The term is notable and is a reasonably expected to be a search term. --SmokeyJoe 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that most if not all the material in the article can or should already exist elsewhere on wikipedia. It is the bringing together of some disparate themes with a title which alludes that psychiatry is inherently abusive that is the problem. There is no need to recreate the article. An analogy is an article summarising all perceived wrongs by America and listing everything from McDonalds to Iran-contra etc. as a single article labelled Abuse by Americans etc.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, your fact may be true, but you mislead in asserting that your fact is the only fact. The pertinent facts, from my point of view are:
(1) ChrisO’s action did not reflect a consensus evident in the AfD; and
(2) I am persuaded that ChrisO’s action represented a “supervote”, reflecting his own opinion, and was not based on any overriding concern; and
(3) Reasonable arguments can be made that a good article can result from the overturning of the deletion decision and subsequent improvement of the article. --SmokeyJoe 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) is misleading. To quote WP:DGFA: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy (if any). ... A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." (2) is pure nonsense. There's no such thing as a "supervote". My reasons for closing the AfD as a deletion are set clearly out above, based on policy, not "my own opinion". Ultimately (1) is a misunderstanding of how AfD works, and (2) is simple admin-bashing because you don't like the decision. -- ChrisO 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, I daresay that I do understand consensus. It’s complicated, but without a doubt that AfD was not consensus. The brevity and lack of analysis in your close was disrespectful. In contrast, a closure as “no consensus” would have been uncontroversial. As part of a “non consensus” closure, I would have warned of the need to attend to policy issues, noted the significant attention and improvement that was already occurring, and paid more attention to rename suggestions. Your right, I didn't like the decision. --SmokeyJoe 02:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments here are inconsistent with your closing statement, and IMHO revisionist. For example you have made new arguments in the DRV that were not raised in the AfD related to WP:DICDEF. You also cited a "clear majority" for delete in the close, but now are citing policy that says it's OK to ignore the majority in favor of policy. This is also irrelevant because the lead section above from the version you deleted shows that an article can exist within policy, regardless of what policies past versions may have violated. When an admin has personal opinions about an article, then includes them in the closing decision, whether to override consensus, or as a "tie-breaker" to make consensus appear where there is none, that is a supervote, and it does happen. Your closing statement left the door to that conclusion open, and your repeated denials are only opening it further. Dhaluza 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My remarks above were in response to SmokeyJoe's specific mention of the issue of consensus. For the record, there was a majority in favour of deletion and that majority had the better policy arguments. As WP:DGFA states clearly, "consensus is ... determined ... by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy". I judged that the arguments and policy citations were stronger for the advocates of deletion. Quoting again from WP:DGFA, "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Invalid arguments of the sort described in WP:ATA - especially WP:ILIKEIT, which we've seen a lot of in this deletion review - simply aren't useful in determining the outcome of an AfD. You seem to believe that consensus is about counting heads, but as WP:DGFA says very specifically, it is not. If you don't understand how AfD works that's your problem, not mine. -- ChrisO 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Material can co-exist in multiple places in WP, with appropriate linkages. The title is used in scholarly works, so it is appropriate. If a better title also exists in scholarly works, then we can change it based on finding better published references, not by conducting OR to contrive a title intended to satisfy WP editor's personal preferences. WP is not censored. Dhaluza 10:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dhaluza if this were a discussion on any ethnic group or nation it would be howled down as pejorative - and anyway to quote your own words, you're right it isn't censored and the info is elsewhere. having ethical and political issues is not OR - plenty written there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And probably rightly so, if the only connection was an accidental one like ethnicity or nationality (you can't chose your parents or birthplace). But if it were about controversy surrounding cannibalism, for example, then cries that cannibals are a race, and criticism of them amounts to racism would be absurd. Dhaluza 10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is about process, not content; please don't attempt to use it to re-run the AfD. -- ChrisO 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Notable subject. Well-referenced stub. Neutral in tone. Axl 10:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn but rename. I originally commented on the deletion page that I wanted the article deleted. Later, though, a lot of the OR was cut down and cleaned up and I support the article as written above. The subject itself, though, has been researched in specific contexts but never as an overall "abuse using psychiatry". The article title is a critical issue. The term "psychiatric abuse" is OR itself. I do not support this term being used. I haven't seen a good number of reliable sources using this term. What is the scope of the title? Psychiatry as a specialty being abused by those with political power? Or is it using diagnostic/treatment methods utilized in psychiatry being used in an abusive way? This really needs to be determined. Then an appropriate article title should be formulated. Chupper 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Arguments at AfD still stand--Countincr ( t@lk ) 23:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:COATRACK What a great term. Editors have commented that the article was improving[weasel words] and would have turned out all right.

The definition was tortured and hotly disputed with zero consensus. Never did I hear two editors agree that the intro was good. The body was a mess with parts being shunted in and out constantly. There was no rhyme or reason to the edits or the deletions. I couldn't really argue with much that was done because all though many thought they knew what the term meant no one could nail it. Above all there was no context to the individual pieces or how they fit in the whole. That is why no one editor edited consistently for five days. They may have thought they new what they were doing before they went in but then they lost steam. It was an utterly frustrating experience that drained us all. In the end there was was a lull for a day and that was telling. If there was direction to that article the edits would have intensified. I guess you could say in the end the article did improve but the bar was so low that there was no where but up to go. What a complete mess that still was.--scuro 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scream 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Verifiable Information Released and Confirmed at http://weinsteinco.blogspot.com/2007/10/screm-4-officially-greenlit.html and http://videoeta.com/news/2366 Dane2007 06:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Additional closer's comment: No weight was given to the opinion of one very new user who also introduced no new arguments or evidence, per long standing DRV precedent. Greater weight was given to the opinion of outsiders to the general disputes over Eastern European coverage. However, both the outsiders and insiders broke very evenly. Finally, the vote counting argument is the least significant of all arguments, and solely appeared amoung those opining for an overturn. GRBerry 04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Soviet occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Breach of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. No clear consensus was formed for deletion as the volume of discussion indicates, therefore the page should have been kept for further editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate, as per policy. Reasoning of closing admin flawed in that exposition of a particular point of view is permitted by policy Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. Also the closing admin's view that the intent of the article is to draw a parallel on the Russian government position and denialism is unfounded, since there formed a consensus in the debate that a move to Russian government view on Soviet occupation may be appropriate (and to which the article was moved during the debate). In regard to charges of WP:OR regarding "Soviet occupation", 5360 hits in Google scholar [117], while "Soviet liberation" only gets 107 hits in Goole scholar [118] Martintg 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too bad it's not a vote. The arguments for keeping amounted to little more than cries of oppression or conspiracy. The article was a POV fork, and several people pointed at a way to improve the original (work on the "Official Russian position" section and spin off later if warranted). — Coren (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a vote, but the votes are an indicator of the consensus of lack there of. It is not the role of the closing admin to weigh up the arguments and apply a casting "vote", but to determine if there exists a concensus for deletion. When ~40 vote "delete" and ~40 vote "keep" after thousands of lines of debate, there is no concensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion Martintg 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to clarify something. It will only be no consensus if there were equal deletes and closes if there is debate and reasoned arguments on both sides. However, the closing admin can be given some leeway in deciding which side has the stronger arguments. Obviously, when this happens the closing admin needs to also give a detailed explanation of why the article is deleted/kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The page went through two acrimonious AfDs and ended up by being deleted on both occasions. If Piotrus and company will seek to escalate the drama here, I will ask demon to have the page g4'd once and for all. The community has spoken, and more than once at that. Why should we be bothered to comment on the same AfD through endless rounds, just because Piotrus and several Estonians cannot accept the outcome? --Ghirla-трёп- 06:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acrimonious = no concensus. ~40 votes to keep out numbers Estonians by a ratio of 10 to 1. Martintg 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I had no idea I was Estonian. Ironic that the same user who only yesterday cried foul over the "racism" that BBC allegedly heaps at Russians should be so eager to play the race card to dismiss those who don't share his view. JdeJ 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the closing admin. I believe my rationale speaks for itself. With hindsight, I could also have cited WP:SYN as a problem with the article. The arguments for keeping weren't all "cries of oppression or conspiracy", as Coren puts it, but there was certainly a strong element of this. I felt that, on balance, the POV and OR issues outweighed the case for keeping the article. I should add that AfD is explicitly not a vote and, to quote WP:DGFA, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." -- ChrisO 08:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Added). I'd like to remind editors that (as WP:DRV#Purpose says) "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Many of the comments below have essentially been arguments that "this is a significant topic, therefore it should have an article." That may or may not be true (I have no view either way), but it's not the issue at hand. The issue is whether this particular article met Wikipedia's policies; as WP:DGFA says, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Many of the arguments for overturning that have been advanced in this DRV are essentially political ones or are just silly (what is "Wikipedia denialism, an all too common phenomenon" supposed to mean?). I stand 100% behind my closure, and I believe it was fully compliant with policy and well within admin discretion. -- ChrisO 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree 100% with ChrisO about the principles but I'm afraid I fail to see the strength in the arguments made by those who wanted the article deleted. The most common argument was that it is a recreation of a deleted article. ChrisO himself has pointed out explicitly that it was not. Another argument that was echoed many times was that the USSR never occupied any other country. That is original research, as it is directly opposite to the position taken by every reference work I've ever read (quite many) and every encyclopedia in which I've looked at the issue. The third common argument was to say that this article is POV, yet never even trying to explain what was POV about it. Those who say so refer to sources such as the BBC and The Economist as "vehicles of racist propaganda" or to the Wall Street Journal as being useless as a source. I beg to differ, I think all three of them are very well respected sources in the English speaking world. Those of us who wanted to keep the article made two arguments that were very well sourced
1. There was an occupation of the Baltic States by the USSR.
2. There is currently a denial of this fact in Russia.
I would be grateful if anyone could explain, in a calm and civil way without the usual racist and russophobe accusation, the strength in the arguments for deleting the article. Thank you in advance! JdeJ 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. As Coren puts it, this is not a vote but a question of argument. To date, I haven't seen a single person out of those claiming POV and OR who has even tried to define just what is POV or OR in the article. Not everybody likes having a country they might identify with as an occupator, but that doesn't change the facts. Is it OR to say that the USSR occupied some European countries? If so, please contact Encyclopedia Britannica and the Departments of History around the world to inform them that they are wrong. Is it OR to claim that there is a policy of denial regarding this? Then the BBC, The Economist, L'Expess, Dagens Nyheter are among the many media outlets supporting this OR. I would expect of those who claim this article is POV and OR to show the honesty to back it up with some examples instead of just claiming that, in the words of one of you, BBC and The Economist are "vehicles of racist propaganda". JdeJ 10:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Piotrus. Furthermore, while it is to be expected that discussing a shameful part of Soviet Union's history raises strong emotions in a number of people, Wikipedia's policies on articles discussing POVs are clear. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 12:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as the nominator. As a further comment, we have 1480 references in scholarly literature [119] and 773 book references [120], which consistantly establish the fact of the occpation (Someone please find and post a reference to dissenting view). We have the official Russian press release denying the occupation [121], we have a number of reputable media outels reporting Moscow's denial [122], [123], [124], [125], the US Congress passes a resolution asking that Russia stop denying occupation [126], the US Senate passes a resolution asking Russia to stop denying occupation [127] and George Bush supporting the Baltic view of occupation [128] (all this at a time when USA needed Russian support for Iraq), an EU resolution recognising Russia's denial of occupation [129]. And some scholarly references discussing Russia's denial of Soviet occupation: "Almost all countries, historians, and international law scholars confirm the Baltic view that the Soviet ‘incorporation’ of these republics violated international law in force at that time. But the government of the Russian Federation continues to deny this view." [130] and here discussing Russia's motivations for denial [131]. All these references are included in the article, so could someone explain in what way this is WP:SYNT or WP:OR. Martintg 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this concept/controversy is apparently notable in Eastern Europe even though in the English-speaking world it appears to be a POV fork - the tone has to be NPOV'ed but covering the debate is OK. Not to characterize the curren article as such, but WP has many articles covering historical debates (Historical revisionism) or even negationism (see Historical revisionism (negationism)), even more "out there" (Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories, sexuality of Jesus, AIDS reappraisal etc.) seems that the tent is wide enough to cover this one as well. "Allegations of Soviet Occupation denialism" anyone? Carlossuarez46 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore; I will repeat myself - denial of Soviet occupation is an actual phenomenon. Any encyclopedia, especially the "free" one should keep its users informed and should describe every possible subject. Tymek 04:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as per Piotrus. Supergluez 12:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - plenty of references in all kinds official and reliable western sources. It documents the difference between western and Russian positions, which has wide implications in international politics. Deletion procedures are not the way to resolve conflicts. If a more suitable name should be found, it should be resolvedon talk pages. Renata 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion POV fork much of whose references even were falsified as they did not say what some editors claimed they did. The fork was created by a editor with a long history of disruption to grind an ax and it remained a piece of junk despite some editors tried to improve it. Nothing prevents adding whatever encyclopedic was there (very little) to an existing Occupation of Baltic states. So far WP:POINT remains valid. Hence keep deleted. --Irpen 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - Notable topic, the article was also in good quality. Suva Чего? 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion POV fork. OR, by way of synthesising, yes. Interesting: on the AfD people who argued that the term "Soviet occupation" was POV, were asked to provide sources for that statement: so they were actually been asked to source the article as it was titled (a clear sign that this article is really written to point out tiffs between contributors, and not as an articel that belongs in an encyclopedia). I have no problem with "Soviet rule" or even "Allegations of ...", but the problem (as User:Dahn pointed out during the AfD) is that what we have here is mostly meant to injure other contributors' feelings, and there is very little to put in an actual article - even "merge" seems silly.--Pan Gerwazy 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The whole thing is built on a novel synthesis. There are many things in the article which could be added to other articles on the history of the Baltic states, but in no sense could this be merged. That leaves a straight choice between keeping and deleting, and there can be no thought of keeping this original research. I acknowledge the nominator's hard work to improve the article, but this did not, and apparently can not, address the OR problems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe it is built upon a novel synthesis, can you atleast articulate what you believe the synthesis is that this article is presenting? As someone else already pointed out above, Russia's denial of Soviet occupation has been widely discussed in the European press and I have presented several scholarly sources that discuss this denial, as well as an official Russian government press release and the responses of the US executive branch and both houses of the legislature. Martintg 17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Russia does disagrees with the usage of the term "occupation", your coverage of the topic is POV OR. The problem was not with the topic but with the article. Please compare with "Anschluss" article. Very similar topics, but coverage of Baltic events is a cry of an insulted chils in comparison. `'Míkka 23:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No violation in closure process, the rest is irrelevant. Side comment: The very fact that nothing has been done in the redirected page since deletion of the page in question speaks in favor of the opinion that the goal of the authors is to make a political splash, rather than to contribute information. `'Míkka 23:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Consensus was that the article presented the topic as a depiction of the Russian government's position when, in fact, that was not supported by the reliable source material. Consensus that the article was a POV fork support by the discussion. It seems possible to develop an article on the topic so long as the article does not present third party opinions as being those of the Russian government. Endorse with no prejudice in creating an article on the topic that meets Wikipedia article standards. -- Jreferee t/c 00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Piotrus. Biophys 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - there is much of interest/value in this article and it is vital it finds a home elsewhere. But it doesn't belong under this title. PRtalk 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The article is a POV fork and the article's name is inherently non-neutral. The ongoing political dispute is covered (or should be covered) in Occupation of Baltic states--Dojarca 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore There was no consensus for deletion. The article is no more intrinsically a POV fork than Holocaust denial. Obviously, it will need careful editing, but so do all political articles.DGG (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore no consensus per Martintg, Konieczny & DGG. Deletion of this encyclopedic topic is itself an unfortunate example of Wikipedia denialism, an all too common phenomenon. Dhaluza 10:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

4 October 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:TJ Spyke/PPV Win Percent (edit | [[Talk:User:TJ Spyke/PPV Win Percent|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article (which is obviously a subpage) was speedy deleted yesterday by User:Alkivar. His reason listed was that it was original research, which is NOT a reason a article can be speedy deleted according to WP:CSD. The subpage was also being discussed at WP:MFD and had only been listed 1 day earlier (and had 1 keep vote and 0 delete votes), I had set up a discussion at WP:PW asking the other members for suggestions and help in turning it into a full article. Alkivar also has a potential COI here since he has indefinitely banned me twice before (the first time was when he accused me of violating WP:BLP, but this was overturned after a few hours after I showed that I had not violated it. The second time is more complex, but basically he unilaterally decided to give me an indefinite block while my situation was still being discussed at WP:AN.) While the page could end up being deleted (although I hope not), I think it's pretty clear that it shouldn't have been speedy deleted by anyone yet alone someone with a COI. TJ Spyke 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Overturn. Anything that has survived any kind of XfD discussion should never be speedy deleted. Also, the "no context" arguments make no sense as it was a page being created on userspace. If it was actively being edited, there is no reason to speedy delete as "no context". And I'm not entirely sure about the arguments about "Wikipedia is not your webhost". When the creator argued in the first MfD that he was trying to create a sourced article of statistics, that argument should have died. However, the big point here is that this is an extremely out of process speedy deletion, as it had already survived an MfD once.Smashville 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Already went through Mfd. There are no fundamental problems on this page. --- RockMFR 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. "OR" is not a reason for speedy deletion. Expecially on a user subpage which may still be under construction. Plus, I'm pretty sure that if you have admin powers, you're not supposed to speedily delete something flat-out, you're supposed to put the tag on and let another admin look at it before it's deleted (a second set of eyes). Was this the case? If not, we have misuse of admin powers in addition to an improper deletion.--UsaSatsui 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alkivar has had a problem with me for quite some time, I think that may have had something to do with it. If it had been from someone else instead of me, I don't think he would have deleted it right away. TJ Spyke 01:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was sent the link on IRC, and was unaware of any MFD in progress at the time. Overturn and send back for completion of MFD.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hexayurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted after (only) three delete votes (counting the suggestion of deletion) on the grounds that it was referring to a Conflict of interest with no Reliable Source and it not being Noteworthy. I argue against all these points in sequence: * Conflict of Interest: Yes, Vinay Gupta the inventor of the Hexayurt contributed to the page making corrections and additions. But several other people also did so. The neutrality of the article was never disputed and this would not have been brought up as an issue if Vinay had used a pseudonym for a username. * Reliable Sources: The article referenced at least two reliable sources, both of which Vinay restated during the deletion discussion: The New York Times [132] (which I believe is a fairly Reliable Source) and the book Architecture For Humanity [133] (which is perhaps not typically encyclopædic but is nontheless authoritive). It perhaps should also be noted that the Hexayurt has been featured repeatedly on Treehugger [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139], which is considered by people in the Sustainable Technology industry (such as myself) to be a first source of information. Not to mention mentions on Appropedia, an appropriate technology encyclopedia. Google for more sources. * Noteworthiness: It seems noteworthy enough to catch the attention of the New York Times and Treehugger.com. Is Wikipedia better than the New York Times? Does it have a higher bar for inclusion? No. The opposite applies. The bar is lower. Everything that has been mentioned anywhere by anybody could be noteworthy, and this is significantly further up the Long Tail of mentioned ideas. Honestly... (Disclaimer: I happen to live close to Vinay and often meet him at coffee shops, but am not otherwise affiliated with the Hexayurt project. I am however a Bureaucrat on the Icelandic Wikipedia and as such very well versed in the rules which govern the Wikipedia ideology. Oligarchy is not one of them.) Based on the aforementioned arguments I would like to Overturn this deletion, claiming the deletion to have been wrongly and hastily conducted without the admins and editors in question having checked the article's sources or content thoroughly. Further correction of citations and sources could be done to the article after it is undeleted. -- Smári McCarthy 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In regards to the section addressing Conflict of Interest, the user name is hardly the point. The fact is that he has revealed himself to have a COI, and it wouldn't matter if his username was Joe Green; he still has a COI. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. But the articles neutrality was never disputed, and actually after he mentioned the dispute I did tell him not to edit the page any more, precisely because of the COI issue. He complied. -- Smári McCarthy 12:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Metroid Prime (creature) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No-one other than the nominator suggested deletion outright, and the Universe AFD was utterly irrelevant to the AFD (as the supposed merge that the nominator was talking about was opposed for this particular article). At the very least, the AFD should've been allowed to run on another few days to gain more consensus. Will (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burntsauce was quite correctly giving his view as opinion, not policy. To me, though there is no formal quorum for consensus, the very concept of consensus implies a sufficient amount of participation to give a fair representation of the community. If even that general statement is denied, perhaps we do need a policy. 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
While AfD works by rough consensus with discussions without participation regularly relisted, most other XfD procesess work by something cloer to unanimous consent, with deletion the default outcome if no one objects. Thus if deletion is supported by policies or guidelines there mat be no need for additional discussion even if only a few people participate. After all, to get a statistically valid sample of the community we'd have to set a quorum of 30 or more users which would be very hard to meet in many cases. Eluchil404 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TV Links (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Excluding one admitted joke Delete vote, the majority of votes were Keep (See votes here) topher67 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perhaps needed editing to resolve advertisement issues, but didn't warrant deletion. Jackk 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (substantial new information) - The last post to the AfD mentioned "I know at least 4 independent medical studies by universities (praising the device)." When I ran Volcano Vaporizer through Google Scholar, shazam! Also, Google books has some material for the article as well. The book info also is summarized here. The company also has operating manuals that may provide usable material. The operating manual listed the patent on the Volcano Vaporizer, which is at 6513524. Maui Wowie! I think this topic is sufficiently rolled and ready to be toked. -- Jreferee t/c 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; but not objection to a fresh recreation— the previous version I remember was little more than ad copy and the AfD reflects that; but given that academic sources were found a good article might yet be written. — Coren (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse on the information available at the time, but permit re-creation. Seem likely that it's notable--somewhat to my surprise, but there it is. DGG (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but permit re-creation in userspace. Burntsauce 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

3 October 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Jamielloyd.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted on the claim that it didn't have a fair use rationale when in fact it did. CyberGhostface 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the rationale specifically indicate the article(s) in which fair use was being claimed? Corvus cornix 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember off the top of my head, but I pointed out that it was low resolution, of a fictional character (so no free use can be found), a single screenshot from a film so it wouldn't any sales, and that it was used for encyclopedic purposes. It was only used for one article to the best of my knowledge, to describe the character in the picture.--CyberGhostface 22:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the rationale specifically mentions which article the fair use rationale applies to, then it's an invalid rationale, but we're speculating, an admin will need to let us know what the rationale actually said. Corvus cornix 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it an incomplete rationale, not an invalid one. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=September 23 2007}}
== Summary ==
#This is of a fictional character. No free alternative can be found.
#It is a screenshot. It will not harm the sales of any film.
#It is low resolution.
#It is used for educational purposes only.
== Licensing ==
{{Non-free film screenshot}}
    • Thanks, After Midnight. As I suspected, the rationale doesn't specifically say which article the image is applicable to. Corvus cornix 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could someone restore the image so I can add that its for that article, or least show me the cached version so I could upload it??--CyberGhostface 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the deal with BetacommandBot's seemingly countless visits to your talk page? (I'm glad you kept a sense of humor about it, however.[140])-- Jreferee t/c 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, some of the times if its I have an orphaned fairuse images, so in certain cases (like when they removed the fair use images from episode guides) it pays me a couple of visits. But it does get pretty annoying; there was one period where it seemed like I was getting hundreds each day. I admit I wasn't aware that you had to actually say how it was fair use for the specific article; I just thought stating that it was unreplaceable by a free image and what its general purpose was enough.--CyberGhostface 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I've had a few run-ins with the bot myself. I have to say that the wording isn't as helpful as it could be, particularly to first time offenders. I think it's gotten better recently but the whole process could use a friendlier tutorial or something on that order. Unless the intent is to make it so frustrating to have fair-use images that people stop .... --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If an individual user made all those rapid posts to CyberGhostface's talk page, we would call it disruption. A few example posts and a request to fix all deficient images uploaded by CyberGhostface would seem an appropriate first and perhaps second effort. If CyberGhostface ignored the requests, then talk page posts to comply with the deletion requirements would be appropriate. BetacommandBot should not be exempt from civil behavior. -- Jreferee t/c 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The image was being used in Jamie Lloyd and the image deleting admin knew that.[141] Perhaps the deleting admin had additional reasons for the deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If the deleting admin knew where it was being used, and all that was missing is the name of the article it is being used in, then the correct action was to supply the name of the article. Deletion instead of fixing is putting rules over product, which is wrong; product comes first. GRBerry 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn-This is hardly the first deletion like this I've seen, but let's be reasonable here. The only fault here was a missing link. Now, a bot generated notice for such a thing is one thing, that's not an unreasonable check for the bot to make. But, a human had to carry out this deletion. Simply reading the page would show to any human user familiar with image policy (which, of course, anyone carrying out these deletions should be) that the only fault was this missing link. All they'd have to do is read the page. Now, I almost guarantee somebody will respond with something along the lines of "well, the uploaded should have put the link there, not fob it off on someone else" and you're right, that would be the ideal way to do it. But really, is deleting the image any easier than adding that link? We're not taking about even writing an entire rationale here; just adding a single link.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Keith Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD2)

Article was deleted July 1, 2007, for failure to meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Given recent events regarding WIPO ruling (TheSimpsonsMovie.com cyber-squatting suit). Keith Malley has a comedy album available through CD Baby, as well as DVDs and CDs available through independent distribution; These are not related to "Keith and The Girl" podcast. (1) cdbaby.com comedy albums by Keith Malley; (2) WIPO ruling regarding "thesimpsonsmovie.com"; (3) USA Today coverage of Twentieth Century Fox vs Keith Malley; and (4) Google search results for "Keith Malley" -- Hanzov69 20:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It would seem no one has taken much of an interest one way or the other, new article seems to be generally acceptable. Suggest closing Deletion Review and letting sleeping dogs lie. Hanzov69 6:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica – This will ALWAYS be speedy closed until a workable, brilliantly sourced draft is prepared beforehand. That's not to encourage one however, since I strongly suspect the deletion would still not be overturned. Note also that links to the site are not permitted. – Chick Bowen 03:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD3)

It was deleted back in November 2004, when it wasn't notable at all, and only 16 Google results. However, Encyclopedia Dramatica IS now notable, with 179,000 results for "encyclopedia dramatica" on Google, and they have been mentioned in the news quite a few times, particularly due to a Craigslist incident. I also think that here is bias against them because they are a satirical wiki (and many members and even sysops of Encyclopedia Dramatica have vandalized Wikipedia tons of times, see User:Blu Aardvark and his sockpuppets) and they are very anti-Wikipedia. However, if Uncyclopedia has its own article, why not ED? Just semi-protect it first to prevent vandalism. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Prior actions on this topic include:
  • Delete (Dec 13, 2004) AfD#1
  • Keep (June 2, 2005) AfD#1 (redirect)
  • No consensus (March 24, 2006) AfD#2
  • Delete (July 18, 2006) AfD#3
  • Deletion endorsed (July 26, 2006) DRV#1
  • Deletion endorsed (September 5, 2006) DRV#2
  • Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. (October 20, 2006) ArbCom (see also Link ban question)
  • Arbcom has ruled (October 27, 2006) DRV#3
  • Deletion endorsed (November 16, 2006) DRV#4
  • Speedy close (22:01 November 18, 2006) DRV#5
  • Speedy close (20:29 November 18, 2006) DRV#6
  • No new information (April 23, 2007) DRV#7
  • Speedy close (April 29, 2007) DRV#8
  • Pending (October 3, 2007) DRV#9
-- Jreferee t/c 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oh no, not again." Could we see a userspace version drafted strictly in accordance with WP:INDY and WP:FORGET? A google search is not a list of reliable sources, and you didn't bother to link any for us to tell if there is non-trivial coverage available to support an article. I believe the general consensus on this one is that we won't restore without a valid userspace version. Require userspace version before consideration. GRBerry 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuck No! was my first reaction to this one. Google hits are no meaningful measure of notability although a lack of google hits can point to a lack of notability. Please come up with some real world reliable sources and references before we even consider looking at this. Spartaz Humbug! 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - Drudge up some RS first and insert 1 credit(s) to continue.--WaltCip 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ain't gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent. Corvus cornix 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do it in user space first Personally. I think an article on this is fully justified, and the absence of one reflects poorly on our objectivity when it comes to criticism of Wikipedia. "Wouldn't be prudent" is in contradiction to NOT CENSORED. But the only way of convincing people will be to construct a god sourced article to show. DGG (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, my comment was just a joke, but there is no way that ED will be allowed an article until the Arbcom decision in the MONGO case is reversed. Corvus cornix 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the Arbitration decision in the MONGO case again friend. There is no prohibition of an article, the only mention of such a move was dismissed by Fred Bauder as outside of the case's scope. indeed such a ruling is beyond their power. The committee rules on conduct not content. You misunderstand. 67.42.211.38 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean that part of the RfAr which says Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.? Corvus cornix 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how would that affect an article written by the policies of Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View? It wouldn't because you don't need to link and you wouldn't be incorporating material from the site as it is not a reliable source. The committee's ruling is irrelevant to the existence of an article. When a decision in the workshop was made saying "an article about the website should not be recreated on Wikipedia." Arbitrator Fred Bauder responded with "I don't support this. Wikipedia is not censored." Clear enough? 67.42.211.38 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plus, if you take Wikipedia and its mirrors out of the equation and account for duplicates at the same site, you've got less than 700 Ghits. Corvus cornix 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I see only four potential sources for material, and they only amount to a sentence or two of info about Encyclopedia Dramatica. This topic does not meet WP:N. Even if this topic met WP:N, there is no indication that it would ever meet WP:A. Here are the cites to the four potential sources for material: (1) Washington Internet Daily. September 12, 2006. Federal Law Saves Craigslist in Sex Posting; Poster Likely Faces Suit. (2) Washington Internet Daily. September 13, 2006. The Craigslist user who posted highly personal material online. (3) San Francisco Chronicle. (September 17, 2006) Sex and the City. and (4) New York Times. July 1, 2007. All the News That's Fit to Print Out. -- Jreferee t/c 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write a draft first You have to meet people halfway. 67.42.211.38 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point unsalting - and certainly not undeleting - this unless enough reliable secondary sources to write a full article are put forward. —Cryptic 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted We have 4 mentions, all of which are close to trivial. I'd be willing to consider changing this opinion if sources that actually focused on ED were supplied. JoshuaZ 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted no evidence that anything has changed since the last time 'round. Shouldn't there be a waiting period before bringing this to DRV again. Carlossuarez46 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a pending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites. -- Jreferee t/c 02:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Utterly irrelevant. If we had enough information to make an article we would have enough information to write an article without having to link directly to the site in question. JoshuaZ 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just trying to provide links to related matters in one location. Encyclopedia Dramatica was mentioned on 18 September 2007 at the workshop, so I thought I would note it in this DRV (also see my post at the top). -- Jreferee t/c 03:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Net satisfaction index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notion_commonly_admitted_in_marketing Ludovic 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with List of topics under a new "fictional topics" section. The original article was a useful index to other fictional topics. 161.28.175.4 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is not to undelete but to merge such lists in the List of topics page. List of topics is well organized in history, science and other articles, so why not fictional topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.164.114 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but neither the consensus nor justification for deletion are overturned by shuffling the information into a subsection of a broader article. /Blaxthos 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The afd consensus is based on strong emotions using "I don't like it" as the rationale. [142] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.93.38 (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


2 October 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png (edit | [[Talk:Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image is the only source for the historical 1900 Brooklyn baseball uniform. There is no free alternative for this image which was included on the 1900 Brooklyn Superbas season page to show the teams uniform at the time. Also restore all other historical Brooklyn uniforms deleted including File:Nl 1934 brooklyn.png, File:Nl 1935 brooklyn.png, File:Nl 1936 brooklyn.png and others. No reasonable alternative for showing this information exists. Spanneraol 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I presume the deleting admin's assumption is that it's replaceable because someone could make one. There's nothing particularly unique about this image; it's just a modern replica somebody drew. So somebody else could do the same and release it under a free license. Chick Bowen 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way to make one would be to copy the original versions since there are no other sources of what the uniforms looked like. They don't exist anymore and old photos are blurry and hard to make out. The same copyright issues would be prevailent in duplicating the image. No reason why the existing images can not be used. Spanneraol 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the uniform is well-known enough, and anyone could draw their own version of that picture. It's pretty clearly replaceable. --Haemo 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would a drawing by a Wikipedian improving on the blurry, hard to make out old photos be original research? If the blurry, hard to make out old photos are the best available images and they are free, shouldn't they be used over potentially fair use images? -- Jreferee t/c 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as original deletion nominator. Until last month, we were using these non-free images from the Baseball Hall of Fame to illustrate team uniforms on virtually all of our major league baseball team articles. If you look at the articles now, the uniform pictures have been replaced with free images made by Wikipedians. These Dodgers uniform pictures are pretty much the last non-free uniform images we have on Wikipedia, and they can be replaced with free images as well. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision made then, which I disagreed with, was that someone could take a picture of the player in uniform, which is obviously not possible with a uniform from 1900. Spanneraol 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was the admin who deleted this image. It was tagged as replaceable by another user on September 28, and no one disputed the tag. No one added {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, and no one bothered to state that they thought the image was not replaceable, either on the talk page or the image description page. After 7 days without dispute, I speedied it under CSD:I7. I can't see any way of arguing that the deletion was out of process. As to whether it's truly replaceable, it's a drawing. Someone drew it. Someone could draw a similar picture at any time that would give the same information. (The image description page even notes that the copyright-holder is not known -- a violation of NFCC#10 as well as NFCC#1.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion review is for Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png. That image never had the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag, and it never had a reason why it was non-replaceable. Look through the logs. I didn't delete the others. The image description page clearly gives two possibilities of who may hold the copyright, not specifying which. Further, you did not bring it up with me before bringing this to DRV, as required in the instructions, and you didn't notify me afterward either. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Links to relevant policy were requested. The basis for not using non-free drawings is, of course, WP:NFCC#1, which says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is all solidified by the Foundation's licensing policy which says we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose." It just stands to reason that if a drawing was made then, a new drawing can be made now. Compare the examples of unacceptable images: "A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted" and "A chart or graph. These can almost always be recreated from the original data." – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original drawings were done by Mark Okkunen for his "Baseball Uniforms of the 20th century" book and were the result of extensive research. That research can not be easily duplicated. Someone would have to basicaly copy his images anyways. Is that preferable to using the images that are available already on multiple baseball websites, not just the hall of fame. Spanneraol 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not "copying his image" to create a new image from scratch based on the data in his image. (The data can't be copyrighted, just the creative content.) That's analogous to the difference between rewriting sentences in your own words, or copying someone else's complete sentences. Yes, it's preferable to create new sentences from scratch that basically say the same thing. In fact, it's prohibited to copy someone else's sentence in these situations. For the exact same reasons, it's preferable (and required) to recreate your own drawings that contain the same information, rather than use non-free images that are found on the web. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a huge difference between a photograph of something and creating a drawing. WP:NFCC#1 should be read to expect only a reasonable effort, such as "... or could reasonably be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Expecting someone to redraw the uniform images that otherwise meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria seems unreasonable. Redrawing copyrighted work does not create free work, it creates a derivative work that still needs to meet fair use criteria. In particular, if Wikipedians used the non-free images from the Baseball Hall of Fame that were illustrating team uniforms to generate their own drawings and included major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original drawings, then the images made by Wikipedians are derivative works, each of which would need to meet Wikipedia's fair use requirements. They certainly would not be free images. In addition, if the three dimensional uniforms in question are not 100 years old or otherwise fall in the public domain, three dimensional uniforms are protected by copyright and creating drawings of the actual uniforms worn by baseball players would be considered derivative works if those drawings included major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original drawings. If you compare Image:NLW-Uniform-LAD.PNG to [143], the Wikipedia image obviously includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original drawings. Image:NLW-Uniform-LAD.PNG is not free and needs to meet the fair use requirements. -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a derivative work to create a new drawing of a player that uses the information from the copyrighted drawing. Remember, data cannot be copyrighted, only creative content. If you attempted to copy the way the figures are standing, for instance, you might be copying copyrighted content. But if you're using their information about the uniform layout, which they obtained through "sweat-of-the-brow" research, you're not using their copyrighted material. The uniform itself isn't copyrighted -- just the drawing. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare Image:NLW-Uniform-LAD.PNG to [144]. All the major elements have been copied. The stylized lettering of "Dodgers", the way "Dodgers" angles up the shirt from the right arm to the left arm, how "Dodgers" resides just above the third button, the red/blue/white scheme of "Dodgers", "5", the hat, and the belt, how "5" sits to the lower right of "Dodgers", the "LA" patch on the left arm sleeve, the stylized "LA" on the hat, etc. SWoD did not just copy the factual, utilitarian features of the Dodgers uniform (the fact that there is a hat, a shirt, a belt, pants, and indicia), he copied the creative expression as well. There is not one major copyrighted element that SWoD did not copy. And "copy" is the operative word of copyright. While the clothing itself may not be copyrighted, the features that can be identified separately from and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of clothing are copyright. The indicia on that uniform fits this separately identifiable language and is copyrighted. I do not see how anyone could say that SWoD's drawing of the Dodger's uniform is anything other than a derivative work. -- Jreferee t/c 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think it's unreasonable to think that a baseball uniform pattern could be drawn, how do you explain those ones that SWoD created? I think the WP:NFC example of unacceptable use ""A chart or graph. These can almost always be recreated from the original data." indicates pretty strongly that recreating this sort of image is not unreasonable at all. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SWoD drawings are not violations of BBHoF's copyright at all. You could take them to WP:PUI if you like, but there's not a snowball's chance that they would be deemed violations. They don't copy any of the creative content of the original drawing; they only copy the factual information of what the uniform looked like. The uniform's design isn't copyrighted, and data can't be copyrighted -- see Feist v. Rural – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This derivative approach idea to the baseball uniforms issue was a bad one. Not only can we not use SWoD drawings, but we can't even use the original drawings from baseballhalloffame.org under fair use. Since SWoD's drawings are sitting in Wikipedia's database, the original drawings from baseballhalloffame.org reasonably can be created. Thus, WP:NFCC#1 prohibits fair use of the original drawings from baseballhalloffame.org that have corresponding SWoD drawings sitting in Wikipedia's database. And we can't use SWoD drawings under fair use because they are derivative works. -- Jreferee t/c 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Unindenting) Perhaps I'm confused about the argument Jreferee is making. The main image that is contested here, Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png, is a recent drawing of a uniform from 1900. The design of the uniform is not copyrighted. Do we all agree on this? For the others, so long as they were designed before 1978, they will only be copyrighted if the designs themselves were submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, looks like no one disagrees with that point. So elements of the design of the uniform (the stylized lettering of "Dodgers", the way "Dodgers" angles up, etc., that Jreferee mentioned above) are not copyrighted. Only the BBHoF images are coprighted, and (as SWoD has helpfully demonstrated), definitively replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Ronald A. Carson – Closed early for sockpuppet infestation. If there are actual procedural issues about the deletion, any editor in good standing can renominate the article, but if the question is solely the notability of the subject, I recommend writing a feasible article first. – trialsanderrors 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ronald A. Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This pertains to the article Ronald A. Carson He is a wonderkid african-american political operative who has worked with American President Bill Clinton and has worked alongside James Carville, Hollywood celebrities, notable U.S. Senators, Governors and professional athletes. He has a following of thousands upon thousands. Many young African Americans saw his page as inspiration that they also can be something. The main hang-up appeared to be his notability. Well, the aurora advocate articles are two articles that were specifically written about him. That is a third party, neutral account of his notability. Thousands of people saw his article as a reason for hope. Please allow them to continue to dream and see one of their own in a positive light. There is no question that he is notable. This would be a huge injustice if his page were deleted. Alinob77 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. - No assertion of notability was made. By the cached article, it doesn't look like any assertion of notability could be made. There are thousands of people that work on every presidential campaign. That doesn't make them notable. Notability is not inherited, and this is a key example of why. Being an employee of a notable company or notable person does not in turn make you notable. Speedy was the correct response. -- Smashville 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Actually, I think the professor with this name deleted back in 2006 looks more likely to be notable, and certainly had a stronger assertion of notability. That could change; please do let us know if he ever makes any progress toward his "aspirations of one day becoming President of the United Sates". For those without access to the deleted article, the citations were "1.^ The Aurora Advocate, September 2, 1998. White House is not unfamiliar spot for Lombardo Carson 2.^ The Aurora Advocate, February 7, 2001. Lombardo-Carson eyes life in politics" (no links used). The subject is apparently a resident of Aurora, population circa 14,000. Article on this person holding junior staff positions for politicians has been deleted 6 times under WP:CSD#A7 by 6 admins. GRBerry 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A7 applies. Comment: The cited references list "Lombardo Carson" and the topic is about "Ronald Alphonse “Ron” Carson." I'm not sure if the cited references are about the Ron Carson. -- Jreferee t/c 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, a valid application of criteria A7. Working in a junior capacity on election campaigns is not an assertion of notability; political campaigns will take on almost anyone who volunteers. A senior campaign operative who directs the strategy for an important candidacy is notable but that is not what we have here. Sam Blacketer 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNDELETE Comment. On the contrary, Ronald A. Carson appears to be much more than a "volunteer" He is indeed "A senior campaign operative directs the strategy for an important candidacy" Therefore, he is notable. A national advance aide is all of these things and he has done all of these things at a very young age. Very notable. -- Alinob77 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNDELETE Comment. I have spoken with the editor of the newspaper of the articles that were cited as sources. He has confirmed that the articles were indeed written about Ronald A. Carson, aka, Ron Lombardo-Carson (mother re-married) He has also stated that he would be more than happy to confirm the presence of these articles. He stated that the articles on Ronald A. Carson were written before the paper decided to put their archives online. The archives start in 2002 and the articles about Ronald A. Carson were written in 1998 and 2001 respectively. However, they still exist in hardcopy and on microfilm. I also have learned that Carson is one of the most notable individuals in the history of Aurora, Ohio. This is great grounds for fitting the notability requirements. If you need independent confirmation the editor of The Aurora Advocate can be reached at [email protected]. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNDELETE Comment. The article states that Ronald A. Carson is a national advance aide to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman that is trying to become the first female president of the united states. For, those of you who are not familiar, a national advance aide IS a high level senior chair position for a campaign. It seems that Ronald A. Carson is far more than a volunteer as many of these posts seem to indicate. It seems to me that Ronald A. Carson has had a significant and major impact on all of the high level campaigns, to which, he has been a national advance aide on. A national advance aide shapes the message and image of a candidate in each city across the country that said candidate visits, therefore, Carson in effect has been a high-level campaign strategist/operative for well over ten years, which would make him a "wonderkid" the above post suggests. This would fit the bill for notability. Also, as the above post suggests, we should also give high consideration to the fact that not only is he a wonderkid, but he is an African-American wonderkid, which is even more rare. I think that we should give strong consideration to allowing this page to remain. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion warranted. The fact that the editor of The Aurora Advocate tends to believe that Ronald A. Carson is notable seems to be very convincing to me. Also, we are not talking about a mere volunteer for a political campaign, this subject has been a high level strategist and operative on all campaigns to which he has been a member of, to trivialize his accomplishments seem very unfair and inaccurate. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would suggest that users "improbcat" and "Accounting4Taste" attempt to devote more attention to articles that actually need to become deleted from Wikipedia, instead of attempting to dig up wrongdoings on the part of individuals attempting to contribute to the public good by creating worthwhile articles on subject matters that are pertinent to the Wikipedia community. Ronald A. Carson's article has satisfied Wikipedia criteria for notability, as well as a biography of a living person. I suggest that the above mentioned users concentrate more fully on patrolling the Wikipedia world for individuals that are contributing nonsense to Wikipedia and "salt" them. The aforementioned users seem to be well versed on Wikipedia guidelines and they need to put their knowledge to good use, rather than, attacking the obvious notability of subject matter, Ronald A. Carson. Also, accounting4taste, appears to use the term "salt" a bit too liberally, his motives need to be called into question and his words and opinions need to be given less weight. The same can be said of improbcat who seems to be on a witch hunt of monumental proportions that is unwarranted. It is a shame that we have to devote this much attention to a particular subject that obviously belongs on Wikipedia. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Alinob77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obvious notability" appears to be in the eye of the beholder. As does conflict of interest and single purpose editing. Corvus cornix 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please choose your words carefully when commenting. You have accused me of a "witch hunt" for researching on this article (& its creator) and asking you about it. You have recreated this article six times, and argued for it in several user talk pages, and in this deletion review. And during that you have claimed repeatedly that it meets certain criteria while not actually proving it does conclusively. Also you have thrown around accusations and commented on my "tone" when I asked you a simple question regarding COI, while being unwilling to answer such question. If my doing some Googling on my break and asking you about it is a "witch hunt", then what do your actions count as? -- Improbcat 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete--and then edit very carefully and sharply with a NPOV. COI is a indication for scrutiny and editing, not rejection. The tone of the current article is unfortunate, but that can be changed. I'm prepared to remove some of the fluff. DGG (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How does COI affect an article when the only contributor, and (prior to you) only proponent of it's reinstatement is the one with the (potential) COI issue? -- Improbcat 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article asserts some notability, but working for a political party or campaign isn't a notable thing unless you're in the media regularly and recognized for it. There are lots of people who work on political campaigns who don't meet WP:BIO and likely never will. If we can't verify notability - and a couple of articles in the local paper are a start towards reliable sources but not enough - then we can't really have an article. (And the fact that all of the "undelete" opinions (well, before the edit conflict) have come from one editor doesn't help much either.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - Agree with above (Tony Fox). Author believes that working on political campaigns is notable. It could be notable, but not in this case, as there is no verifiable notability and he was not well known. The comment above (RE:conflict of interest) should definitely be noted, as it is a great possibility that the author is in some way connected to the subject. -- Rjd0060 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the following 4 comments should be disregarded as they were made from confirmed sockpuppet accounts (who have now been blocked) of a user who already commented on this Deletion Review. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alinob77. - Rjd0060 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. I concur with user DGG the comments of improbcat especially and also accounting4taste and rjd seem extremely inappropriate and lopsided. Their comments are also unprofessional and there is no room for that here. I think that they would be better served with providing ways to improve the article "Ronald A. Carson" rather than being quick to delete it. They are not doing there jobs properly. I have reviewed the article and agree that it should stand, however, as honorary editors, perhaps we can assist with making it better. Also, the above users do not seem to understand the American political process. I happen to know what a "National Advance Staffef" does and it does indeed qualify as a high level position in a campaign and if he has done these things at his age, I think he is worthy of a Wikipedia page. We should further investigate the motives of improbcat, rjd and accounting4taste more fullym perhaps they take exception to the fact that Ronald A. Carson is an African-American. And, I do not like their "tone" either and it also appears that they are indeed on a "witch hunt" against the page of Ronald A. Carson -- Rubesnsteinh (talk · contribs · logs) 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNDELETE - I have read the page and it is quite impressive. We would be lucky to have a subject like Ronald A. Carson on Wikipedia. It appears as though the above subjects in question, improbcat, rjd0060,accounting4taste and others are ill-informed on American Politics. Also, I agree with user dgg, we should attempt to help the page become better, rather than vigorously attacking it as the above named users are attempting to do. The above post may have some merit, perhaps improbcat, rjd0060 and others have a problem with Ronald A. Carson's race, rather than his apparent notability. He also seems to have had articles written about him, that seems notable. This page should remain. -- Ogradyr (talk · contribs · logs) 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. - Some of these comments are abhorrent! And, unfortunate. The page, Ronald A. Carson is notable, it has sources it has a subject matter that is quite remarkable and it was an interesting read. It deserves to stand. Some of these arguments for deletion are biased and users rjd0060, improbcat, accounting for taste, etc. seem to be out of line! I agree with the above posts that their motives are to be questioned. I will be more than happy to assist with editing Ronald A. Carson in a manner that allows for it to stand. That is precisely what the users in question should have been doing. I agree with user DGG on this point. --Jacksons1 (talk · contribs · logs) 22:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete. The article seemed to be notable and appropriate to me. I have also read some of the talk pages around this article and I do not either like the "tone" of improbcat, rjd0060, or accountig4taste. Who do they think they are? I agree with some of the earlier posts, perhaps they have a problem with the race of Ronald A. Carson. They also seem to be wikipedia bullies. Last I checked this is a user/volunteer driven website, there is no room for dictators and their comments seem to give the appearance of such. They also seem to be slanted towards vanity. Ronald A. Carson seems to me more notable than a great majority of pages that are permanent on wikipedia. the page has cited sources and it seems to me that his standing on campaigns has been in high level roles that have influenced the outcome of the campaigns. I also agree that perhaps the best course of action is for us to help clean-up and edit the page. Deletion is not an option here. -- Goldberg32 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the previous 4 comments should be disregarded as they were made from confirmed sockpuppet accounts (who have now been blocked) of a user who already commented on this Deletion Review. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alinob77. - Rjd0060 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion, Too many problems in this article to list here, most (ie it's clearly a vanity article) of them irrelevant for deletion review anyway. But key for me is that there is no reason to hang on to an article that has not substantiated notability with a single independent source. The two references cited from the Aurora Advocate don't even have the same individual's name in the titles. Who is Lombardo Carson, the name given in the reference? (I could not verify content of the article at the Aurora Advocate's website, even though the website suggests such articles could be found searching the online archives. This leads me to wonder why the two articles named, and the reporter "Sue Fuller", are not easily found with other articles archived there). And Ronald Carson makes news for his contributions to politics when he's just 21 years of age (1998)? Too many suspicious improbables for keep, especially given the self-authored content.Professor marginalia 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Simply not notable. Political operatives at this level are quite simply a dime a dozen, and forward-looking profiles of young people who might one day occupy the White House are not any kind of proof of notability. I suspect this entire, increasingly desperate attempt to secure a Wikipedia article is related to Mr. Carson's future employment prospects more than anything else. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even if notability were shown - which it isn't - the article would need to be substantially rewritten to come up to the standards expected by readers of wikipedia. At present it is just one long eulogy, no better than a political manifesto. If I were an American, the author's conduct would put me right off ever voting for poor Mr Carson. Deb 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet that has been blocked See Block log - Rjd0060 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • UNDELETE. The article, as user DGG points out needs to be edited further, however, it seems notable enough to me. As professor marginalia points out, he was merely 21 when he accomplished some of these quite impressive feats, making him as the earlier user pointed out "a wonderkid" It also seems to me that users improbcat, rjd0060, accounting4taste, et al, are too anxious to delete this article. They seem to be abusing their powers as administrators and we need to look more closely at their motives. They have forged some strong allegations here. Who's to say that they are not "sockpuppets" of some user themselves. Last I checked, it was not against wikipedia guidelines to have more than one user account from the same ip address. Perhaps, this is a college, or university, or maybe even a high school that has seen the abuses of improbcat,rjd0060, et al and are merely stating their support of the article, what is wrong with that? The above named users will be pointed out to Jimbo Whales. This article deserves to be made permanent.Devonshirep 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Devonshirep 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet that has been blocked See Block log - Rjd0060 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. Notability seems apparent. The articles check out "Ron Lobardo-Carson" is the name of the subject prior to the subject's mother getting re-married. It appears that improbcat, rjd0060 and accounting4taste are in error. It also appears that they are rogue administrators whom need to put their obvious intellect to improving wikipedia, rathe than continuing on with this "witchhunt". I also agree with user DGG this article needs our help, but once we clean it up, it will suit our fine standards here at wikipedia. Also, I am going to report the possible "sockpuppet" abuse of rjd0060. The comments of this user and improbcat/accounting4taste appear to be eerily similar. I will do some investigating and run this up the wikipedia hierarchy. I was also called into service after reviewing some of these character assasination attempts by sockpuppet rjd0060, will I be blocked also as seems to be the case with other users on this page that have supported this article? These administrators should not be allowed to abuse their prvileges such that they have. Ogilevye 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I am not and have never been an administrator. I also find it amusing that sockpuppets of a blocked user are accusing me of sockpuppetry. Please, by all means report me for sock puppertry with accounting4taste, the page to do so is here. I think you will only succeed in making your actionslook like even more of a farce than they already are. Improbcat 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, neither accounting4taste nor myself are administrators. - Rjd0060 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet that has been blocked See Block log - Rjd0060 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. This article albeit rough is acceptable. What type of society do we live in when free speech is nullified as improbcat/rjd0060 have done above to the user's comments.They have also blocked users for being supportive of an article that they belive in and rendered them "sockpuppets" This should be grounds for immediate suspension of improbcat/rjd0060. Said users, improbcat/rjd0060, have taken advantage of privileges entrusted to improbcat/rjd0060 by wikipedia. Those type of actions do not belong here. Nonetheless this article should stand. Rollistong 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Rollistong 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the above comments have been posted by yet more new socks.Professor marginalia 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question-Deletion reviews are intended for reassessing the original deletion process for cases where there may have been procedural problems or other irregularities of involved editors. What is the basis for this deletion review? If this is simply an exercise taken to overrule the findings of the editors involved in the first deletion decision by padding the new jury with socks, this whole review is a complete waste of time. Again, what's the alleged problem with the original decision? If there was nothing irregular about it, then as far as I'm concerned this review is over and the article should be re-deleted.Professor marginalia 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. The review was put up by the same user (Alinob77) that recreated the article six times after speedies. As far as I can tell the deletion review was only used because the final speedying of the article included salting it so they couldn't recreate it. Once they brought it to deletion review and the votes were overwhelmingly against them they began voting multiple times. After their duplicate votes were turned into comments they began bringing in sock puppets to try and boost the votes in favor. Also at the same time they have been unwilling to answer questions on their talk page regarding whether they have a COI with the article subject. So we have one user willing to ignore or violate all the rules of wikipedia in a desperate attempt to protect an article they can not show conclusively meets the criteria of wikipedia.
At this point the only reason I'm still watching this review is that I can't wait to see how much deeper Alinob77 buries them self, and this article. Improbcat 18:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ludovic Quistin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Previously a non-notable footballer, but now an international who went to the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup. ArtVandelay13 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Playing internationally for Guadeloupe (which is by the way a national team unrecognized by FIFA) is not such a high level if compared with major European teams. There's no mention of international levels on WP:BIO, this is fact, I looked deeply inside it to find at least one sentence referring it, but I found nothing. --Angelo 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it needs rewording. He played in a continental championship, if that's not enough, I'm not quite sure what is. ArtVandelay13 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as member of international team. Smashville 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Most recent deletion cited both A7 and the prior AFD. Since the prior AFD was before the international play, the consensus therein may well no longer apply. GRBerry 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Even if he is not a pro, he is an international. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a reliable source which shows his participation on the Guadeloupe team at the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup - no source is provided either in the team's article nor at the championship's article. If a source can be found: undelete; if not, keep deleted. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the deleted article this shows he was on the team, but not that he actually played. Is it reliable? I didn't take the time to judge. GRBerry 00:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - All the info I can find only contains a sentence or two each and then only in the context of his game play. (e.g., "Sam Allison was running away from goal when he was brought down by Ludovic Quistin." "Substitute Ludovic Quistin's long range strike flew past Darren Chitty to put the Linnets ahead." and "But it was Boston who fashioned the next opportunity when Clarke smashed wildly over from Ludovic Quistin's low cross.") Football: Mills banks on know-how (August 10, 2007) mentions Quistin, but only lists his name. Even if he is an international who went to the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup, if no WP:RS wrote about it, there is nothing to include in the Wikipedia article on him. Neither Google news nor Google books has any info. Until someone can cited to source material for the article, the article should remain deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, has not played on the highest level of a mainly professional sport. "Amateur" criterion is irrelevant. Punkmorten 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the amateur criterion irrelevant? There are two criteria. He meets one of them. Smashville 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The guideline says a player has to have played at a professional level or at the highest level in an amateur sport. This means that in sports which are only played on an amateur basis, the highest amateur level is OK. It doesn't mean that in a sport like football which is played professionally a player can have an article if he has played professionally or at the highest amateur level. Professional football and amateur football are not two separate sports, therefore in the case of football the requirement is to have played professionally.... 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTheDude (talk • contribs)
  • Undelete, or allow recreation. I'm afraid I don't have the reading of WP:BIO that others do, i.e. that there are two kinds of sports, professional and amateur, and that a sport may only be one or the other. My reading is that one can rise to the highest level of amateur play and be notable (e.g. the Olympics or other international competition) regardless of whether professional activities for that sport exist. Indeed, the Olympics (or many of the member sport governing bodies) specifically restricted professionals crossing over until relatively recently. If a player is good enough to make it into a national team, even if they haven't been signed by a professional team, I don't see why they fail inclusion. Accordingly, this article has passed from unnotable to notable.--Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete in this case, or just allow re-creation of the article. I think there is a chance this one can pass WP:BIO muster if given the opportunity. Burntsauce 17:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete this player has clearly played international football which surely makes the article a valid one, I have to be honest there are so many people on here who think they rule the world, who is anyone to delete this article, its a disgrace. Stew jones 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
We Are the Dynamite! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Moved here from the prod section as it was once deleted per AfD and then per G4. Review requested by U-Mos with the rationale: "WP:BAND#Albums clearly states that an album is notable if the band is notable. Thus the reason given when closing the debate is incorrect. U-Mos 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)" Tikiwont 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per WP:BAND. Also, closer's rationale was incorrect. There were 2 keeps and one delete. The 2nd keep clearly showed that per WP:BAND it was notable. Definite improper close. Smashville 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions AFD is not a vote, so comments about 2-1 are irrelevant and indicate that policy has trumpted the stampede. Let's see whether it has: The keepists misread the applicable portion of WP:BAND, let me quote "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." (my emphasis) "May" is what is called a permissive as opposed to a mandate, it also implies indefiniteness as in may or may not. Let's see, so if the band is notable, the album may be - how do we tell: "should include independent coverage." Again, "should" is a permissive but a guideline stronger than "may". The article had no sources showing independent coverage whatsoever. That is something that it should really have, it is not error to interpret such failure as making the album fall in the "may not" side of notability and delete regardless of how many people vote or !vote whichever way they choose. The recreation of the article after the Afd was absolutely G4 bait and that deletion is endorsed as well - as it should have been regardless of how one comes out on the initial deletion because re-creation is not the correct response to a contested deletion (DRV is) and we don't need admins with G4 candidates being called upon to not only see if the prior deleted material was the same but whether the deletion was entirely proper as well. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:BAND is pretty clear here... not sure what the AFD closer is talking about or if he read the guideline in question. --W.marsh 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    W.marsh, I'm not sure either, although based on your comment, I can say I'm pretty sure you haven't read the guideline in question. Neil ム 12:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just wrote parts of it, is all... read the section on albums. Where does any of it say albums of notable performers should be deleted? I found your comment to be pretty insulting. It specifically says that if nothing else, they should be merged, not deleted. So please don't say I didn't read it. That's wrong and insulting... you're the one arguing to delete based on a guideline that says "merge, don't delete". --W.marsh 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closer interpreted the debate correctly. Comment - An August 3, 2007 article in the westernmorningnews.co.uk entitled, "Bands are thriving on tour," mentions that the Blackout were to perform at "The Hub on Thursday, August 9, previewing songs from their debut album We Are the Dynamite, produced by Romesh Dodangoda (Funeral for a Friend, Bullet for My Valentine, Ian Watkins) and due for release on the Fierce Panda label. It was recorded at Longwave Studios in Cardiff and the end result is a collection of rock monster melodic meltdowns bursting with exuberant hooks." Not enough info to write a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, "We are red, we are white, we are Danish dynamite" is a most popular chant football chant and might meet WP:N. Others include "We are red, we are white, we are English dynamite."; "We are red; we are white; we are Laupheim dynamite."; "We are green, we are white, we are fucking dynamite." (Ireland); and "We are blue, We are white, We are cricketers Dynamite, We are Bharat, We are Mahan, And we did beat Pakistan." -- Jreferee t/c 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nobody is arguing that the band is not notable, and there is abundant evidence of the band's notability. U-Mos appears to have selectively quoted WP:BAND#Albums] - albums may be notable, depending on non-trivial reference in reliable sources. None of that exists, none was forthcoming in the AFD, closing admin made absolutely the correct call. Neil ム 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is restored, it should be placed at We Are the Dynamite as per the album cover and spine, not as per some band posts pre-release. U-Mos 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Lancashire Hotpots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted under CSD A7 despite the article including a source to a national newspaper. Other coverage includes being played on national radio[145], being featured in a Regional television news programme[146] and featured in some other major newspapers[147][148]. This clearly does not meet speedy criteria, and an AFD should take place to decide whether or not the article should be deleted Darksun 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 October 2007

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

There have been a number of works published where WikyBlog has either been the subject of the work or has been a significant portion of the work. While there appear to have been articles published in multiple languages, I've included links to the english articles below.

The notability criteria I reviewed, and believe WikyBlog has met, concerns web content. Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter,(Note: I am the developer of WikyBlog). -- Oyejorge 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure based on the sources so far. Freedownloadaday is published by Savetz Publishing. OK. The Internet Scout is from the University of Wisconsin, which lends it some credibility. The other two appear to be personal blogs, which aren't reliable sources for establishing notability. Yours is a well written request, tho.--Chaser - T 03:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to say no to such a nice, forthright, and well thought out request. However, there does not seem to be enough reliable source material to develop an WP:A article on WikyBlog. I did a search and didn't find anything other than what is listed above. You might want to contact your local alternative weekly newspaper and see if they will do a story on WikyBlog. They usually write long, detailed articles that provide plenty of reliable source material for Wikipedia. You also might want to include a detailed "History of WikyBlog" on your website. And if WikyBlog does something noteworthy, consider generating a press release and sending it to Marketwire. With a little effort, you can eventually have enough reliable source material generated by those not connected with WikyBlog to use in a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the compliments on the request and the suggestions for generating more press (which I will follow through on). In the mean time though, since I've already started, I'd like to pursue undeletion a little bit further. In response to the WP:A concerns, I would submit the option of using the sourceforge listing of WikyBlog as a major source of references (for dates, system requirements, languages supported... ). The project news archive would be even more useful as it contains release announcements and project notes beginning with the 0.9.2 release of June 2006 (I noticed many of the references for MediaWiki were release notes). And as for information on WikyBlog.com, an archive of all release notes has been kept if they would be accepted as a valid self-published source. Thanks again, Oyejorge 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, I got WikyBlog is a blog publishing system developed by Josh Schmidt and release on September 21, 2005. The software is given out free. Articles usually have a hook in them, something to draw the readers in. Did anything interesting happen in the two years since it was release? Do you make money giving it out free? Any notable people use the software? -- Jreferee t/c 01:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kurdish-Israeli relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Being bold as an administrator is one thing. But consensus on this article was completely ignored. There was not one person calling for a delete of the page, and the reasons for keep were equally as sound as the reasons for delete. I'm all administrators being bold with this kind of thing, but if we're going to be saying delete when every single person on the page is calling for a keep, then we might as well throw AFD out the window and just have admins press the delete button. To address the concerns:

  • There were 4 people calling for keep, using sound policy arguments.
  • There was one person with a comment implying what several other people expressed: that the article itself was worthy of inclusion, and that at worst the title should change.
  • Deletion was based off previous discussion, with the idea that the two were similar. They are, but the reasons calling for delete in that discussion had nothing to do with the current discussion.

In short, it is the administrators responsibility to establish consensus and work according to it, with leeway to ignore arguments against policy. It is not, however, the responsibility of an administrator to ignore consensus altogether in a discussion. If an admin feels this strongly and there is no consensus, s/he should simply add his comment to the page. This was a faulty close of a discussion, which at most should have been closed as no consensus, and reeks of administartor activism. 64.178.96.168 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn elaborate rationale given, but basically he decided to agree with one sole person and based on the result of one prior related deletion. Admin should have joined the argument instead, and let somebody else close. DGG (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Some of the arguments on the nom were blant personal attacks aimed at the nominator and hence have very little value.
    • A-B relations are reserved for diplomatic relations. This is the common practice to date. The article was "inventing" a relationship between a country (political entity) and ethnicity (a cultural entity) in an WP:OR manner. The article was even synthesizing a relationship based on the interpretation of the bible by the articles author. There isn't a single example of such an "ethnicity-country relationship" article anywhere on wikipedia and this is not the point of "A-B relations" articles. At least two other articles (Kurdish-Chinese relations and Kurdish-Italian relations) were deleted over similar concerns: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Chinese relations. I do not see any argument that overides that past consensus. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. It is the weight of the arguments that count. Some of the arguments on this nom were based on WP:OR or personal opinions and has very little value and do not have much weight. This article and those two has been written by same person. -- Cat chi? 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The AFD devolved into a bit of a slap at the nominator. Although I disagree with White Cat about 99% of the time on things Kurdish and Turkish, this time he is right. We have Turkish-israeli relations which is not the relationship between the Turkish & Israeli people, but the diplomatic relations between their respective governments - if this were not the case we could have Californian-Japanese relations, Austrian-Bavarian relations, Washingtonian-British Columbian relations and Sicilian-New Yorker relations and heck why not Angelino-Mexican relations or Chicagoan-Warsawan relations for which much could probably written (or synthesized). Kurdistan has no sovereign government to date - to the best information I have seen the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq has not obtained recognition of its sovereignty by any other state and has no accredited diplomats posted to any other state and has no diplomatic relations independent of those of Iraq. Let's evaluate the article, not the nominator. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to add that Turkish-Israeli relations redirects to Turkey-Israel relations -- Cat chi? 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As the deleting admin, I based my decision on a few facts: The "A-B relations" article are about diplomatic relations between countries. The previous AFD was a valid deletion (two articles were deleted, not just one), this article is really no different. Regrettably, the closing admin didn't give a reason as to why they deleted, which is a pity. However, I'm a bit unclear what policy was invoked in the arguments on this AFD. There were most definitely some good arguments on the "keep" side of things, but there were even better counter arguments made. AFD isn't a vote, and deleting admins must take into account the keep and delete reasonings. In this case, the keep reasons were reasonably weak, and the delete reasons were strong. I'd like to note that I have no real opinion one way or another of Kurdish/Israeli topics, and believe that the DRV nominator should assume good faith - there was no "admin activism" here. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I have no strong opinion on the article itself, it does seem unfortunate that it was deleted without any "delete" support. The logic about "country - country" also seems flawed - "IBM Microsoft relations" or "GM Ford relations" would beoth be significant topics, let alone "IRA UK relations" or "NATO Warsaw Pact relations". On the DRV level I would perhaps suggest Relist and on the AfD level merge and redirect seems to be the obvious course if there's insufficient notable sourced material. Rich Farmbrough, 11:18 2 October 2007 (GMT).
    And incidentally the "slap at the nom", while unfortunate, should not inform our discussion here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:20 2 October 2007 (GMT).
    • If you are referring to the AFD, then I can assure you I didn't base my decision on that. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Rich Farmbrough, perhaps a better titling of all the international ones would be "A-B diplomatic relations" where A & B are county names rather than adjectival forms which can be ambiguous. Then we can have the any notable "relations" that aren't diplomatic state-to-state but of the GM Ford, people-to-people, what not without "diplomatic" so that Kurdish-Israeli relations would be relations between Kurdish people & Israeli people, and if sources for that can be found and not synthesize an article from nothing. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Flawed closure with a rationale based in no policy. I don't share the presumption that "X-Y relations" articles must necessarily be between two sovereign states, especially in such an ambiguous case as Kurdistan (which for all intents and purposes was sovereign between the two wars). In any event, whether we have such an article should be determined at least in part by WP:N. I would be more willing to back a better-sourced article; this one is weaker than it need be. There are sources, but much of that is itself speculative, so a strongly-grounded article may well be impossible. Nevertheless, it deserves an AFD on the merits. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was defacto semi-sovereign state, yes. There were two factions fighting for power all the time. in the region now known as Iraqi Kurdistan. The scope of the article went beyond that. This article was using the bible as a source to establish Israeli Kurdish relations. It talked about Kurds blaming the capture of the PKK leader to Israel and etc. -- Cat chi? 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist. While I sympathize with the closer's sentiment (and in fact largely agree with the closure) the way in which it was done was just not right - it is impossible to argue that the consensus of the debate was to delete. This is one of those cases where the closer would have been better off adding the opinion to delete to the debate rather than closing it as such. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Closer is not obligated to ignore policy just because everyone else did. From reading the debate, it appears some editors are under the impression that "Kurdistan" is a sovereign entity with diplomatic relations, which is emphatically not the case. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The closer's opinion that "relations articles are clearly only for country-to-country diplomatic relations" fails to account for the fact that a variety of reliable source material specifically uses "Kurdish - Israeli relations" as topic for their writing. The book After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness?: My Encounters With Kurdistan addresses Kurdish-Israeli relations in detail. The 10th Issue of Al-Fursan Magazine (October 2006) has a three-page article describing the historical relations between the Kurds and Israel. The article is entitled "The Kurdish-Israeli Relations: Their Development, Forms, and Objectives." Nabaz Goran wrote about Kurdish - Israeli relations for the third time in a February 14, 2007 article entitled "Back to the original relations, back to the Israeli relations" and published by the Iraqi Kurdistan National Democratic Union newspaper Midya. Also, Google books provides some hits. The closer's use of original research to draw the closing statement is not an appropriate close. Moreover, the consensus clearly agreed and established that the topic Kurdish - Israeli relations meets WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Israel and Kurdistan cannot have diplomatic relations as Israel does not recognize any independent Kurdistan. No dependent entity can have diplomatic relations. The scope of "Iraqi Kurdistan National Democratic Union" only extends to the KRG and not to Turkey, Syria, Israel, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and a dozen other countries where Kurdish people also live. It is WP:OR to establish such relationships among ethnicities. -- Cat chi? 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverse per Jreferee. Closer completely ignored consensus and a multitude of evidence contrary to his views. I'm going to bite my tongue and assume good faith here and not say that it was closed purely out of spite and as a knee-jerk reaction to some borderline comments by a few Keep'ers; but it was a bad decision in any case and warrants reversal. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - when the comments of those contributing to the debate are 100% in favour of keeping, closing as a delete because you personally think it should be deleted is ludicrous. TBSDY may have been better off participating in the discussion by writing a cogent argument for deletion and letting someone neutral close it - if his argument had been strong enough, it may have been deleted anyway. Neil ム 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a democracy. AFD isnt a vote. It is the weight of the comment that counts. -- Cat chi? 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The reasoning the closer used to go against consensus is faulty as even the nominator eventually acknowledged that "A-B Relations" articles are not necessarily for countries alone. The nominator said that a PKK-Hezbollah relations article would be OK. Pocopocopocopoco 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Hezbollah is an organization not an ethnicity. Kurdish is an ethnicity not an organization. -- Cat chi? 12:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Kurds are also a people, and it seems arbitrary to me that you just want to exclude peoples from "A-B relations" but everything else is OK. Nonetheless, my original point stands that the closers reasoning for going against consenses is faulty as his reasoning was that "A-B relations" should be for countries alone. Pocopocopocopoco 14:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is an impossible article. If it were more specific - like, a certain Kurdish party and group with the current state of Israel, rather than some Biblical story, it might be different. As it is, it has no purpose being here. It also read more like a history article than a relations article. --Golbez 11:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I see no clear consensus from the AfD. GDonato (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First I have suggestions to the nominator here and to the closing admin. The nominator here (64.178...) should, as a courtesy to us, sign in with his/her account (User:Part Deux ?), as it is a library anon, though this does not affect this deletion review. Also the closing admin should be more careful while concluding future AFDs. I am in principle against closing an AFD with a comment that is pretty much like a vote, which might be the case here; closing admin even took part in the discussion. I think that we should pay attention to AFD's involving Cat chi, also as there are people attacking him. Let me list the situation with the keep vote arguments:
    1. Pocopocopocopoco: countered well by nom
    2. Evil Spartan: attack on nom, and a not so relevant argument
    3. VartanM: attack on nom, not so relevant argument
    4. Victor falk: countered well by nom
  • No one countered nom's arguments which seem to be quite valid. I agree with the conclusion, but I would have liked it more, if the closing admin did not take part in the discussion. DenizTC 11:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Longest Day (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No comment was made on addition of new sources before the deletion. E tac 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - AfD isn't a vote and deleting because the vote was 3-1 doesn't send a good message. That, by itself, is reason enough to overturn. In addition, "Delete per mine" and "Delete because it didn't chart" are not policy reasons for deletion and the one keep reason offered no assistance to the closer's ability to make a decision. The sources added during the pending AfD were never addressed. When in doubt, don't delete. I considered the relisting option, but the lack of any meaningful discussion in AfD#1 would seem to result in the same lack of meaningful discussion if the article were relisted at AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Jreferee's reasoning.--chaser - t 04:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Digital Paint: Paintball 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Lack of notability not demonstrated - notable as one of the few Quake 2 total conversions to have a large fanbase, and gets more Google hits than some other mod projects that there are articles on. 192.43.227.18 06:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have it backwards: the proponents of the article have to demonstrate the presence of notability. Google hits don't cut it; do you have any external sources on that? >Radiant< 11:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - arguments in article all fell under exactly what the admin said they did: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as they do immediately above (i.e., WP:WAX, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GOOGLEHITS, and WP:BIG.) 64.178.96.168 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I knew this article was familiar (I was the closer of the AfD). I any event, the arguments for keeping ranged from unpersuasive to irrelevant. In particular the fact that some other articles are poorly sourced or unsourced, doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether the lack of sourcing in this article is merely an unfortunate accident of drafting or a reflection of fundamental non-notability. Nor are the "it's more notable than this other mod" suggestions definitive. We are under no obligation to have articles on any Quake II mods unless they meet the general notability criteria (WP:N). Even of they're blue-linked at the moment, they may be deleted at any time if they meet criteria such as lack of notability or verifiability from reliable sources. Eluchil404 05:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus was clear in that the article should be deleted since there was not enough reliable source material to develop an attributable article on the topic. The keep arguments centered around importance/significance, which may get it past CSD A7, but not AfD. The delete arguments regarding WP:N and reliable sources were never countered by those interested in keeping the article. The delete arguments were the better arguments and thus the rough consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alpha Omega (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

In the AfD for this independently-developed game and it's marketing campaign, there was consensus among the users that participated in the AfD that the game was non-notable and should be deleted, but that the accompanying marketing campaign article was uncertain. Despite there being consensus for at least one of the subjects, the whole AfD was closed as no consensus. Discounting the countless SPA and anonymous users in the AfD, I want to at least overturn the no consensus on Alpha Omega (game) and have the article deleted as it was clearly shown that the game isn't notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the game is not yet sufficiently notable, why not just merge the two articles or just redirect the game to the marketing campaign? The AFD resulted in "keep the marketing campaign, delete the game" but that doesn't seem a very useful result to me, so "no consensus, but feel free to use your editorial discretion to merge" seems like a reasonable answer. Kusma (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment given the strong feeling of the forum that was drawn into in the debate, I doubt such a merge would be allowed to stand unless it had some sort of official backing. If a merge did take place - as it quite possibly should - the "no consensus" result would be taken as an invitation to edit war. Percy Snoodle 17:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete Alpha Omega, or Reopen to get consensus for an official merge result. Ignoring La Bicylcette and the meat puppets he brought in from the EHWR forum, only Web Warlock voted against deleting Alpha Omega, and even he seemed to agree it was non-notable; he just wanted more time. Perhaps the closing admin was influenced by the puppets. Percy Snoodle 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn decision on game. No comment on the Ethan Haas (admin failed to give reasoning, and thus I cannot tell if the decision for Ethan Haan was based off a poorly done count of heads, or solid reasoning). 64.178.96.168 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP's and some new users mess up the last discussion, so a second discussion should be started over and possibly with a semi-protection so that there will be no-messed up this time. --JForget 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain You're just moving on to petty tactics now. --Koji 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment Kojiro is one of the editors - albeit one of the few preexisting ones - brought in from the EHWR forum to stuff the ballot. His comment here is typical of the keep votes in the deletion debate which should have been ignored. Percy Snoodle 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' Again, the article is notable enough in that it is a very closely-watched upcoming released. If it does not meet notability guidelines, why not do some research and try and improve the article rather than wanting to delete it right away? A lot of hard work was put into writing this article, and it should be given a chance to be improved. It's not unsalvagable, after all. There is enough information on it to give it notability, and as its website has been recently updated, and with the PDF version expected to be released soon, new information should start becoming more easily available. Obscurity does not automatically qualify for deletion here. I also question the motives of the two main pushers for deletion, as they seem to be doing this for a personal grudge. I say, let sleeping dogs lie. La Bicyclette 02:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it's easy for you to ask to let sleeping dogs lie when you're the one calling me an "idiot" and importing a load of meat puppets[150]; pretending to be reasonable now won't undo that (although in fairness to you, it was Kojiro who called us "bastards"). To answer your actual points, the article doesn't contain information which asserts its notability; all it has are three press releases from the company that made the game. Your arguments about hard work and salvageability are dealt with at WP:PROBLEM. Obscurity doesn't qualify an article for deletion, but failing to meet the notability guidelines does. Percy Snoodle 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Consensus regarding Alpha Omega (game) was clear in that the article should be deleted since there was not enough reliable source material to develop an attributable article on the topic. Even the significant number of SPAs (who probably have a self interest in the topic) failed to assert sufficient reliable source material. The keep arguments centered around importance/significance, which may get it past CSD A7, but not AfD. The delete arguments addressed the references noted in the article, those brought up in the AfD, and the likelihood of undiscovered reference material. The delete arguments were the better arguments and thus the rough consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article sites enough sources to be considered notable. There are plenty of other article with absolutely NO references on Wikipedia that could be cleaned up. It's surprising the vitriol spilling spilling into this discussion. In the time it has taken for the AFD to complete with absolutely no consensus, the article could have been better improved. It's obvious egos have been bruised here. The article has references and content that could be improved. I suggest one of you experts take fifteen minutes and try to make this article better than simply trying to ghost it. Ukulele 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you seem so adamant on keeping the article, why don't you improve it? Further, where exactly are these sources that you're talking about? As pointed out in both the AfD and here, none of the sources in the article currently (three press releases) are not enough to prove notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment all of Ukelele's arguments have been dealt with before at WP:PROBLEM. The article has no third-party references because none are forthcoming; it seems likely none exist. The best thing for wikipedia right now is to delete this article. It can always be recreated if Alpha Omega becomes notable one day. I'm not sure here is the place to be debating the article's notability, anyway - the question is whether there was a consensus to delete; my my reckoning there were no geniune arguments in favour of keeping it at all and several editors who pointed out that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Then there were some meat puppets and Ukelele who likes the article but doesn't have a reason why it meets the notability criteria. Finally, I wish people would stop using "expert" as a veiled insult. Percy Snoodle 07:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to comment Percy, you are correct, and I apologize for causing offense by using the word "expert" in a sardonic tone, especially since I accused those participating in this discussion as spilling vitriol. I honestly consider many of here, including you, Percy Snoodle, as an expert in RPG theory and game history. Your contributions speak for themselves. I simply hate to see a hasty rush to delete somebody's hard work with a request for AFD when there are other tags (with appropriate waiting periods for action) that could equally inspire the original authors to better-improve the article to conform to Wikipedia's standards. I am not adamant about keeping this article, as NeoChaosX suggests. But I do consider the three sources sufficient enough to secure enough notability for a small article about a RPG, especially since there are longer and IMHO more historically important articles here, which lack any references at all. Perhaps this is poor logic on my part, but if cleaning up Wikipedia is truly the goal those of you who wish to have this article deleted, I am simply curious as to why so much discussion has been devoted to this particular article. I do believe in consensus, but my observation here is that a consensus about deleting the aforementioned article had not been reached within the five day discussion period, and now this discussion will spiral into some Danteian circle of discussion hell until some admin makes a decision based solely on wanting to end this filibuster. I would rather see a Template:Notability tag on this article instead of a request for AFD, but It does seem obvious that there are strong feelings about this subject and life is too short to fight tooth and nail for this. I will assume good faith with all of you, and ask that we can better respect each other in this awkward medium of text-based communication in the future-- something that I did a poor job of myself. Sincere apologies again for any offense given and all the best. Ukulele 20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and delete We're not ruling on the merits here, it's procedural. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.