Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April

< March 2008	Deletion review archives	May 2008 >

30 April 2008

Charles Augustus Hilton – Deletion Overturned. AfD reopened and relisted. – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

The article was originally speedy deleted by User:Stifle in the midst of an AfD with the rationale of "A7: No assertion of notability". However, Stifle decided it would be better to let the discussion continue. The article was speedily deleted again by User:Orangemike, citing the same reason. I feel that speedy deletion in this article was inappropriate because the article's assertion of notability was the fact that Hilton, New York was named after this person. In fact, at the time of speedy deletion, this fact was contested as per whether or not it was a sign of notability worthy of inclusion, not whether this was an assertion of notability. The decision that there was no assertion of notability appears to have been made unilaterally by an administrator, thus abruptly ending the AfD discussion. I feel that this article deserves the chance to go through the AfD process and have the community decide its worth. — scetoaux (T|C) 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion poor application of A7. --Rividian (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, and reopen AFD for a full five days of discussion (no need for another this quickly). Although having a town named for you is a very slim claim to notability (and if you can't see the article -- that's basically all there is), it is sufficient to belay an A7. Note that I had !voted for deletion. (I can't for the life of me understand why there's so much support for this article when I had to source like hell to ensure that James Smith Bush, a contemporary churchman of this fellow who was also a nationally known author, was kept, but that's neither here nor there.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen, having a town named after you is a valid indication of notability. Wiehter this person actually does have notability remains to be seen, however. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Not at candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Consensus before the discussion was inappropriately closed seemed to be agreeing. --Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to set the record straight and put events in order...
- I looked at the page and thought there was no assertion of notability, so I speedied the page.
- I noticed that there was some suggestion that the page should be kept, so I restored it.
- I then tagged the page for speedy deletion so as to get a second opinion on the matter, and "voted" for speedy deletion on the AFD page.
- Orangemike speedied the page.
So that leaves us with the page deleted, perhaps not through the proper process, and against some of the consensus. In view of the fact that there were three keep "votes" (with, in my view, very weak rationale) I think the correct action is to relist for the full five days on AFD, in order to get a conclusive result. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 does not have as far as I know have never said "No indication of notability". I sincerely hope it never will. Taemyr (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's been a very long time since you've seen A7. It's said "indicate the importance of significance of" for many months now. I don't know why it was changed, but I think it was because there was too much confusion over what "assert" means. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it has been saying since before I joined wikipedia. It goes on to say that importance is not the same as notability. It has recently been changed to make this distinction even clearer. Taemyr (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will not object to an overturn - I read the support for speedy deletion wrong, and apologize to those who felt they got short shrift. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Having a town named after you might not be enough to merit an article, but it is enough for A7 to not apply. Taemyr (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Premature speedy. There's a reason things are at AfD, and it's because they aren't good speedy candidates. If consensus wasn't clear, it should have been allowed to run for the full five days. We're not in a rush to get everything deleted, we can wait five days. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist you have to let the commenters at the AfD see the article (how else they are going to decide) so overturn on well-intentioned but improper procedure caused by misunderstandings --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Danny Abbadi – AFD closure endorsed, recreation with sources would obviously address the notability concerns that caused deletion, and east is an admin who can access whatever portion of the old article he feels will be useful (and knows enough to undelete for GFDL purposes if he uses any portion). – GRBerry 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A lot of the comments on the AFD were of the "just not notable" or "couldn't find any sources type". Regardless, I dug up a lot of stuff that proves notability and verifiability:

A full biography in the Orlando Sentinel (Orlando fighter finds contest is the ultimate, credited to Hal Boedeker and published April 6, 2006)
Meets the biographical notability guidelines for athletes, having competed in midcards and undercards for the UFC, which is just below the highest level of professional mixed martial arts. He's also been a contestant on the TV show The Ultimate Fighter, which is by far the highest level of amateur competition in the sport.
Verifiability shouldn't be a problem, with his matches being extensively reported on in the LA Times (Hughes Claims Victory After a Slow Start and Ultimate fighters ready to stage a rematch of their 2004 bout by Dan Arritt), the Las Vegas Review-Journal (Hughes gets revenge against Penn to retain UFC crown by Kevin Iole), the Orange County Register (Hughes survives, pummels Penn and UFC 63 preview by Carlos Arias), and the Calgary Sun (Starnes gets back up with a win over Abbadi, by Jose Rodriguez). east.718 at 17:19, April 30, 2008
Endorse deletion until reliable sources are provided. East, if you can show us links, I would probably change my mind, but I did a diligent search through pages of Google hits last time and could only find his name mentioned in reliable sources, nothing to write a bio from. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the standard response to the Factiva defense. ;-) Links for print sources are merely a convenience and their absence should not exclude the citing of them. You can probably Google the titles of the articles to determine that they actually exist; if that's not good enough I can email you the full text to a couple of them. east.718 at 20:12, April 30, 2008
I Googled for reliable sources and found none. I resent your claim that I was apparently too lazy to look. BTW, do those articles actually say anything about him other than that he fought those fights? None of the articles I could find said anything more. Corvus cornix_talk 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just went to the Los Angeles Times, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Orange Country Register and Calgary Sun websites (the Calgary Sun defaults to canoe.ca) and found one reference to Danny Abbadi. The OC Register had this:

Non-televised undercard: Lightweight Roger Huerta (14-1-1) vs. Jason Dent (12-6); heavyweight Mario Neto (9-3) vs. Eddie Sanchez (7-0); lightweight Danny Abbadi (2-2) vs. Jorge Gurgel (12-1); and lightweight David Lee (5-1) vs. Tyson Griffin (7-0).. That's the sum of all information the four papers contain. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize deeply if you found any offensiveness in my comments, I didn't mean them like that. I've uploaded the Orlando Sentinel piece which I'll build most of the article on here. Here's a relevant snippet for the purposes of verifying other bits of data from the OC Register piece: "Abbadi competed at 185 pounds when he was on TUF 3, but he has dropped down to the 155-pound division where he hopes to take advantage of his Muay Thai skills." There's also a bit more information available on an unrelated MMA Weekly article. I can get match descriptions etc. from the usual sources such as Sherdog or those print pieces which I mentioned earlier. east.718 at 23:25, April 30, 2008
Overturn based on sources being provided above. This guy is clearly notable and meets all relevant guidelines for inclusion. Was a star of The Ultimate Fighter and has faught in the UFC, that alone is enough notability for a Wikipedia page per WP:ATHLETE. Extremely limited participation in the AfD, I'd imagine most people familiar with MMA know who this guy is, and would have been snowball kept had WP:MMA been notified. VegaDark (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD outcome was correct, but permit recreation based on sources now available. I'm sure east718 is well aware of BLP anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit Recreation Sources don't have to be online and I trust East718. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the new offline references and concerns that related wiki projects have not been duly informed of the delete discussion, (also considering that improving an existing article is easier than creating a new one from scratch), closing admin is willing to suggest that the AfD be overturned and relisted, so as to allow more proper discussion that might result in reversing the original verdict. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick comment since I support allowing recreation but I personally object to the idea that a wikiproject needs to be notified before an AFD can be considered valid. That's not only instruction creep but putting the views of one group of editors over that of the general community (well the part of it that bothers to watch AFD anyway). Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Plenty of sources provided by east. Delete !voters should have performed due diligence in their searching before submitting their !votes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it's the responsibility of those wanting content included to come up with sources for them, not of those wanting content removed to prove their nonexistence (which is impossible anyway). Stifle (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what I wrote above? I did tons of due diligence, and still have not found any reliable sources that anybody can write a bio from. The best that could be done would be a list of his fights, period. Corvus cornix_talk 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for recreation. If there's sources, that's great, but I perfer "Here's a citation" to "Trust me, it's there, and here's a copy of it I uploaded, now go do a search yourself to prove it exists". It's the author's responsibility to source the article properly. If the sources are there, making a userfied version good enough for inclusion should be easy. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn we are still accepting paper sources here at this place, right? :D I suggest that the author profusely documents every appeareance on paper sources, for verifiability purposes, explaining what was exactly said on each source, and appeasing claims of lack of WP:GOOGLEHITS (sorry, corvus, but there is still important stuff that does not appear on google) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did I ever say anything to the contrary? Corvus cornix_talk 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments. I didn't make myself clear I mean that there are many news articles that are never uploaded to the internet, or they get taken out of newspaper websites after a few days. So you can have someone who is notable by mentions in paper sources, but is not notable by looking only at google hits because only a few non-notable mentions appear there. East718 says that the paper sources assert notability, and the fact that google gives nothing can be misleading. I didn't want to make any comment on your ideas --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is that the sources are offline (in fact, most newspaper articles are online nowadays). It's that all that has been given is descriptions on how to find them. "Find them yourself" and "trust me" don't cut it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. PeaceNT closed that AFD correctly, but new sources have come to light after the AFD. He appeared on The Ultimate Fighter 3, fought in UFC 63 [1] (not a Fight Night as is typical for TUF contestants), and has been covered by the Orlando Sentinel. And I think the Calgary Sun ref is pretty good as well. He's been covered in MMAWeekly[2]. I would think UFC.com[3] would count as an acceptable source as well. He's notable per WP:ATHLETE, having competed in a high-level, fully professional league. --Pixelface (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

CarDomain – Deletion overturned – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article survived two separate AFD debates, and per WP:CSD "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." The website's notability has been debated, but it has received some coverage. The article was not blatant advertising either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion. Page meets WP:CSD#G11 criteria. Two failed consensus debates, is not a survival, ie. Keep. Particularly when the articles creator (Jmcdoggy) inappropriately created two sock puppets (Go2Fast (talk · contribs) - Grseattle (talk · contribs)), which infiltrated the debate and voted Keep. Jmcdoggy also created Www.cardomain.com).

related - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.cardomain.com (which DR nominator Sjakkalle participated in)

29 April 2008

Tibbit – History already restored. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

In November 2007, Tibbit was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, AA deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? I asked AA about this, but this user appears to be on a wikibreak and inactive. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting; Pilotbob put this article up for deletion, and Doctorfluffy voted to delete; shortly after this AFD, both users were found to be meatpuppets of each other. BOZ (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and redirect per nom. -Pete (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and redirect. Noncontroversial request. I can't seem to find a mention of Tibbit in List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, otherwise I'd just make a redirect myself and ask for a history merge. BOZ, I suggest you add Tibbit where it oughta' be before this request is fulfilled. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it is a first edition monster, but it's part of a large category that has yet to be added. I can include just the tibbit though, when I get a moment. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so - it's at the very bottom of the page. BOZ (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could've just done it yourself, but that's fine. I just created the redirect, and a history merge is probably in order. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, if the history could be restored that would be great. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted the history but haven't closed this since the closing admin hasn't commented yet. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I don't know when the closing admin will be back online, but thanks again! BOZ (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Libertas (lobby group) – overturn speedy. I was a bit uncertain about this, because there are reasonable arguments on both sides, and the speedy deletion for a tiny article is not really unreasonable either (though A7 (no assertion of notability, does not mean not notable in reality) or A3 (big time lack of content) might be a better criterion than the G11 (spam) which was used). There are several who wrote that it can be recreated easily, and that this DRV discussion was therefore pointless, and that is a view I have sympathy with. The two reasons for restoring are 1) that the article did have two external links which provide a first link for someone searching for sources, and that means that building the article might be somewhat easier if this is restored, and 2) that the argument has been made that the group is notable, and therefore the presence of a severely abbreviated article might be better than no article. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedy deleted as spam (WP:CSD#G11), which it clearly isn't. The topic is quite notable, and it's surprising that an article doesn't already exist. Libertas is a political organization that has garnered a substantial amount of coverage in Ireland. For example, a Google search reveals over 30k results, including 228 articles on the site of Ireland's national news organisation alone. The article could certainly warrant further content -- which I was in the process of adding before it was deleted. Adxp (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied this. One sentence followed by a link to the homepage looks like linkspam, and in any case the article is deletable as lacking substantive content, and not providing independent verifiable sources to notability (it's not clear to me that the second link is either of these.) If there are better references, recreate with them. WDR seems a waste of time for one sentence. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was one sentence because it was deleted. Give it a few days, and see how things look then. As shown above, it's a notable topic. --Adxp (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no access to the deleted page so I can't comment on the deletion. However, there is no policy restriction on sensible recreation. The way forward, rather than using time and energy here, is as suggested by the deleting admin, simply to write a better article. BlueValour (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, extremely notable organization in Ireland in the Treaty of Lisbon debate. Completely not spam. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate with references per Jimfbleak and BlueValour. --Kbdank71 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate with more and better references (and a better name, since the name "Libertas" has probably been used by lobby groups in other countries; try "Libertas (Irish political group)" or something). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just recreate it already We have already killed more bytes discussing this then were expanded in writing the thing. This time please add some actual content and references. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and tag as needing expansion and references. Article should have been stubified instead so it could be expanded. The deleter just didn't know that the society was notable because of lack or references --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate. Speedy was correct. Read like spam, had no assertion of notability and could also have met A7. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, Speedy was not correct. Subject is about a very notable lobby group campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty which can be found in various media coverage. The delete admin should have done research on the subject more thoroughly. @pple complain 03:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, the job of admins patrolling CSD is to check if an article meets our speedy criteria, not do research into the subject. The deleted version doesn't give any assertion that subject is "a very notable lobby group.", which is why it failed CSD. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aliza_Shvarts – article rewritten about the event, redirect created – GRBerry 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll admit up front that this is a rather odd sort of DRV, the sort which I did not imagine filing. And yet, recent events have persuaded me otherwise. A procedural summary is that I am challenging the deletion of Aliza Shvarts, as being without consensus.

This isn't just consensus in the deletion debate itself, however. It is consensus amongst our contributors and amongst our policies. There is a definitive lack of logic in the present incarnation of WP:BLP1E, and it is functioning to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I've had a number of conversations about this with the case of Miss Shvarts in mind; one particularly insightful one lies at User:Avillia/A_Talk_With_A_Cat, which I suggest you read now, so as to better understand the logic which follows.

In summary:

It is patently obvious that, at some given combination of the notability of an event and of a protagonist of that event, that an article regarding that person is justified -- although a biographical article may not be. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seung-Hui_Cho_(2nd_nomination).
While Wikipedia policy cannot reflect every possible situation, it must be written to best reflect the intent of the policy, and the intended result of its application. If we accept the previous statement as true, WP:BLP1E does not meet that test.
Not only does it fail that test, it fails that test in the context of what is, due to both Wikipedia's legal liability and ethical responsibility, one of the most key policies of the project.

Now, it may be that BLP1E is simply inappropriate in the context of the BLP policy, or in any policy document (as compared to a linked essay), or it may be that the problem can effectively be resolved by modifying the section to reflect the above common sense exception; regardless, I believe the current version cannot reasonably be seen as having the level of consensus it requires. As the majority of the arguments for the deletion of Aliza Shvarts reference BLP1E, many of them without further interpretation, we must decide if that lack of consensus compromises the consensus reached within the debate.

The article, at the time of deletion, did not violate any Wikipedia policy and, with the exception of 1E, fully complied with the BLP policy. It clearly established its notability with multiple references to respected major media (the Associated Press[4], the New York Times[5], etc), and it takes a minimum of ~~research~~ effort to show that it has further mainstream and legitimate coverage than what was referenced within the article (the Huffington Post[6], the Chicago Tribune[7], Fox News[8]...). The question of the article's existence, as such, lies entirely upon the merits of 1E.

You decide. My ~~vote~~ opinion is Overturn, by the way. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure I'm not the only editor who substantially agrees with you about the misapplication of BLP1E, but this may not be the venue for having that discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Seng Hui Cho gets his own article for the Virginia Tech. massacre, then why shouldn't Aliza Shvarts get her own biographical article for her controversial art installation? The difference between the two is one of degree, rather than substance. Both Mr. Cho and Ms. Shvarts committed actions that were widely condemned. Neither Cho nor Shvarts would be notable but for a single event. Therefore, if one gets a biographical article, the other should too. My opinion is to overturn this deletion, based upon the aforementioned reasoning. Quanticle (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at least partly on the basis of the continuing coverage. There are no BLP concerns. She designed her project to attract publicity, and got it. BLP1E does not apply when the event is sufficiently notable--it needs either rewording on removal. DGG (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if Avillia had the common sense to either a) ask me as the deleting admin, rather than proceeding straight to deletion review, or b) checked the deletion log, he would know the article is currently userfied and being worked on (see User:Skomorokh/Aliza Shvarts). Additionally, policy discussion needs to take place at WT:BLP, not here. Recommend speedy closure. Neıl ☎ 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From Neil's talk page: "Did I delete your page? If it was through Articles for deletion, and you knew about it, kindly proceed directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'll just direct you there anyway." With that defense to my disregard to common sense aside, I now direct you to your closing summary for the deletion, which cited BLP1E as the primary reason for close, and stated that "Arguments consisting of "article is well-referenced"... are particularly weak." The userification changes nothing, as no user's influence can change the fact that Miss Shvarts is notable for one event, and one event only. The issue is the notability (quality) of that event outweighing the quantity of events in which she is involved. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From Neil's talk page: "Did I delete your page?". Had you asked, I would have given you the above information. Skomorokh explains it better than I have, below. Neıl ☎ 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per Neil. DRV is wrong venue. -Pete (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I voted hastily, a complex issue. Have to look closer -- sorry. -Pete (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but Neil's advice on his page is in fact wrong. It's his obligation to at least listen in good faith. He's making unnecessary work for all of us here--just like now. Quite apart from discouraging the newbies. DGG (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator I just came here looking to relist the article. It would have been courteous to have been notified of this debate so I could have saved everyone a lot of wasted time, but here is the proposal: the article was deleted as a WP:BLP1E, with a strong minority of keep/merge/move/rework !votes. I propose to recreate the article (currently userfied here) as 2008 Yale University abortion art controversy or similar title on the grounds that the event (or controversy if you will) has non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, to put it lightly. The only major policy-based deletion rationale was BLP1E, so I do not think this should be contentious. Thoughts? Skomorokh 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink the framework. By itself, the present text has not one iota of biographical information, and so the article shouldn't be titled 'Aliza Shvarts'. However, the present text is excellent, and deserves to be in mainspace somewhere. Either the editors need to add bio data, or the article needs to appear within some other context. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the present text being moved back into mainspace under the title Skomorokh suggested - it is now, rightly, about the event not the person. Neıl ☎ 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, do I need consensus here for this or can I just go ahead and boldly take a BLP1E deletion as an endorsement of the notability of the event? Skomorokh 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that as deleting administrator, I can say "go ahead and do this". So, go ahead and do this. Recommend if this is done this DRV is closed as moot and anyone wishing to continue a discussion on BLP1E take it to WT:BLP as they should have in the first place. Neıl ☎ 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the title, could we drop the blurb for 'Yale University' please? Neither that nor "2008" are particularly suitable key terms. What, for example, did the press call the affair? Or generalize to something like "Aliza Shvarts performance art controversy" or even "Aliza Shvarts art controversies"? The latter would also give the older controversies room to development in. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. If the college newspaper had done a better job reporting on the subject in the original article about her art project, she might never have made the national news in the first place. I don't think we should allow underreported and oversensationalized coverage in college newspapers to set the agenda for us. The comparison to Seung-Hui Cho is completely unreasonable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but the college newspaper did say what it said, and she did make the national news. Don't try to delete on the basis of your preferred rewriting of history. DGG (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The consensus was clearly tilting toward delete, and even with a mixed consensus the closing admin made the right call by deleting on WP:BLP1E grounds and general non-notability. At least one of the keeps amounted to "this person clearly exists and so should have a Wikipedia article" which is absurd. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn It is fundamentally unreasonable to use BLP1E when there is a) no consensus to do so b) the individual in question clearly sought publicity and c) we have no reason(if anything quite the opposite) to think that this person would prefer not to have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's worth noting that this "art" project has become part of the art world's dialectic about the direction of modern art. I'm not an expert on modern art by any means; it's clear that while Piss Christ had defenders in the main stream art world, this doesn't really. But it's nonetheless a topic of conversation. This recent column in the Wall Street Journal from a Williams College art professor is what I mean by part of the dialectic. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: That a number of editors don't like WP:BLP1E is apparent, but AfD is not the place to debate its existence or applicability. When you throw in such sterling arguments for Keep as "The individual clearly exists" and a mere "Keep this article," there you have it. RGTraynor 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirection to event article - The fact that there is nothing out there on her beyond this single event and its fallout, makes this person/article this a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Write an event on the article, not the person. FCYTravis (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had actually read the page before opining, you might have noticed the prominent Recreated title just below indicating this is a fait accompli. Skomorokh 06:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm simply endorsing said conclusion. FCYTravis (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirection the recent redirect to a proper name has already addressed the BLP1E deletion, and the encyclopedia has recovered a good article *feels tempted to invoke WP:IAR*. The article has a good bunch of sources and is clearly notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: it should be renamed to "Yale Art Student abortion art controversy" or similar, since the most relevant fact is that she was a Yale student, notice how only the Post Chronicle source uses "Aliza Shvarts" on its title. I urge closing admin to perform this move when closing. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated

Since the latest !votes have completely missed the point, I have, with the closing admin's permission, recreated the article in a modified form at Aliza Shvarts abortion art controversy. Feel free to renominate for deletion, but note that this is about the event, not the individual, so BLP1E is irrelevant. Suggestions for renaming are most welcome on the talkpage. Skomorokh 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Intervol – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was removed with no warning or opportunity to correct the referencing, the page needs a few small alterations, please let it be reinstated so that these minor changes can be made. The administrator, Rama's Arrow, was contacted and made no reply whatsoever regarding the deletion. Thank you" Fix listing, no comment on merit TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy overturn~~. Unless I'm mistaken, the lack of an AFD makes it appear this was a WP:PROD; in which case, it should be overturned without further need for justification. (Unless it was a speedy delete instead, in which case an admin with access to the logs should make the call.) -Pete (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can look at the log, using the "logs" link in the DRV template (or by going to the article's history and following the "view logs" link at the top of the page). This was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. The admin that deleted it is not active, nor an admin any longer. I agree that this fits A7 as an article about a group of people that fails to even claim any importance or significance for the group. Endorse deletion GRBerry 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- not being able to see the contents, I have no opinion on whether it meets the criteria. But thanks for the clarification on how to evaluate this. It seems to me that we should, at minimum, restore to user space, since the fix for an A7 can be so easy to make; and if Travellingcari can formulate an assertion of notability, he/she should simply recreate the article. -Pete (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy, the article indeed did not make any claim of notability for the group, and seemed to be intended mainly for boosterism and exposure of said group (which renders it a likely candidate for G11 as well.) The person requesting undeletion has not given any indication of how (s)he intends to address the reason for deletion or what assertion of notability does exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy. This article is about a student club at a university which organizes volunteer projects in foreign countries. Although their activity may be worthy, student organizations at a single school are generally non-notable. Searching for Google hits appears to be unfruitful because there appear to be other organizations by this name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, page did not assert notability. If you have references or sources for the group that establish its notability, let's see them. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Looking at the article, I think i would probably accept it as a G7-club. If anyone can actually find sources for notability they can of course recreate it, but Id be pretty surprised. DGG (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was under the mistaken impression this was a music group, not a club. (No way to know, I think, without seeing the article?) In any event..is there a reason not to restore to user space? I guess I'd just respect any decision admins make, as they're able to see the content in question and make a call based on that. -Pete (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a college club, and looks like a G7-club to me as well. According to the article's last state, the user who wants it revived, is also the President of the club and the original (possibly only) author of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that addresses my question. If he's the only author, that means they're his words. He may not have a copy anywhere else. He may want them. Even if the words have no future as a Wikipedia article, I'd think that we should give a copy back to the author due to WP:BITE. Of course, maybe he doesn't care. But I don't see a compelling reason to refuse such a request if it's made. -Pete (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course I will send him a copy he if asks me.DGG (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was misunderstood; I never object to sending somebody an e-mail of their own text! I'm just a little dubious about creating a userpage for something when it's such a blatant case of COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think we're all on the same page. Sorry if my comments seemed nitpicky, I'm trying to better understand how things work here as I just had an RFA in which some people questioned my understanding of areas like this. Glad to know that's how you'd treat it. Happy now to endorse deletion. -Pete (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 April 2008

Dean of Llandaff – speedy deletion for lack of context/content overturned. Editors believing that it merits merging or deletion are encouraged to use the appropriate process. – GRBerry 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion of 'Dean of Llandaff' contested----Clive Sweeting. (Deleter cannot be contacted)

Comment - reformatted Clive's request so the header worked. I think this looks like a fairly viable little stub after some cleanup and have restored with a DRV flag over it so non-admins can review. Neıl ☎ 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are a tad suspicious without ISBNs or links. Corvus cornix_talk 16:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore No possible valid reason for speedy deletion. Deleted as A1, but even at that time it had content. The article describes the office, and lists several holders, including 3 with WP articles, at least one very notable & sourced in 11th EB, which is reliable enough for old-fashioned topics like this. The books are real, per OCLC. DGG (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. No speedy criterion validly applies. Powers ^T 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why AFD? Neıl ☎ 09:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review: "List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria, so that it can be debated at the appropriate forum;" Powers ^T 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we often close here with "relist optional" if we think that enough notability has been shown in the discussion here that the nominator may not want to pursue the deletion. I think this such a case. DGG (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Llandaff Cathedral. Most cathedrals have lots of jobs with high and/or ancient sounding names but alas, they're just jobs - merge with the artcile or we'll have for each cathedral articles on its deans, deacons, choirmasters, song masters, sextons, vergers, sacristans, lay ministers, altar servers, rectors, and sub- all of these. Not notable independent of the cathedral itself, hence merge & redirect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Northeastern West Village H.jpg – image restored after OTRS confirmation of valid license – GRBerry 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is a victim of license shifting. The author has personally confirmed that the photo was previously CC but she has since changed the posted license terms to (C). Despite my insistence that this is an invalid act, she insists she is "has every right to change [the] license". This is the same photographer who took Image:Behrakis Health Sciences Center.jpg and did the same thing there. I have email convo for confirmation. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reformatted Keith's request so the header worked. I am inclined to suggest we let it go and try and obtain a fully free and uncontroversial replacement. Neıl ☎ 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think bending to an authors' illegitimate license shifting will lead to constant image changing as rogue authors play musical chairs with their works' licenses. Oops, that image is not CC anymore, get a new one... oops, that one's not cc anymore either, get yet another one... - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we stop them uploading any images. We have a rule that GFDL images cannot have their licence shifted once submitted (see Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL), but I'm not sure if that applies to CC images, also. Neıl ☎ 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that we will no longer be able to take advantage of existing CC work and must only accept contributor-created content. The picture in question isn't mine -- if it was, it wouldn't have shifted, because I know better. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better being asked at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Image use policy to establish what precedent exists, if any. I have asked here for input on this question. Neıl ☎ 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#When CC is revoked. Let's try to keep it in one place. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've commented on the more general issue at the Village pump, but I think this is a situation that should be considered on a case-by-case basis (just as a court would, if a dispute like this ever got that far). In this case, seeing that both images in question appear to be of existing buildings, and therefore presumably easily replaceable, I see no reason not to "let them go" as Neil writes above. Let's save the hostile and legally murky "you can't make me stop, nyah nyah" approach for cases where we can demonstrate some actual harm to the encyclopedia or bad faith on part of the author. So, make this a weak endorse from me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As been mention, the photo should be easily replaceable, so I would suggest to the initial uploader to consider finding alternative photos of such in the future. Having said that, the photos was uploaded, with appropriate license as originally granted by the copyright holder, and then deleted in error as a copyright violation, so overturn deletion. KTC (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My final argument: The image was CSD'd because it was deemed to be non-free. However, this was an incorrect assessment, based on the wording of the CC-BY legal license (see aforementioned village pump discussion) and the fact (confirmed by the content creator) that it was previously released under that license. By virtue of the CC-BY license, the image uploaded to WP was appropriately free, not just for WP, but for others who get it from WP. Therefore the CSD was improper, and should be overturned. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical matter, if Keith's correct and the image was actually CC licensed at one point, he's correct. But I find it very disappointing that Wikipedia would be laying claim to an image on such purely technical grounds. The image is not something particularly unique or unreplaceable. The original reason for deletion may have been technically incorrect (again, assuming that Keith is correct about past licensing, which I'm not sure how one would confirm); but a better reason for deletion would be don't bite the newcomers. Sometimes people click a button they don't fully understand, and want to back out. Sure, they should read before clicking, but it's not Wikipedia's job to "teach them a lesson." -Pete (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an email from the content creator herself confirming that she previously with intent posted the pictures with CC-BY, but then more recently when she began pursuing for-profit options for her work, she intentionally removed CC-BY and replaced it with (C). I'd post the email but I don't know where to put it (in this discussion?). So... the "didn't mean to click that" defense, while otherwise a valid consideration, isn't the case here. She didn't say "I didn't mean to do that", she indicated that she purposefully changed her mind on how she wanted to distribute the work. As I said above, if we give in to people like that, we can never accept CC work because there will always be the possibility that the creator will try to rescind the license, and we will continually have to find replacements each time that happens. (Until whatever it is ceases to exist, that is.) Bad precedent IMO, more damaging to the encyclopedia IMO than keeping a picture under the terms of its license despite later acts of the creator. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a little different then, if she understood the license to begin with. I suppose the correct thing to do is to forward that email to OTRS, so that someone can review it and post the ticket number on the image. I don't see any likelihood of this setting significant precedent though, or of photographers doing this sort of thing very often. -Pete (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did as Pete suggested, and OTRS subsequently undeleted the image. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Artichles, Uruha, Kai (drummer), Reita, and Yune – Deletion endorsed – Stifle (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am having a fustrating time with trying to wright and keep, articles up. I wrote articles on Uruha, Kai, Reita, and Yune, of the band the GazettE. However they have been deleted by yje User: Nakon, reasoning that, "Biographical article that does not assert significance". I explained to he/she that,

"The articles on Yune, Reita, Kai, and Uruha were deleted saying that "Biographical article that does not assert significance". I believe that they did state there significance. Each of those pages were dedicated to the members of the band the GazettE. It was also referenced to the best of my knowledge and I do not think that they should have been deleted and should be restored. If there can be pages dedicated to the members of the band Rammstein as well as other bands, why can't there be pages dedicated to the members of the band the GazettE?"

Nakon replied to me stating, "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." Nakon.

There are a lot of people who have not done anything else outside of there specified area, yet have a page dedicated to them, such as Brandon Kroeger, of the Band Nickleback. What I'm trying to say is that it seems ilogical to not have a page dedicated to the biography of a person of a famous band simply because they have not done anything else other than be in that famous band.

All I ask is that my articles on the 3 members, Uruha, Reita, and Kai, and 1 ex-member, Yune, be restored. And that my hopefully future articles on the other to members of this band, Ruki, and Aoi, not be deleted when they are put up, based on the same reasoning. Please and Thankyou.

P.S. If you require References, just request them. Again, Thankyou. GazettEFan (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article dedicated to Brandon Kroeger was deleted by someone upon my posting of this. GazettEFan (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'm affraid that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement won't get you far, especially given the deletion. Nakon hit the nail spot on in explaining this; just being a member of a notable band doesn't confer notability. I'd suggest putting a little about each on the GazettE. I believe there's a precedent allowing a "members of band" or some such section. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to userspace. Deletion while an editor is trying to work on articles, without providing alternatives, is a bit unfriendly. Gazettefan can then improve the articles, solicit feedback if desired, and move to main articles space if and when he/she believes they are more worthy of inclusion. -Pete (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I know the articles have been already deleted, but I feel further assessment of the situation is in order. Additional information to The Gazette (band) is really unnecessary, as the only information the user intends to add are "fun facts" and various points of trivia (taken care of by WP:TRIVIA). The article is fine as it is, and each member has no significance other than their participation in the band. --Jacob ^Talk 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse You need to assert separate notability for the band members if you want them to have their own article. That means meeting WP:PEOPLE standards. You can still add them to the band article --Enric Naval (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nadeem Razaq – Keep deleted - WP:BLP, and this section specifically, would indicate that this shouldn't be an article. As noted in the discussion below, the crime may be "notable" enough for an article. But not an individual who is notable merely due to being a suspect. – jc37 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello please undelete Nadeem Razaq, correct references were given including the name, so the deletion was invalid. filed on the page for the 29th by TomWoodhams moved to proper log by GRBerry at 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this was deleted as an expired PROD, so should be restored on request. However, it was prodded because of WP:BLP concerns, and I myself want a stronger reason than "technically invalid" for restoring it - why should we have this article? GRBerry 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- a suspect in multiple murders, with good sources for strong evidence against him. I'd think the crime would be considered sufficiently important to be worth our notice. DGG (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then an article about the crime would be appropriate. -- Kesh (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded it because much of the article, including claims that the suspect's fingerprints were found at one crime scene and that he was seen at another crime, were sourced only to Chinese sources, with no inline sourcing at all. On top of that, the Chinese article, to whom it is arguably much more relevant, doesn't mention the name of the suspect at all, so I don't think we should have an article on him specifically. I'm more open to an article specifically on the slayings, but I'm at best neutral on whether they're worth an article. Ral315 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eli b. perlman – Absent verification of the permission claimed by the lister, deletion endorsed as copyvio – Stifle (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eli B. Perlman was deleted due to erroneous copyright infringement. The page that houses the information protected under copyright is owned by the author of the Wikipedia entry and was placed with full understanding and authority of the copyright owner. Perlmane talk improperly formatted request fixed by GRBerry 16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder must provide evidence that they are, indeed, the copyright holder as per the WP:CP page. Did they do so? Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Northeastern West Village H.jpg – query for information answered; substantive discussion in separate section above – GRBerry 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History only undelete pls. Want to see the source URL for this picture so I can review and contact the photographer as I believe this is a case of license-switching. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you originally uploaded this you credited "Credit: Michelle Callinan, [9] Date: March 31 2006, Source: [10]" as {{cc-by-2.0}} That link still appears to be correct, but no licensing terms are visible now on flickr. GRBerry 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained_Memoirs – Still needs some work - Please consider the advice of the others in this discussion. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, etc. And when it comes to WP:CRYSTAL, we need to be especially careful.) – jc37 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this artcile should be be put back up on the main Wiki for several reasons. The artcile, as requested, now has more citations. However, a brief Google search alone on the wrestlers attached to this project indicates the project is notible. There is a New York Times No1 Bet Selling author, Playboy Cover Model, World Wrestling Champions and the president of All Japan Pro Wrestling attached to this project - all of which have detailed Wiki pages. The production (as referenced in the wiki article) has been discussed multiple times in multiple written publications (which are sold worldwide) and online articles by respected wrestling specific websites. Commoncase (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relevant logs appear to be here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space. Proposed version looks good, and I don't believe that films, even future releases, make A7. Notability is still a bit slim, and I'd like to see more references, but if anyone feels these are major issues they should take it to AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lifebaka, would you take care of putting the page back up as an actual Wiki article? Could you please advise which areas you think would need more referencing, and I will research the production some more and attempt to do so. Commoncase (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - The documentary isn't even released yet, and notability is a little weak. Simply having notable stars doesn't necessarily make the documentary notable. Once the documentary comes out, and reviews/articles about it are released, you'll easily be able to satisfy notability and keep it from being ~~AfD'ed~~ deleted again. -- Kesh (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh - I disagree on your comment, "Simply having notable stars doesn't necessarily make the documentary notable." You may have to bare with me and understand the wrestling business somewhat. In 2008 it is STILL like the old Hollywood movie system, with specific companies (RKO etc) effectively owning its stars. I.E. You just simply wouldn't see certain, well known actors, in the same project due to the nature of the busines, and inability to work for rival companies.

A very notable factor of this independent documentary is that it breaks down the wall. For instance you have the Japansese IWGP World Champion Keiji Mutoh in the same production as the first WWE Undisputed Champion Chris Jericho. Its unheard of, and for a wrestling fan (which I believe is who the majoprity viewers of the article would be) this is very notible.

Also, although there are no reviews to be found (due to being unreleased) there are pleanty of articles out there, both on the net, in internet forums and hard print in written publications, as referenced to in the article.

Toy Story 3 has been put up as a Wikipedia article with no problem whatsoever, but the film will not be out untill 2010, and despite claims, very little is known about the film. There have been no screen stills or publicity photos released. Or any official outline of story. Also, if you look at the references, the majority have nothing to do with the actual film as a production.

If you compare both articles, the Bloodstained Memoirs one has more depth, certainty and reliability.

Also, I have now put up more media citations, and after some furthur research, have found that a screener was held in an independent London cinema - I have written about this and referenced the relevant news site.

Commoncase (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, however: 1) There is only one in the article I'd consider reliable: The article from FSM, and that one only if the actual article is cited. Posting a (tiny) image of the article spread is not citing a source. The rest are either trivial mentions, or not independent of the documentary itself. 2) Other articles exist is not an argument for keeping this one. 3) The location of a screening is irrelevant. I do think this documentary will be notable enough for an article when it comes out, but in the meantime just keep it in your user space. Once it comes out, you can cite other reliable sources and move it to main article space. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh Could you please directly acknowledge the points in my above entry if you are to dismiss this article.

5 of the 6 references are actualy independent. Again, PW Torch being one of the biggest wrestling news websites.

RE the FSM article, it would be against both Wikipedia and copyright laws to scan and put in the whole article - as with any other magazine. If you notice, the magazine scan is from the official website. This cites the reliability of the source. Commoncase (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did address your points. Most of your references are trivial mentions, which does not satisfy WP:V. And yes, it is a copyvio to scan the whole magazine article. That's why we don't: instead, you follow the proper process in WP:CITE to provide a citation to that article. -- Kesh (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take strong exception to you claiming the references are trivial. Look at the layout of the news pages - each subject is allocated roughly the same text. The articles state the film is in production, they state who is in it. They state what the screenign date is. And these are some of the most respected wrestling news sites.

The purpose of citing (to Wiki standards) is to enable the reader of an article to check for reliability. The article lays claim to a FSM magazine interview - the reference - a scan to the official FSM magazine scan of the article proves this. It fufils its purpose.

If you you believe your criticisms of the Bloodstained Memoirs article to be true, why don't you try to delete Toy Story 3? See how far that gets you. (For the above stated reasons) The Bloodstained Memoirs interview has more depth, certainty and reliability. I think there is a prejudice / lack of understanding here because this is a "wrestling" product frankly.

Within the article, relevance is stated. As is notability. As are references to free media. In my opinion it meets all Wiki criteria.

Commoncase (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is an arguement that could be better conducted on the talk page of the article. Neither of you are really going anywhere constructive overall with this, except repeating that you disagree. Commoncase, Kesh does have at least some good points, so I suggest you implement them instead of merely objecting (citing the FSM article with a {{cite}} template shouldn't be difficult, if you've got access to a copy, for instance). And Kesh, it's not always necessary to respond when someone objects to your point of view. Repeating points you've already made gets tiresome to read after a while. Cheers to both of you. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I get peeved when accused of not acknowledging points I did address. :) I think my view has been made clear. -- Kesh (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where does the article go from here? Commoncase (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a DRV lasts around 5 days, after which an admin will close the debate and make a decision. -- Kesh (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp Avoda – Contested prod, restored. – Tony Fox (arf!) 05:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp Avoda QuentinV (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the recovery of the Camp Avoda article. The deletion was proposed by Punkmorten. My argument is this:

While I agree that the information in this article cannot be verified by an outside published source, I believe the significance of this article outweighs its slight flaw. The contents of the article might not be verifiable with an outside published source, but it has been checked repeatedly by users who have been to the camp and worked in the camp, and the probability of their being an inconsistency is low. I also would like to note that the article is very useful. Whether used as a reference for people who hear about the camp and don't know much about it, or for people who want to find information about the camp from an outside, unbiased source, since the only other information available is the camp's own information. It is also useful for people who currently go to the camp or previously have done so, as it lists information on the annual Color War event. This information is not available any where else on the web. This article is unbiased and useful. Please consider recovering this article. Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated.

Note - the logs for this page can be found here. BlueValour (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and then speedy close - this was an expired Prod and should be procedurally recreated on this legitimate request. The nominator should note that Wikipedia is not a substitute for the organisation's website and unless reliable, secondary sources are provided that establish notability the article is likely to be nominated at WP:AFD. See WP:ORG and WP:RS. BlueValour (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as expired prod, but "users who have visited the camp" isn't a viable source. The nom should make sure any article meets WP:N and WP:V, or odds are it'll be deleted again. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 April 2008

Polmont F.C. – Speedy close wrong venue. It is beyond the remit of DRV to consider deletion of an existing article. Suggest tagging with appropriate CSD template or put nominate at AfD. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another return of the article Polmont F.C. This article has been speedily deleted at least twice before. Cam it be speedily deleted yet again?
Speedy close as out of process. We don't delete pages here. If the page is a straight recreation then it should be G4 tagged (as opposed to the G6 tag used). If not, it should be AFD'd again. BlueValour (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jacques d'Arc – Automatic approval of request to restore article as contested prod. No extended discussion required. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) as conclusion of a prod but in the reason for deletion the admin unnecessarily remarks about a hangover to describe one of the contributors. The page did list sources and even referenced other articles where the nobility and notability are also a subject in those articles. The other contributors have even expanded on the sources that were listed. I'm surprised the admin mentioned 'no sources' when I remember there was a few listed. The pages Joan of Arc and Isabelle Romée both refer to this page. Being the husband to Isabelle Romée and father of Joan of Arc, I don't even understand why Jacques' page was deleted or how that even rewrites history as said by Butseriouslyfolks. — Dzonatas 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

YouThink.com – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

notability can be established

Notability:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brought+to+you+by+YouThink.com+quizzes+and+personality+tests%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a 73,400 uses of the phrase "Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests" as an exact quotation on Google. That means likely 70 to 75,000 myspace/digg/etc account have used a Youthink.com quiz. That alone should make it good enough for a Wiki entry.

Youthink.com returns 242,000 hits
www.youthink.com returns 195,000 hits
quiztron (aka YT quizzes) - 19,400 hits
i-am-bored.com - 289,000 hits (run by the same guy)
Alexa: 32,305 (this fails WP:WEB or something, but the 73,400 quiz results should overrule that.
i-am-bored.com has a 3,040 which does not fail Wp:WEB, and this used to mirror YouThink's Links section but that is no longer the case.

And here is a news article so it passes WP:WEB http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/candy/2001-09-26-candy-question.htm

I think this was deleted hastily there were valid points brought up about its notability that were ignored because most of the votes had gone through by the time they were brought up.

But I admit I am an established poster with 66,301 posts as of now and I've been there almost 7 years. So hopefully some neutral people can look at it. I can also see that it could be considered just another "internet community" where the people in it think it's important, but it's not.

Overturn Per reasons mentioned above.Electricbassguy (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion. The news article is not a news article at all, but rather a bunch of VERY short quotes, one of which mentions the website. No one has established notability. Google hits do not establish notability; I have thousands myself, more than many notable subjects, but I myself am not a notable person. Unless you can show serious coverage in secondary sources, then you cannot establish notability. The linked-to article and claiming it passes WP:WEB is just plain old silly; it doesn't, and the mention is completely cursory. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Dragon. The USA Today thing is just a reprint of a letter from a reader... this is not enough coverage to meet inclusion standards. --Rividian (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for closing admin: Did the article assert notability? If not, I Endorse deletion. If so, I have no position; I'd have to see it. -Pete (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.askmen.com/cool_site/2004_may/may16.html - this is a review from a notable website, if that counts for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a better one. http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/readerpicks/ss/besttimewasters_7.htm - this is an about.com review of the site. About is a pretty reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, Valid AFD and this is not AFD2. Nakon 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are you objecting to the AfD or the speedy? Given the above, the speedy seems clearly wrong, but it qualifies for G4 anyways (I think, there's no cached version). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The newest version I created was not an exact copy of the version deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. DRV is not an opportunity to run to the other parent and hope for a different answer. Clear consensus at AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion It still fails WP:WEB due to having only passing mentions on articles (aka trivial coverage). The askmen source is for a column that says "New Cool Site Every Day", so trivial coverage again. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Dwyer (professor) – AfD closure overturned since there was consensus to delete. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cbrown1023 closed the discussion as "no concensus", defaulting to keep. I feel that the only reason for the appearance of no consensus was an influx of sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets (does it matter at this point what kind of puppet they are), and that the clear consensus of the remaining participants was to delete. Additionally, AfDs are decided not as a majority vote but on the strength of the arguments, and the sockpuppets did not present any compelling policy-based arguments for their keep !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, or, if not, Relist. I strongly disagree with the "no consensus" closure by Cbrown123 and support David Epstein's comments. I provide below a slightly modified copy of the message I had left at Cbrown123's talk page (sorry to cross-post but in this case it is unavoidable). I think that it would have been better to give this AfD more time or, if a decision had to be made now, "delete" would have been more justified. I have been fairly actively involved in acdemia-related AfDs lately (I think during the last month I have participated in over 80% of them). I had not seen such a weak case being resolved as anything other than delete before. There were no serious arguments put forward by the "keep" proponents other than the fact that the subject is a department chair at Richmond who is well respected and admired by his students and his colleagues. That may well be so, but it does nothing to establish notability pursuant to any of the existing notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. No mentions of his work by other sources (let alone wide citability) have been produced or found. The publication record of the subject is very meager and a substantial chunk of them are essentially self-published (the Algana Associates ones). The people who provided "keep" votes are all new SPA users who by their own admission are either students or colleagues of the subject. Even if they are not actual sockpuppets of the subject of the article, User:Dwyerj, they clearly operated as his meatpuppets, per WP:MEAT and their votes, essentially obtained by vote stacking, should have been treated accordingly. There is an open suspected sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj. Moreover, the "keep" SPA proponents have engaged in other unseemly tactics in relation to this AfD such as creating a content fork D function when it became clear that Dwyer function was likely to be deleted. This kind of behaviour should not be rewarded. The timing of the closure was also problematic. There were two recent "delete" votes (the last two votes in this AfD, from April 25 and April 27) and more people would have commented given a bit of extra time (several regular academic-related AfD participants have not commented on this AfD yet). Given all of this I don't see how a "no consensus" closure was appropriate at this time. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Absolutely no policy or evidence based arguments were given for keeping., whereas the case for deletion was was properly argued. All of the supporters for keeping were single purpose accounts who made WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. per David Eppstein, Nsk92, Phil Bridger. All !votes citing policy and reflecting prior WP consensus on these matters were for delete. The no consensus keep seems to have been derived from a straight vote counting exercise where keep spas predominated. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, per above. The only credible argument in favor of keeping is being the chair of (something) in an apparently non-accredited university, and a marginal publication record, much of which appears to be either incorrect (per the reference in Eulerian path or a neologism. Furthermore, all the "keep" votes were from SPAs and IPs, and some seem to have errors in fact ("deputy head" of the "computer science" department is unverified, and should have been verifiable, and his present university does seem to be unaccredited) as well as errors of interpretation of Wikipedia policies. (Note that I'm the AfD nominator, but I've acceded to AfD decisions which seem plausible, but that I've disagreed with.) The fact that the article creator didn't comment on the AfD might also be noted in regard the meatpuppet accusation, but it might be that he is belatedly observing WP:COI. Or it could be, as claimed by the DR nominator, that he commented without logging in.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, delete article, and then make an article about a guy of the same name that appears on online version of San Francisco Chronicle "how someone in such a prominent position at one of the nation's most distinguished universities (...) nationally known scholar in environmental law property rights, co-authoring two books,"[11]. That one at least has one notable source asserting his notability. The AfD was a joke with a lot of ~~delete~~ keep votes that should have been ignored. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete on basis of arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and delete per nom. Lots of SPAs voting for keep without a good plicy reason to keep the thing, versus a lot of votes for delete which actually gave reasons and weren't SPAs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and keep article. A lot of the delete arguments have been made on the false premise that the individual is not a department head or that if at all, the institution lacks accreditation. Both of these accusations are false, the individuals in question have failed to properly represent the credentials of the institution. Furthermore, many arguments above cite the history of 'keep' voters which they argue should disqualify their votes. To my mind, wikipedia is not a community where established users can bully new ones to the point of disenfranchisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) 13:32, April 28, 2008
The above !vote was submitted by an editor who has no contributions outside the AfD and this DR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be pointed out the first claim that he is a department head is here. It was stated in the article that he was a "deputy department head", but that claim has not been verified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, another straw man approach to discrediting my argument. Presumably, my vote shouldn't count because I've had no previous edits outside this subject? On the issue of the individual being a department head, please google the individual's page at Richmond University. I believe it says that he has been a department chair of his current university. Some may argue that this counts for nothing as the institution above is unaccredited - I can't say this enough - that is FALSE. Interestingly enough, many of the proponents for an overturn have magically taken interest in this subject within the last day... Just a thought.Kokoshaggy (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, plese, give me a break. OK, let's take these in order.

First, yes, Arthur Rubin is incorrect and the fact that Dwyer had been a Department Chair at Richmod for twelve years was brought up in the AfD, by Dwyer himself. I think that the fact was indeed a Department Chair at Richmod should be taken for granted; it is confirmed by Dwyer's profile at Richmond [12] and that is good enough for me. I certainly knew this at the time of the AfD and never made any arguments to the contrary. However, for me, the fact that he was a Chair at Richmond changes very little. Richmond is not a research-oriented university (see more on this below) and it is not authorized by the U.K. government to grant any degrees (graduate or undergraduate, again see more on this below). The key factor in determining academic notability is having made a significant impact in his field, as evidence by the work of other scientists using his. In this case NO such citations at all (let alone no high citability) have been demonstrated. For me, and I believe, for the othere "delete" voters, that has always been the primary consideration and that is what I had argued all along.

Second, regarding accreditation. I'll provide a fairly detailed verifiable info here for the benefit of other participants in this AfD. In the UK there is a two-tiered governmental accreditation system for colleges and universities. The first tier, the so-called "Recognized Bodies" are those institutions that have been authorized by the UK government to award college-level degrees. The list of these "Recognized Bodies" is available at the UK govermental website [13]. Richmond IS NOT on this list so it is not empowered by the UK government to award college-level degrees. The second tier is the so-called "Listed Bodies", which are institutions that do not have independent degree-awarding powers but are authorized by the UK government to offer courses that may lead to degrees granted by some "Recognized Bodies". Richmond IS on the list of Listed Bodies[14]. Here are some quotes from the website of the UK Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills:"The UK authorities recognise those institutions which have been granted degree awarding powers by either a Royal Charter, Act of Parliament or the Privy Council. These are known as recognised bodies. All UK universities and some higher education colleges are recognised bodies. ... Other institutions, which do not have the power to award their own degrees, may provide full courses which lead to a degree of a recognised body. These are known as listed bodies...All the degrees awarded by recognised UK bodies at their own institution or through listed bodies are recognised degrees...Awarding bodies not on our list of Recognised Bodies will not be awarding recognised UK degrees"[15]. The degrees granted by Richmond are validated by the Open University Validation Services[16] and the Open University itself is a "Recognized Body". The bottom line, however, is that Richmond is not a "Recognized Body" and it does not have independent power to award college degrees in the U.K. However, in the U.S. Richmond is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools [17], which, as far as I can tell, makes Richmond fully accredited in the U.S.

The key consideration, however, is that Richmond is not a research-oriented university and that is what I argued in the AfD at length. Richmond does not grant any doctoral degrees in any subject (recognized or not). ALL arts and exact sciences faculty are lumped into a single department (Department of Arts &Sciences) with the entire staff of ONLY 27 faculty members, many of whom are adjuncts[18]. As far as I can tell the Department of Arts and Sciences at Richmond does not even offer any Masters degrees, but only three kinds of Bachelor degrees[19] Being a department chair at this kind of an institution is certainly not indicative of academic notability, even if Richmond were a "Recognized Body". Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of full disclosure, it turns out the Richmond is authorized to award degrees under a special UK law from 2006[20]. In view of this, I don't quite understand why Richmond is not listed as a "Recognized Body" and why it needs degree validation by the Open University, but, nonetheless, there it is. It does not change my views regarding this AfD and its outcome, however. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn' per nom. Seems like when SPAs are removed consensus is clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I did not participate in this AfD, because frankly I found the discussion a little too confusing. I'd like to see a debate without the sockpuppets. On principle, there's no point in appealing an no consensus close--just nominate it again. Since it was only close 2 says ago, better to call it a relisting. DGG (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a debate without sock/meat puppets, I don't think we would get one even if the item is relisted. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone renominated an article that was fresh off AFD it would just get speedy kept. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not if such is the close here at Deletion Review--we frequently close as relist, and it is relisted.DGG (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Discount the puppets and you'll see a strong consensus for deletion. Should there be a relisting, there should be an immediate notice stating that all meatpuppets and sockpuppets will be discounted, and repeated performance by such puppets could result in some sanctions for disrupting an AfD. B.Wind (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE FALSE. The grounds for appeal seem to lie in the accusation that I [usangel] and the others represent an "influx" of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I am a degree student ready to express opinions on issues that I feel strongly about and this is one of those issues. I am not pretending to be, nor controlled as a puppet of, Dr Dwyer. Further, since I know the identities of others accused of being sockpuppets, I can categorically confirm that none of them are pretending to be Dr Dwyer or Dr Dwyer's puppets. The issue in this page is not to backtrack over Dr Dwyer's notability, rather to establish that the grounds for appeal are blatantly false. When the wiki editor who has thus far made so many errors of fact, receives the results of his requested IP trace, he will then know that he has made six further mistakes about the identities those of us who genuinely expressed clear views. Now we all know wiki is a great resource but please try to discourage rogue editors, especially when they make so many mistakes of fact and judgement. [user:usangel] The preceding comment was added by User:195.54.243.250. Nsk92 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not "pretending to be Dr Dwyer" but acting together as a group to flood your opinion into Wikipedia's processes. -- Kesh (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the other contributions from your IP were to list his thus far unpublished, un-peer-reviewed publications in List of important publications in mathematics; putting his paper in the same section (Graph Theory) as publications by Euler, Erdos, Ford--Fulkerson is rather preposterous, don't you think? Nonetheless, your judgment is understandably clouded by your proximity to Dwyer. Obvious this was not helped by the fact that as a student, you really don't have that much familiarity with academia or what passes for notability in it. These discussions are not meant to like political ones, where one simply gathers up one's friends who are guaranteed to parrot your opinion. This type of political maneuvering is not only frowned upon, but often (as in this case) will invalidate your opinion in the eyes of those who run Wikipedia. If you don't see why, I suggest you read up on WP:COI and WP:SOCK. --C S (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Most or all of the keep opinions were from SPAs or socks. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The closing admin made an honest mistake in interpreting the confusion of community consensus mixed with vociferous meat puppets as "no consensus." However, I think it is clear that this article, and the related articles all go against the community consensus of notability requirements. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, simply cannot see any grounds to close as no consensus or relist. We all make mistakes. Deiz talk 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist, it seems a number of editors didn't have a chance to comment on the article given the haste with which the discussion was closed. Yes we all make mistakes but I'd like to think that admins take more that a few seconds to read AfD discussions before deciding. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The discussion was kept open for a bit more than 6 days, from opening to closure, also, there was only one comment on day 27, and all former edits are from day 25 or before, so I don't see any haste that could be argued as an unproper closure --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Overturn and delete. Noted, thanks for pointing that out and apologies, I was looking at the wrong date. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Delete Then salt the page, block all of the sockpuppets, and call his mother to tell her what her little Johnnie's been up to. It's too bad someone didn't speedy this before all the drama started. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Syriana.jpg – Image was restored by deleting admin. There was an apparent glitch in the database for the use count; which showed this image, tagged as fair use as not being used in any article, which required it's deletion. I have seen this glitch before. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image is the film poster of the film Syriana. Putting fair use poster on film articles is common and legitimate practice, deletion was uncalled for. Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, the image page didn't show it being used on Syriana, and didn't even now until I made a trivial edit to the article and purged it. Anyway, I've restored the image and am going to find a developer to bother regarding this. east.718 at 18:14, April 27, 2008

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

JustCarmen – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn closing admin claimed the consensus was to delete which I do not bbelieve is the case, it appears to be no consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as nom. SqueakBox was told quite clearly what it would take to establish notability. "No consensus" among a small group of people on an AfD cannot override consensus in a larger context. SqueakBox was told quite clearly what the problem was yet he didn't improve it. Instead he submits it to DRV very shortly after the close without trying to debate it with the closer or having shown any interest in the AfD the last few days. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Only one editor besides SqueakBox !voted to keep, and that editor advised moving the article to a different name. SqueakBox's arguments did not acknowledge the central reason for delete, which was the lack of an assertion of notability. A deletion does not preclude a new article being written; so if SqueakBox or anybody else wants to write a new article which properly asserts notability, that should be fine without overturning deletion. Also, the following comment from SqueakBox may be true in general, but is not a valid argument for the creation of any specific article: "we need better coverage of Italian related subjects, NPOV demands we cover Italy as well as we cover America or Britain and this is going in the wrong direction for that..." -Pete (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That comment by SqueakBox you cite deserves a reply. I don't doubt that he made it in good faith but that isn't how it works. We don't create articles to "balance things out" nor does it have anything to do with NPOV. As you say it simply isn't a valid argument. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Nakon 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an argument going round that NPOV covers not merely individual articles butt he encyclopedia as a whole but my argument here is that it should have been closed as no consensus given the afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A) you never responded to my question about the nature of your sources. Are we talking about 3 lines or non-trivial coverage? B) you made no attempt to discuss with the closer despite your apparent lack of interest in the AfD and my attempts to discuss this with you there and C) please study the difference between systematic bias and NPOV. Thanks, EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This afd was created because of the afd on Giovanni di Stefano, IMO, not because iof any real concerns about this particular article. So do not be surprised that i for the m,sot part ignored the afd. I will, as you suggest, get round to writing it again at some point ensuring it fits our guidlelines. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So your last defense is to assume bad faith rather than address the concerns. This conversation is over. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Absolutely not, I assume good faith in everyone here, to think otherwise is to misunderstand me, this is not personal in any way, shape or form, this is honest argument in a friendly fashion. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer, I would've looked it over had Squeakbox given me a valid reason to, but I don't see one. Wizardman 18:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Still no sources that assert notability. The singer and its single are already mentioned on Giovanni di Stefano. They are only famous because their relationship with him, so they are already on the actual place until they get more notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closing and deletion. Closure was proper as author (and a couple of editors supporting him/her/it) tried hard to demonstrate the notability of the one CD recording and not of the subject of the article. There was a consensus in that the subject of the article lacked notability: it appeared otherwise due to the repeated posts (six of them!) by one editor that originally suggested a merge before trying to refute the reasonings of the various editors recommending a deletion.B.Wind (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sonic's_Edusoft – Deletion endorsed. The discussion was not only about the existence or origins of the game but raised valid concerns about sources, notability and verifiability. These problems haven't really been addressed here, rather to the contrary taking into account GRBerry's find. Depending on the further distribution of mentioned 'release' and its reception, either a rewrite or a mention in some other article might be warranted in the future. – Tikiwont (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The ROM for this game has been released, and it turns out to be a real game developed by Tiertex and not a fan game or a hoax. For this reason, I think it deserves another chance. Thanks. Nineko (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please to be restoring the page, Nineko is correct, the ROM for Sonic's Edusoft has been found & released. SonicEpsilon (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk) 13:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Nothing wrong with the AfD. WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to have an article. We need verifiable sources of its notability. If you want an article on the subject, please create a WP:SANDBOX page in your User space, with sources cited. -- Kesh (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Not much participation in the discussion. Source indicated above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a source, that's a forum, which fails WP:V. Again, even if we allowed it, that does not show notability. -- Kesh (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you been able to locate any other sources? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. -- Kesh (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where have you searched? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forums don't automatically fail WP:V by default, there are circumstances where forum postings on long-standing and respected forums are considered verifiable sources. Retro is one such forum. -- LocalH (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forums rarely satisfy WP:V, and then only to clarify material that is already sourced. A single forum post does not cut it. Even if we allowed it, all it demonstrates is that the game exists: it does zero to establish notability, or even provide information on what the game is from third-party, reliable sources. -- Kesh (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ~~deletion~~ or relisting for wider participation. Source is sufficient to establish game's existence, but not its notability; it's a forum. -Pete (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, just because it's a forum does not automatically fail WP:V. Sonic Retro is one of the top sites and forums on the whole of the Sonic 'scene' - if any Sonic-based forum is going to pass WP:V, it's Retro. There is already at least one instance where Retro has been a valid reference (see Knuckles' Chaotix). Or are you going to say that merely because the person who found the sprites posted it on a forum that it's not a valid reference? -- LocalH (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say it failed WP:V. It doesn't say the game is notable, or give me any reason to think it is. But, this isn't the place for that discussion; a new AFD is. -Pete (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.There has only been a few scrapped Sonic games that has actually been leaked. Sonic Crackers was one of them, the other was Sonic X-treme. I think if a scrapped Sonic game somehow is leaked it's noteworthy, cause it doesn't happen often. Now that the ROM is available it's gonna be easy to fill the wikipedia page with content, the ROM itself can serve as the source.--Deespence2929 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I think it's a perfectly notable game - it's part of an established franchise, made by a well-known software house, and if this was a Mario title we wouldn't even be having this discussion... Overlord 11001001 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist A Sonic game that got scrapped and now has been leaked, and now we have proof that it's not a hoax as we previously thought? This should be relisted. It will probably get added to a Sonic article, or added to a list of unreleased Sonic games or of Tiertex games. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion 118 Google Hits? Are you kidding me? My full name has 549, and they're all me. If this crap gets an article, I want to have an article too.Electricbassguy (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you were joking. Since everyone is posting WP:something links, I'm going to do this too. Read WP:GOOGLEHITS, please. Nineko (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: WP:CANVASS on this post? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is the case. I read the WP:CANVASS page, and I think my post is neutral and what else. Let me explain: since English isn't my primary language, I'm not the best person who should try to list the reasons of why Sonic's Edusoft's page should be restored, and I'm asking for help, to people who are more knowledgeable than me on this matter. I posted the same message also on smspower.org, I have no problems to tell you that. Think about it, there are hidden forums on Sonic Retro, why would I post such a request a few posts below a post I linked to in my original message? Please also note that I posted that after a few positive comments already arrived on this page, so I'm not trying to cheat or something. I just want someone better than me to say his word on his matter. Bock and Maxim from smspower, for example, would be two very reliable persons who would provide detailed explanation of why this game is notable, but since they don't have an account on Wikipedia they would be labeled as liars and ignored. Do what you want, I was just trying to save a page that, in my opinion, deserves to exist. Nineko (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: No, that's not an instance of canvassing, though it is helpful to have it noted here. All looks good faith to me, no attempt at vote-stacking. Might even introduce a new editor or two to the project, as long as we don't bite 'em. -Pete (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pete. In order to have everything noted down, here is the link to my post on smspower.org, which is the same. I hope I didn't break any guideline, and if so, I apologise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineko (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 April 2008
  - OK, Nineko and Pete's arguments are very convincing. There was no real canvass going on, and the post is very neutrally worded, including even a petition not to make unreasoned arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that its released many people are going to want info on the game, and information is whats wikipedia is about information, I surport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.221.102 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep. Edusoft is as notable as Crackers or X-Treme, being an unreleased game. -- LocalH (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just restore it already. Five days has passed! 208.100.17.110 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per new release information. I note that the close is correct, and was properly performed based on materials/vote comments available at that time. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted and rewrite. The nominator here's link in turn links on to this page which says that "The unofficially licensed game had been unknown until a Wikipedia page was created in September 2006 by an anonymous programmer involved with the game." This tells me that the original article was original research that is prohibited by policy. So we should not restore the original article. Nor should the rewriters make use of web postings derived from that article. The only thing approximating a source in the original article, and I can't call it reliable given the anonymity of the poster, is a link to this forum post. GRBerry 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jack Schaap – Bearing in mind the OTRS request and a presumption in favour of privacy for BLP articles, deletion is endorsed. – Stifle (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted last year, I think because there was an edit war or something. Can somebody restore it, I'd like to have it and work on it. It thousands of hits on both Yahoo! and Google. So it is very notable. Thanks, AmericanEagle 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page has been deleted for a year, and "thousands of hits" on Google and Yahoo do not establish notability. Please read the notability guidelines. Thing is, the AFD has a "no consensus", but the article is gone, so clearly that wasn't the last deletion debate on the subject or it was deleted sometime later for other reasons. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userspace Draft, per the below folks' reasoning. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wooaaa The log [21] shows that this was deleted after a complaint at OTRS. It should not be restored without us seeing a well sourced draft in user space first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace draft should be the next step. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schaap (Jan 07) was no consensus, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Allan Schaap (Mar/Apr 07) was delete. The second AFD was nominated by Doc_glasgow (talk · contribs) from an OTRS complaint. There were also two A7 speedies. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The AFD nom says this: "the primary reason for requesting deletion is the non(or marginal) notability of the subject - the contributing factor is the OTRS request." Since it would appear that the OTRS request was a mild one (that is, not a claim of libel or defamation or something serious like that), shouldn't we allow AmericanEagle to see and use it in his attempt to compose a better article? I do not know how precedent or policy treats this, but it seems reasonable to me to restore the article to AmericanEagle's user space, in the hopes it will assist AE in making a better article. -Pete (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on what an admin finds in the deleted article. But it doesn't sound like that would be a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted unless sources asserting enough notability to comply with Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy are provided. If the person had issues with the article, we should only have an article if we have very good reasons for it --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'UncertainLooking at the last version of the article, I see a borderline notability. As for the BLP issues, the the expressed concern was over the nature of his DD. In that respect, checking the various versions, the present article seems an compromise, but in my view not a satisfactory one However, I then took a look at Hyles-Anderson College, of which the subject was president. The BLP and NPOV concerns there, though not directly involving him, seem rather remarkable. This is going to be a little tricky. There is no presumption of privacy for a public figure, by the way, and I consider him a public figure. DGG (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Main cause for deletion was non/marginal-notability (not the OTRS request); so if anyone can produce a draft with satisfactory sources to prove otherwise, the article may be resurrected. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, not sure about having BLP drafts on user space after a OTRS request, and after failure to give sources asserting notability on the AdF *and* on the DRV. Given the lack of clear notability, we should go with privacy right --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 April 2008

Hassan Mead – history restored – GRBerry 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was previously deleted around a year ago. The discussion can be seen here. A new article has been created that does show notability and I would like to be able to view the deleted revisions. This is a history-only undeletion request ~ Eóin (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This guy isn't notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your stance, I'd suggest takin' it to AfD. Here really isn't the place. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to but I'm confident that I could defend the article at Afd. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 'dem histories. No reason not to. I wonder if these are supposed to be automatic? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge histories. Even if the new article fails AFD, it would be best to have the histories all in one place; in the future, the guy might become more notable, and it's best to have all prior articles kept kind of organized for future article composition. -Pete (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no reason to restore the history; the new article was written from scratch. There was no cut and paste move, hence no histories to be merged. Deleted version can be given upon request, here is not the place. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nicholas Winset – Restored -- automatic restoration of expired PROD DGG (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC) – DGG (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The proposed deletion process is intended to be used to effectuate uncontroversial deletions, not as a means by which to bypass the AFD process and unilaterally destroy articles, consensus be darned. The deletion of Nicholas Winset is highly problematic in this respect: not only was the article previously retained pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Winset, the proposed deletion notices were actually removed from the article by myself, Shell Kinney, Legotech, and Snigbrook. Nonetheless, simply by edit warring the proposed deletion notice back onto the article, 72.74.23.185 and 71.162.84.79 were able to get the article deleted due to an "Expired PROD". John254 13:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if the prod is indeed expired, it means that in the five days (or more, in some cases) after the prod tag was posted atop the article, not a single editor saw the article and removed the tag to indicate disagreement with the premise of the prod (the author of the prodded article is requested not to remove the tag due to WP:COI implications, but the author could just as easily have asked another editor to check the article to see if the prod nomination is valid). The citation of WP:AfD is really a red herring because consensus can change - some articles have been to AfD multiple times, and at least three times in the past two years, there were deletions after more than a dozen attempts. A suggestion: ask an admin to send you a copy of the last version of the article, set up a "sandbox" subpage in your user space, write a different version of the article (or it would be speedily deleted once it makes it back to the article space with the same name, and watch it like a hawk afterwards. Also, WP:3RR violations should be reported immediately, especially it's by IPs. For this discussion, Endorse deletion, but allow recreation on an editor's userpage for rewriting to address objections raised in AfD. DRV is a review of the deletion process, not another shot at arguing the AfD. B.Wind (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional notes: the AfD was closed as no consensus; the prod cited WP:COI concerns. These should be kept in mind if the door becomes open for recreation (or restoration) of the article. Closing admin Jerry's comments about close should also be taken under consideration here. B.Wind (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleted prods can be automatically restored on request, so i have done so. I am passing no judgment on the article. If people want to delete it, another AfD is the way to go. The AfD was back in January, so it could be sent now, but recent discussions of BLP should be kept in mind--our understanding of these has advanced in the last few months of intense debating. A prod notice once removed from an article cannot be put back--what's the point--if it needs a argument, it's for AfD. I'll look into that edit warring. B Wind, what you say above is perfectly right--but it applies to restoring speedys, not prods. Cf. WP:PROD.DGG (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abba -ogg files – Deletion endorsed – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wish to dispute adminstrator Nv8200p's deletion of the set of -ogg-files I provided to the ABBA singles discograpy some time ago. He first deleted two of them last night with the explanation in the history pages of Chiquitita and Angeleyes that they didn't have "Fair use rationale"'s - which I know for fact that they did. Every single detail was there. The administrator at that point gave me no warning or chance to explain or either amend the "Fair Use Rationale"'s. I therefore uploaded these two again. He then sent me the following message to my talk page:

Please do not reupload the deleted ABBA oggs or you will be blocked from editing. If you wish to contest the deletions at this point use WP:DRV. Thanks. -Nv8200p talk 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He then went on to delete all the -oggfiles present in the ABBA singles discography. I question his motives for this action, so I would like to have all these reviewed.

Note: this is the second attempt within a week to have these specific images deleted by an adminstrator or an editor. I have uploaded a number of audio files before with the exact same "Fair Use Rationale" and none of those have ever been questioned - so why these?

The pages concerned are as follows: When All Is Said and Done (song) Waterloo (ABBA song)‎ Voulez-Vous (song)‎ Under Attack‎ The Winner Takes It All‎ The Visitors (song)‎ The Name of the Game‎ The Day Before You Came‎ Thank You for the Music‎ Take a Chance on Me Super Trouper (song)‎ Summer Night City‎ So Long (song)‎ SOS (ABBA song)‎ Ring Ring (song)‎ People Need Love‎ One of Us (ABBA song)‎ Money, Money, Money‎ Mamma Mia (song)‎ Love Isn't Easy (But It Sure Is Hard Enough) Knowing Me, Knowing You‎ I Have a Dream (song)‎ I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do‎ Honey, Honey‎ Head over Heels (ABBA song)‎ He Is Your Brother‎ Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)‎ Fernando (song)‎ Eagle (song)‎ Does Your Mother Know‎ Dancing Queen‎ Chiquitita Angeleyes

The images are as follows:

"Image:ABBA - When All Is Said And Done.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Waterloo.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Voulez-Vous.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Under Attack.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Winner Takes It All.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Visitors.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Name of the Game.ogg" "Image:ABBA - The Day Before You Came.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Thank YoU For The Music.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Take a Chance on Me.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Super Trouper.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Summer Night City.ogg" "Image:ABBA - So Long.ogg" "Image:ABBA - SOS.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Ring Ring.ogg" "Image:ABBA - People Need Love.ogg" "Image:ABBA - One Of Us.ogg" "Image:ABBA - On And On And On.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Money, Money, Money.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Mamma Mia.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Love Isn't Easy.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Lay All Your Love On Me.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Knowing Me, Knowing You.ogg" "Image:ABBA - I Have A Dream.ogg" "Image:ABBA - I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Honey Honey.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Head Over Heels.ogg" "Image:ABBA - He is Your Brother.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Fernando.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Eagle.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Does Your Mother Know.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Dancing Queen.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Chiquitita.ogg" "Image:ABBA - Angeleyes.ogg"

Thanks in advance, Dreamer.se (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se[reply]

Endorse deletion (from deleting admin) The oggs were nominated for deletion here and the uploader was warned of the nomination here. The uploader did not participate in the discussion and there was no disagreement with the nomination. In the history for Chiquitita and Angeleyes, I noted that I removed the media per the nomination at WP:IFD. The removal had nothing to do with the fair use rationale but is about WP:NFCC#3a. The oggs are not significant to the articles and 30+ of them in the aggregate does seem excessive fair use. -Nv8200p talk 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I'm afraid I have a few other questions you need to adress:

A) Could you please specify why these sound samples are of less importance to an article than one about some other group of the same notability - such as any of the other ten bestselling artists in the history of recorded music? As most people are aware of in sales ABBA are in that league. Like it or not. I have noted that several bands of much lesser notability have far more sound samples in their bios and discographies like this.

These sound samples may or may not be of less importance than others but the others were not part of this nomination for deletion. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B) How much would you consider non-excessive; is it all or nothing? Why delete all? Are we to take it that a group like ABBA aren't allowed any sound samples at all on Wikipedia? And re: "minimal usage" - are all sound samples by this particular band to be considered "insignificant" and "excessive"? If so why? I happened to notice that you deleted another sound sample by ABBA - uploaded by another user - at the same time.

A discussion at WP:IFD may have determined a consensus on how much is reasonable and which to keep, but there was no discussion, and since I know very little about ABBA, and the samples all seemed gratuitous to the articles, I opted to delete them all. If I deleted a sound sample that was not part of the nomination, that was a mistake. Let me know what it is and I can see if I can restore it. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C) When was the decision taken to delete all of these - who endorsed your actions? While there may not have been any argument about the deletion - was there a consensus behind that decision? Was there an active decision taken by any of the editors or adminstrators involved? Did they inform me of this? Can anyone please show me that discussion and when that decision was taken?

No one has to endorse an admins action. With no dissenting discussion on the nomination, the course of action has been to uphold the nomination, unless the nomination violates policy. You were informed of the possibility of deletion here. No discussion is required to be present for an admin to close a nomination at WP:IFD. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore; I'd hate to think that the personal opinion of an editor or an adminstrator on a specific topic - or even a specific user - clouds his or her judgment when taking a decision like this.....

There was no opinion needed here. The action was pretty much procedural. -Nv8200p talk 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance,

Dreamer.se (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se[reply]

Endorse deletion. Everything appears to be in order here. The sound files were listed at IfD, the nomination appears to be perfectly valid and was unopposed, and the uploader was notified. Dreamer.se was active on Wikipedia for the full duration of the IfD (April 8 - April 26) and had ample time to respond, yet seemingly took no action until now. PC78 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deletion procedure was followed correctly. Sandstein (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - First, Dreamer.se, please remember to AGF. Accusing the deleter of bias is not a good way to start. Second, the IfD was uncontested for two weeks. On IfD, (which is very low-traffic), that is considered consensus to delete. Finally, yes, you were notified. See the History of your talk page. -- Kesh (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There's no policy-based reason to overturn the deletion. The deletion process was followed to the letter. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords – Overturn deletion. While the original nominator withdrew there is a consensus here that the deletion was improper. Relisting is optional and I will leave that to interested editors to pursue. – Arkyan 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination for DRV; I believe the article's subject matter is notable and worthy of an article, but I think without a version of the article which demonstrates this, no one is going to (or should, for that matter) believe me, and there was nothing procedurally incorrect about the deletion. I will work on the article in userspace and, once I come up with an article which demonstrates its appropriateness, I'll submit it, but until then, I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie. Thanks to User:Sandstein for his clarification of the purpose of DRVs and improving my comprehension of how Wikipedia works. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you can withdraw at this point, or rather it won't do anything special. There are people who agree with your original proposal, and to close early, there needs to be a unanimous decision. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I cuncur, the closure was incorrect as the discussionw as really a "no consensus" if not "keep" and so you were entirely correct to bring it here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject was deleted on the basis of failing notability. However, the topic was notable, but unfortuantely I didn't even notice it was up for deletion until after it was gone. While the page, if my recollection is correct, heavily referenced WotC's website, the reality is that there is a great deal of commentary on keywords in independent articles. In particular, sites like The Dojo, Star City Games, and other magic strategy and commentary sites have in the past and continue to provide commentary and articles on Magic: The Gathering keywords. The Magic community is large and vibrant, and I daresay keywords like Storm are far more notable than Aerodactyl. If the page was deemed unsalvagable, I would be more than happy to start it over from scratch and do a better job of establishing notability via a variety of sources, and get some help on it from other people who are knowledgable about various good secondary sources other than Wizards of the Coast. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I don't believe that the closing reflects consensus. I participated in the discussion, so I believe that the article should be kept, but the discussion seems to tend more towards no consensus if not keep. The keep arguements are just as strong as the delete ones, and rebutted a few of the stronger delete arguements (namely that it fails WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE). I've also fixed the AfD link above and notified the deleting admin. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as deleting admin. Notability was not an issue, but most "delete" opinions argued that this level of detail in covering a game violates WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. This is a position I do not entirely agree with (see my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (2nd nomination)), but it is defensible on the basis of applicable policy and precedent. On the other hand, most "keep" opinions were weak: Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles posted the same template-style "keep" rationale that he seems to use for nearly every recent AfD, while 24.125.236.215, Ndhuang and Gary King made only WP:ATA arguments. Taking this into account, the consensus was to delete the article. Sandstein (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For anyone interested in the diversity and reasonability of my arguments in AfDs, please see User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse...why doesn't anyone ever tell me about these things? Anyways, the closure was proper, I think the admin made two good and tough calls on these articles (this and the rules one). I've begun the process of transferring it to Magic Wikia here, and Sandstein has userfied it for me if anyone wants to help (or heck, rewrite or merge it...it should be transwikied regardless). --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. Like Lifebaka, I don't believe that there was a consensus to delete the subject. I think it was no consensus at worst and quite possibly an outright keep; most of the deletion rationales were successfully rebutted, and with that gone, there wasn't much of a reason to delete it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clear consensus when judged against policy and not headcount. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ per Spartaz. The "Keep" votes convince me that it's probably a useful resource, but that is not the same as saying it's a Wikipedia-worthy resource. I would encourage the article's proponents to pursue publication elsewhere, and list it as an external link where relevant on Wikipedia. -Pete (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having trouble following all the discussion below, but the level of detail makes me wonder if relist might be the best approach. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So am I, and I'm involved. He's just repeating the same irrelevant stuff over and over and trying to give off the appearance he's saying something important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I just keep seeing the same irrelevant stuff repeated as an appearance of saying something important in favor of endorsement, when clearly there was no consensus to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus or relist. The keep stances were numerous and convincing enough to have been more than just votes and a sufficient challenge to those arguing to delete. Most of the delete opinions were weak, i.e. the same template-style "delete" rationales you see for nearly every recent AfD, while Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Ndhuang, ΖαππερΝαππερ, 24.125.236.215, and lifebaka all made strong keep arguments based on policy and precedent. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as what, might I ask? I remember your solution was using a source (MtG Encyclopedia) that didn't actually discuss the topic at hand. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Such as what" what? I am not sure what you are asking. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm looking for those "strong keep arguments based on policy and precedent". Most of the keep votes I saw pretty much amount to "I like it and it's useful, plus we have other similar things". I like it too, and it is useful, but that's not a reason to keep. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I cited two: Wikipedia:Lists (disrciminate, organized, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Magic The Gathering of which there are multiple published versions. The deletes by contrast, focused on claiming it was a game guide, i.e. the only policy or guidelines really cited as a reason to delete was NOT, although a list of terms is hardly a "how to". By contrast, I offerred both a guideline and a policy page as reasons for keeping. And even those suggesting to deletes said, "This genuinely useful," "very useful list to people who actually play the game," etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not verifiable under WP:V, there were no third party sources. And I'm not seeing how the Five Pillars apply at all, or how Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia of Magic: the Gathering (the MtG Encyclopedia, for the record, isn't an encyclopedia in the sense Wikipedia is. It's a visual listing of cards in particular sets and a brief explanation of some of them. The different editions are simply for each new group of sets, it is not multiple published versions of the same info). And neither help explain how this content is appropriate for Wikipeida. Yes, it's useful, but several useful things are not on Wikipedia. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, the fact that editors have requested userfication in this DRV suggests that sources can be found and looking at the deleted article, there appears to be sixteen references, so it's okay if some are primary sources, but my sense is that secondary sources at least potentially exist. The Five pillars absolutely apply in that Magic the Gathering is a franchise that has resulted in multiple specialized encyclopedias, some first person, others not. If per the First pillar, Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia, but also specialized encyclopedia than it is reasonable that we include content likely covered in [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Magic+the+Gathering+encyclopedia multiple (I think over 20) different published specialized encyclopedias. If nothing else, I see no reason why not to at least restore the contribution history and then redirect to another Magic the Gathering page until additional sources can be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ...I don't think you get it. Oh well. For the record, the only person I've seen request a userfy is myself, it has been userfied, and I did invite anyone who wanted to work on it to step up and do so. Nobody so far has taken my offer. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In this edit, another editor writes about working on the article in userspace. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Template:MTGkeywordsTOC was speedied as a G6 since it's no longer used. If this is closed as overturn, this should be restored as well. Thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've finished transwiking and marked the userfied version for deletion. If anyone wants to pick it up so they can work on it, they have 5 days. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus Personally, I disagree with every delete comment which regarded the article as a game guide. WP:GAMEGUIDE (or WP:NOT#HOWTO) is against the existence of articles seeking to tell the readers how to win the game, not articles that give informative and encyclopedic materials about technical terms (which in fact help the readers better understand other articles about this subject on Wikipedia). This I see is not a widely-held opinion, as quite a number of delete voters passed the article off as a game guide in a rather affirmative tone. It should be noted, however, that the keep voters also provided strong arguments with explicit explanations why they thought the article wasn't a game guide (as opposed to the brusque and unexplained "delete - this is a gameguide not suitable for Wikipedia" type of comments). In cases where good arguments are presented by both sides (as I think this one is), and no side significantly outnumbers the other, debates should be closed as no-consensus. FWIW, the first AfD showed a long and quality discussion which resulted in "No consensus that this fails WP:NOT". While consensus (or the lack thereof) can change, it only changes with good reasons, and I don't see any delete arguments in the second AfD that sufficiently refuted keep arguments in the prior one.--PeaceNT (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the Gameguide argument, but it's not what I brought the AFD on. My concerns were lack of outside notability, no independent sources (and the unlikelihood of ever being any), and the unencyclopedic nature of the article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close a no consensus, per the above. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and optionally relist. Gameguide should be interpreted narrowly, exactly as Satsui specifies, and I wouldnt in the least assume the unlikelihood of new sources--books keep getting published on game, new and not so new. DGG (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the game, sure. On the keywords? --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 April 2008

User:SchmuckyTheCat/List of borderless countries – Overturn out-of-process deletion and restore to mainspace taking into account that a merge has been taken place. The version restored is simply the one that has been moved last and then been deleted, i.e. as article, but this is without prejudice against reverting to the redirect after further discussion. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was originally in the main namespace. It was moved to the user space for the sake of killing it. Upon undeletion it should also be moved back to List of borderless countries. Testaa (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some explanation of the history here would be helpful. Was there a deletion discussion? If so, where? And if there was such a discussion why should we overturn it. We need more context. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deletion discussion that I could find. It appears that SchmuckyTheCat had this in his userspace, moved it out, moved it back to his userspace, and then had it U1 deleted and replaced the mainspace redirect with a redirect to List of island countries. I don't know why he did that, but the cached version notes that List of island countries has all of the relevant information from this article, and that appears to be correct. It doesn't appear that Schmucky was notified of this review, so I'm off to do that now. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were two lists. One of the lists refers to countries which have no land border with any other countries at all, and the other list refers to those lie entirely on islands. He merged the two lists without any discussion. He then moved the one he wanted to be dead to his own user space, for the sake of killing it and burying its edit history. Testaa (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't perform the merge, afaik. You're a sockpuppet, why are you not banned yet? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You yourself was not the first person who perform the merge. But you and Huaiwei, as the edit history of List of island countries reveals, were the only people who supported the merge. You and Huaiwei were the only people to revert edits that undid the merge. SilkTork just left after he performed the merge. Testaa (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see here, move along. User:Testaa is banned User:Instantnood. The article "list of borderless countries" is a POV fork of List of island countries. The article was a redirect to list of island countries and had been for a long time (I want to say two years), a situation that developed a long time ago by other users on the talk pages of the articles. I had the original content in my user space, also for a very long time, to avoid the move wars and un-redirecting that this banned users socks would perform in main articlespace. This current sock incarnation convinced an admin to move the userspace version back to mainspace over the redirect. I restored everything as redirects and deleted it so the socks wouldn't have an attack target. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yeah, that sounds like a clear "keep deleted" then. So, keep deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two years? I took a look at [22] a version in early May 2007. The list was by then strictly referring to island countries not borderless countries. Furthermore the List of borderless countries, as much as I can recall from what I read before it was speedied in the user space, was not a POV fork. It coexisted with the List of island countries for a long time before they were merged. SchmuckyTheCat is clearly a liar. Testaa (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, restore in main and list at AFD Moving a mainspace article that other users have worked on and then deleting it as a U1 is not what CSD is for. Please list at AFD and do it properly. Also, if you have evidence that Testaa is Instantnood then file an SSP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What article? The content in mainspace was a redirect and has been since forever. The content in my userspace was a POV fork of "List of island countries" that the sockpuppets MOVED to mainspace over the redirect. The redirect still exists, nothing was removed from mainspace. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Auto-GFDL Overturn and restore to mainspace Even SchmuckyTheCat acknowledges above that content from this article was merged to List of island countries; that merged content went in in this diff. For GFDL reasons, we absolutely must undelete this content; it may not be deleted even after an AFD if one is held. I find no prior consensus discussion about whether to merge or not, nor about whether the mainspace title should be a redirect or not. Consensus should be sought on these matters instead of edit warring over them, with protection if it is needed after a community consensus is reached. GRBerry 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? No he doesn't. Quote: "The article "list of borderless countries" is a POV fork of List of island countries." emphasis mine. The borderless list was split from the island list, not the reverse, so there's no GFDL issue here. -- Kesh (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you can find when the material merged in the diff I cited actually originated in a differemt article, your statement is false. I pointed to a diff of the merge; you can look for yourself to see that the merge happened. I am an admin and can see that it came out of the article now deleted in userspace. This is wrong and means the deleted page must be undeleted and moved back to mainspace. Nor can it be deleted unless List of island countries is first deleted. {{R from merge}} is the template to put on the redirect if a consensus for redirection is ever created. GRBerry 02:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Combat Hapkido – Contested prod automatically restored. – Hut 8.5 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm requesting that this article be undeleted. This page is an informational page that describes the Martial Art style of Combat Hapkido. I've acquired published article citations that I'd like to add to the restored article of Combat Hapkido. This will add to the overall understanding of what Combat Hapkido is and how it fits in as a style of Martial Art. Other Martial Art Styles that currently have their own Wikipedia article are International HKD Federation, Sin Moo Hapkido, Korea Hapkido Association, along with many others. Compared to these other articles, I'd like to expand on the Combat Hapkido article when it is undeleted to included many citations, and provide additional descriptive information. This would be a valuable resource.

Comment I can't view the article but according to the log looks like this was a prod. I believe contested prods are usualy restored per policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 April 2008

Avatar: The Last Airbender media information – Endorse closure, but address any doubts whether some content has been merged or could still be merged by keeping the history under a redirect. – Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar: The Last Airbender media information (2nd nomination) closed as delete; however, of those advocating deletion, one was turned out to be a sock account, whose opinion should be discounted, and the others were just WP:PERNOM repeats (see [23], [24], and [25]) that did not advance any real arguments for deletion. Only TenPoundHammer and the nominator offered any real deletion arguments. Other argued for a merge and redirect. Therefore, I see no reason why the article could not at least have the contribution history restored and then be redirected as a fair compromise. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It is not a basis for overturning a valid AFD. Endorse deletion. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is when there are insufficient or non consensus justifications for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nom offers no evidence that the closure was defective in any way or did not reflect consensus, nor that the "sockpuppet" double-!voted or otherwise sullied the discussion. Deor (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I offered evidence that no consensus was reached and no one has offered any evidence otherwise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. You said that a number of delete opinions were "per nom" (not that there's anything wrong with such opinions), when in fact there wasn't a single "per nom" opinion. Deor (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did in that there was not a "single" per X vote, but three (see [26], [27], and [28]). Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the thing. Yes, they all endorsed an earlier comment. But then each of them cited a reason. Now, I don't think WP:PERNOM really justifies a DRV, I might make an exception if there were nothing but a nomination and a bunch of per-noms with no additional comments. But that isn't this case. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all just repeated each other adding nothing new to the discussion. The nominator's main reasoning seems to be WP:USELESS (a word he uses) and the first delete opinion just agrees with the nomination and only adds an WP:ITSCRUFT. The first keep argument challenges the claim that the article duplicates material in another article by noting that it expands on this material. Then you have two arguments in a row to merge followed by a "per x". Next, you have a now banned account inaccurately suggest delete and merge, which legally would be merge and redirect without deleting if we count his opinion. The next two deletes are practically the same thing as the previous delete. And finally you have a keep arguing that the article is notable and well sourced. I see no policy rationales or even guideline rationales to delete; just repeats of what others said. So, every delete post contains some item from the Arguments to Avoid essay, whereas none of the merge or keep arguments merely repeat each other. Plus, even the first delete poster states: "There might be a couple useful facts that aren't already covered here..." Thus, in terms of weight of original arguments, it was no consensus. Removing some kind of "vote tally" as it's a discussion and not a vote, the arguments are best summarized as follows:

Delete: Arguments are essentially if not outright WP:USELESS (word used by nominator), WP:ITSCRUFT (word used by first to say delete), and WP:PERNOM (all deletes say "as the nom points out," "as above," or "per" someone else who just repeats what someone else said; you similarly have these three say not to merge without saying why), but with an acknowledgment that there might be a couple useful facts that aren’t already covered here, which contradicts the nominations claim of "useless".

Merge and redirect: Verifiable and useful out of universe information of a recognizable series can be salvaged in some capacity by carefully moving any remaining good information to the marketing portion of the main article and redirect per the GFDL in order to keep contributions public. None who took these stances just repeated what someone else said, but advanced something new in the discussion.

Keep: Good, notable, well-sourced information that expands on what is already inside the main article, but change the title. Again, the two who argued to keep each offered something new to the discussion.

Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist when proven sockpuppets actually affect the result of an AfD, the discussion has been contaminated and should be relisted. I have no immediate opinion on the actual article. DGG (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The sock was unmasked days before the end of the afd and could not therefore be considered as effecting the outcome. Otherwise the close is within reasonable admin discretion in reading the discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That still doesn't address that the discussion was really a no consensus as the delete arguments did not cite policy and were variations of "I don't like it." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Deletion was clearly silly - the information is thorough and useful, and while pieces may be repeated elsewhere such repetition is not an inherent problem - we do not seem to have another article that duplicates this particular organization of the information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus seemed clear. --Kbdank71 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There either was no consensus or the consensus was the middle position of merging and redirecting without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant consensus was clear to delete. --Kbdank71 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus was clearly not to delete as there was no consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh look, this isn't an argument."

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't. It's just contradiction."

"No it isn't." Deor (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be worthwhile to note that the AfD was debated and the result was No Concensus (please view the top of the AfD page). The deleting administrator either did not read the result, or deleted the page contrary to what the community had discussed. Either way, according to the AfD, the page should not have been deleted. I endorse the decision of no concensus, and the article should be restored. If the article is still a good candidate for deletion, it will need to be relisted and will need to be discussed again. — OranL (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Statement is irrelevant to current discussion. — OranL (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at the first AfD, from more than a year ago. The one we're talking about here is linked in the first words of the nom above. Deor (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to point to the 2nd nomination. --Kbdank71 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the second AfD should have been correctly closed as no consensus as well or the middle area of merging and redirecting without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion going on in the AfD, just some statements of "no material to merge". It seems clear to me that there was no consensus on how to deal with this article, and so it should be restored. If someone still believes that the article qualifies for deletion, it will need to be relisted. — OranL (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion. Saying "per nomination" is perfectly acceptable; if the nomination said it all, then there's really not much to be added. Only one person actually said the article was worth keeping, and the nom indicates that there wasn't valuable information in there which wasn't elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the deleters seemed to largely agree. I think the consensus on the article's pointlessness is pretty clear. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there was no consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I am seeing in the AfD is four people arguing for deletion, three people arguing for a merge, and one arguing for a keep. This is hardly a consensus in favor of deletion. — OranL (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Nothing wrong with this close. As stated, the information to be merged was already in the main article, so there's nothing to do on that front. That leaves us with deletion as the consensus. -- Kesh (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of problems with the close. If the information is merged, then we redirect without deletion. The discussion itself had no consensus. We cannot Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The information was already in the main article. There was nothing to merge. And no matter how many times you repeat no consensus, that does not make it true. -- Kesh (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thus, there was a clear redirect without deletion location and no reason from the discussion why doing so would have been incorrect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...what? I'm sorry, your sentence doesn't make grammatical sense, so I can't figure it out. Try again. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure what you're asking. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, this article was originally split from the main article in this diff, June 2006, and then maintained in parallel. I've pretty well (but imperfectly) searched the history since then and no editor of the main article used an edit summary reflecting a merge from this article. I don't believe there is any GFDL history here that needs to be preserved, but if the closing admin wants to play it safe, they could place a protected redirect and then restore history underneath. Otherwise, endorse closure. GRBerry 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a restore and redirect would be a fair compromise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ages of Myst – Content userfied upon request. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Ages of Myst.

Please note that this page was recreated as a redirect, but the original page was deleted. I would like to see the original page. — OranL (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ages of Myst IV: Revelation – COntent userfied upon request. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Ages of Myst IV: Revelation.

Please note that this page was recreated as a redirect, but the original page was deleted. I would like to see the original page. — OranL (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nation's Giant Hamburgers – Deletion endorsed. Consensus is that the newly cited sources are not sufficient to allow recreation in the article space; attempts to write about the topic offline or in userspace to with a view to producing a fully sourced article are not prevented, but when such purpose is achieved materials must be submitted for reconsideration if mainspace recreation is to be sought. – --PeaceNT (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable I am arguing for the re-creation of Nation's Giant Hamburgers because I feel I can find proof that it is notable.Electricbassguy (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see it. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Don't just talk, do.--WaltCip (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Nation%27s+giant+hamburgers%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (16,400 Google Results for nation's giant hamburgers in quotes)
http://gdblegal.com/whatwedo.php?menuItem=31&case=9 - Story about managers and overtime pay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td1I9fTT0AY - Ad for nations

Not sure if that is enough, but there are pages with less info. I am not including the company site.

Allow recreation, but if the article does not establish notability through the use of independent, reliable sources, it should be relisted for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - First link is a Google search with potentially ambiguous results, second link is a link to a law firm with a mention of NGH in passing, third link is a YouTube advertisement.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The Google search showed no thing even resembling a RS in the first 100 hits. Permit re-creation only if a source can be found. I note this is a local chain with 24 stores. DGG (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Agree with others about the lack of sources. --Kbdank71 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No sources to establish notability = non-notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - the way forward is to write a new page in user space, source it up and then seek agreement for it to be moved across. BlueValour (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. First source fails WP:GHITS, second is a legal firm who litigated against the restaurant, third is a copyvio. Nothing shows me why this should be restored. I also incorporate BlueValour's comment by reference. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nihilist Anarchism – Nothing to see here – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

UNDELETE_REASON Existential Crisis (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Because I said so.[reply]

Comment there has never been an article at that title. Nihilist anarchism was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist anarchism but you haven't provided us with a legitimate reason to undelete it. Hut 8.5 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, offensive nomination. Corvus cornix_talk 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original decision. There was plenty of discussion regarding the original close, and the arguments for the original decision seem reasonable. The user requesting undeletion has provided no reason or evidence to overturn the original decision. — OranL (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, AFD was January 2007. Far too late to take it to deletion review now. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, nomination includes nothing new. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close because we said so.--WaltCip (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close due to lack of a reason to restore the article. However, it should never be considered "too late" to take an article previously deleted via AfD to deletion review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 April 2008

Irish National Teachers' Organisation – Undeleted. I have not userfied this as I see no reason why it should be deleted. Let's hope I'm not being too optimistic – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore to my userspace so I can address the reasons for the original deletion Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upgrade that request to overturning the original speedy because there were no valid grounds to delete the page. This is the largest elementary teachers' union in Ireland. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per the above statement. The largest elementary teachers' union in Ireland sounds notability and should be verfiable. I checked Academic Search Complete and it turned up hits in the Times Educational Supplement. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help that there was no edit summary on the deletion - perhaps there was a blatant defect like a copyvio. We can only know when it has been restored. I know there is a backlog of restore requests — I am sure someone will get around to it soon. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted page doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but if it's found to be one, I will have no problem replacing it with original content. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore ~~unless there is a major issue with the deleted page - I have no access to the deleted page so, there may be a major problem, e.g. copyvio. However, b~~Being the largest teacher's union in Ireland certainly makes it notable and it should be restored.~~in the absence of a good reason to the contrary.~~ There is certainly reliable coverage, here and here, for example. BlueValour (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View amended in view of DGG's assurance. BlueValour (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore There is no problem with the content, which is a short stub. Stubs dont get deleted if the subjects are probably notable--they get expanded. DGG (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per most commenters above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity, I meant to overturn deletion per Stifle. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, no rationale for speedy deletion means it could have been in error. MrPrada (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn -- I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt. I don't think being a teacher's union makes it notable, but it's at least an assertion. With no deletion reason given, I'd err on letting users improve it and AfD again if they fail to do so. -- Kesh (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh, you said "AfD again". According to the log, it has never been AFD'd prod'd or properly speedied. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Wesley Rawles – Relisted to allowed sufficient discussion which was previously prevented by heavy sock puppetry. – --PeaceNT (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

passes WP:BIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" His book was published by a professional publishing house and only self republished after the company went out of business. He was quoted by CNN on 4/20 ^[1] and the NYTimes 4/6 ^[2]showing that he is considered an expert in his field. He was the editor of an industry magazine: Defense Electronics magazine, one of his papers is quoted in papers from NASA ^[3]and the Australian military. The article needs work, no doubt about it, but isn't one of the tenets of WP that we should repair articles that can be salvaged rather than deleting them? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse closure~~ of a heavily-socked AFD. I can see a case for near-notability but every single avenue comes with reservations (or outright exaggerations). Yes, he published a book, but it has not been shown that book was reviewed in reliable and independent sources. Just publishing, even by a commercial house, is not a claim to notability. Yes, he is quoted in articles by reliable sources, but he is not the primary subject of those articles and barely more than incidental in some cases. Yes, he is widely published, but clear precedent for journalists excludes those who have written a lot but not been written about. Yes, he was an associate editor of a magazine, but he was not the editor. Many people may be quoted in papers because they said something pertinent or quotable. Nothing here establishes clear-cut notability. Close in some ways, but this isn't horseshoes. In any case, we are not disputing the case for notability here, we are reviewing the close of the AFD, and when you discount the !votes of dubious IPs and possible socks, you don't have a consensus to keep. If Legotech wants to work on the article in userspace, I have no objection. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Closer said " "keep" votes either made by IPs and sockpuppets, ", which was not the case. There was no consensus to delete. Dhartung is not correct that there needs to be a consensus to keep. If there is no consensus either way, the correct close is "no-consensus". DGG (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't say there had to be a consensus to keep. I said there wasn't a consensus to keep. Clearly the AFD, even if not socked, was flooded from a forum of Rawles fans, and mostly they argued that he had published a lot or been quoted in the NYT. We can reargue all that, of course. But I looked for stronger sources and didn't really find them. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn – At worst this should be no-consensus at best Keep. Looking at the opinions they were evenly split 4 for Delete – 4 for Keep, and yes I discounted the new users and IP votes (which were all Keep). In that a both sides made passionate arguments that contained some level of merit and validity, how could a clear consensus of Delete be reached? ShoesssS ^Talk 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Admin made the correct call on sock votes. Subject is not notable in the first place, despite attempts by him or his fans to spam Wikipedia with references to his non-notable self published book. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your assertion that the book was self-published is incorrect. I was unfamiliar with the subject, but three minutes of research sorted it out and turned up multiple book reviews in major publications. It makes me wonder how this closed as a delete to begin with. MrPrada (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion Good close by Dhartung. I agree with his points above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted in the AFD but it was closed by Deiz (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or relist per compelling reasons that even with socks discounted it would have probably had a no consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The debate should have been closed as no consensus, since the delete votes (only two, one of which was a weak delete) did not make a compelling policy argument for deletion and the default presumption in an AfD is to keep. Although the original article was clearly written as an advert, I found book reviews for two of his books in the Sacramento Bee [29], Press Telegram [30], Wired (magazine)[31], and World Net Daily[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=751]. This is more then enough independent review by reliable publications to establish notability as an author in my mind. The survivalist stuff, and the blog, I cannot verify outside of primary sources, but should be included because the rest is verified, including recent 2008 New York Times quotations mentioned in the AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must not have checked the results thoroughly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original discussion was sufficiently contaminated by the socks that a new and fair discussion is warranted. The presence of multiple obvious socks arguing for keep can have a unfortunate effect on the chances of keeping, which in this case may not have been deserved.14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) changed duplicate !vote to a comment.DGG (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry DGG I disagree with that assessment. The use of WP:Socks was extremely apparent to me and I am sure was just as apparent to the Administrator closing the discussion, or at least I hope so. In which case he/she should not have been influenced by the WP:Socks. Our discussion here is whether or not the WP:Afd discussion was closed appropriately. I say no to a relist proposed by this debate! I thought we were here to decide on whether the Administrator made the appropriate decision. To me, when closing an WP:Afd there are only three ways to go; Yes, and the deletion stands, a decision of Keep or finally a No-consensus (where by we keep the article by default). The decision to relist should be made by the community, which is easily done, once the article is reinstated. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHas a checkuser been run? I'm starting to get offended at how easily the accusation of socking is being tossed around without proof. If you MEAN Meatpuppet, say meatpuppet. Either way, unless you have proof, stop accusing, its childish. "I don't like this guy or what he does so I'm gonna delete his article and accuse him and his friends of breaking the rules" is exactly what y'all sound like right now. I have no dog in this fight...I just saw an article that got deleted that I think has a chance at redemption and I honestly thought that was the policy, don't delete but Fix. I know that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, but at some point, it does become somewhat germane. There are articles about other small field experts on WP that are people that are only known within that small field, but if that field happens to fall within the bias of WP then it is saved...so if the expert is in the field of Comp Sci, or Math, or Pop Culture, the article will survive. It's time we step back from our own bias and our own small fields of expertise and accept that there are some people that are notable but just because WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't mean that they aren't worth an article. We have to start somewhere and this nutjob survivalist is just as good a place as any. If the NYT will pick up a phone and ask his opinion, seems like someone thinks he's got something to say. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while you are throwing around the sock puppet claims? I went back to the AfD:

Trasel first edited 11 April 06
Flight ER Doc has an edit as early at 9 April 2007, and then returned to editing for this discussion.
SR Hamilton: 24 July 07
Mzmadmike: 31 Jan07
Ribonucleic 12 Jul06
Bnp 25 May TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
Rydra Wong 29 August 06.

Even discounting the IPs and the IP that was signing with some sort of fake username we still have 7 keep and 1 delete and one weak delete...., even if you remove Flight ER Doc who has had an account for over a year, but doesn't edit its still SIX keep 1 delete and 1 weak delete. Just because the admin does not recognize the usernames does NOT mean that they are socks and I think that this article deserves another chance. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm changing my vote to endorsing a relist, and I withdraw my endorsement of the closer's assessment of sockpuppetry. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rawles was interviews on Fox Business News 4/25...Does this satisfy notability yet? Or just because we don't like the guy we have some strange higher standard to satisfy? [32] LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheap shots are not appreciated. In any event, interviews are generally NOT considered to contribute to notability per se, because whatever is said is usually self-sourced. They can be used as sources if notability is established by other means. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Dhartung, but this is getting frustrating...if CNN, Fox News AND the New York Times all look to him for information, doesn't that make you think that perhaps, maybe, someone, somewhere, thinks that this guy knows what he's talking about? We MUST step back from our own Bias and give this article a reasonable chance. Heck, I'm about as far away from this guy on religion and politics as you can be and still be on the same planet but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be here. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know why you're urging me to step back from a bias. Have I shown one anywhere? Please assume good faith. The fact is that being quoted, even being interviewed, isn't considered a strong claim to notability. I call such things "notability indicators" or "secondary indicators" and use them as a suggestion that a topic may well be notable, but needs better sources. I did look and I wasn't particularly impressed by anything I found, unless you take a bunch of small almost-notable situations and add them up. His best shot now, to me, seems to be WP:BK. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It absolutely is WP:Bias if this guy were some minor mathmatician, or a programmer than wrote some special line of code, or a guy who wrote one episode of Lost, we wouldn't be here....the article would never have been sent to AfD because people on WP would know who he is. I am completely frustrated by this entire process and I can completely see why people abandon the project. I completely and freely admit that the guy is a right wing religious gun nut and I, personally, can't stand anything he stands for...that does NOT mean that he does not belong here and frankly I'm at my wits end as to how people can't see that. At this point it is nothing more than Wikilawyering to keep him off. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To preserve good order I will assume you are speculating about everyone else's motives, and not my own. It is the responsibility of those who want something on Wikipedia to provide the WP:RS that satisfy WP:V and fit inside WP:N. I only offer my opinion that that has not been proven, and if consensus of other editors agrees, then he does not belong here, more or less objectively. I agree this is a borderline case and perhaps even his notability is on the upswing. But don't blame us if the article doesn't present a rock-solid case. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Heavy sockpuppet contamination to the point where it is pretty much impossible to sort through. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist without opposition to the original closure. The sock flood made it impossible to properly determine consensus at the article. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Architectural intentions – copyvio deletion endorsed; instructions for documenting release permission are linked withing – GRBerry 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Gutt2007 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) As I am the copyright holder of the material used in the article do I not understand how I violated the policy of Wikipedia.[reply]

Note: Relevant logs here:[33] --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Because of the GFDL, which allows anyone to take anything off of Wikipedia and do anything with it (mostly), we can't accept any copyrighted content. Unless you release the content for re-use everywhere (by contacting Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or releasing it into the public domain), it can't go up. Sorry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the way to go is to release the content, as described above. BlueValour (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Sorry guy, without permission it goes. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre – No consensus to overturn closure, deletion endorsed. That no knowledge appears to have been lost from the encyclopedia seemed very relevant here. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly no consensus to delete. The relevant AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination). 11 for keep, 7 for merge and redirect without deleting, and 11 for delete is no consensus. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn per essentially same logic as one below. For those too lazy to scroll down: "I'm not sure I want this article at all (having it smacks to me of systemic bias and recentism). That said, I strongly disagree with the close. The result was reasonably no consensus which can stick something to admin discretion if there's a compelling policy reason. However, the closer's logic, NOTMEMORIAL, was strongly disputed as being relevant in the AfD. A strong argument that that did not apply existed. Therefore this should be overturned." JoshuaZ (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep as redirect to Columbine High School massacre, where the information already is. AfD isn't a vote count, and the second you start with "but there were x to keep, and y to merge...", you're counting votes. --Kbdank71 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn to "no-consensus" There was clearly not any consensus, so the closer was merely voicing his opinion, not deciding on the basis of the discussion. DGG (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question: What is overturning going to accomplish? I'm all for consensus, but in this case, with the information already in the main article, overturning is simply going to create duplicate information. Is there a point to that, or are we just policy wonking? --Kbdank71 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion, restoring history if necessary, per Kbdank71. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support closing admin and deletion. The debate is not a vote; the "keep" arguments were not based in Wikipedia policies; the "delete" were. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep arguments were indeed based on policy and refuted the delete votes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn incorrect close... there was no consensus about how WP:NOT applied here. --Rividian (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I must admit that although I supported deletion, there was no consensus as to how WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applied to the deletion of this article. We can only conclude that no consensus can be reached on deletion, period.--WaltCip (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – To no-consensus. Both sides of the interpretation of Not A Memorial make valid points. In that both opinions were evenly expressed for Keep – Delete to me that means no-consensus. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and commend the admin who understood that AFD is not a vote and that issues of privacy and WP:NOTMEMORIAL trump any mixed consensus. When it doubt, delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review our policies on deletion, because when in doubt, we close as no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No we don't. When in doubt about higher issues such as Wikipedia policy (NOTMEMORIAL, anyone?) we delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read over the AfD. Many of those arguing for keep refuted the "notmemorial" arguments. We only must delete in cases of hoaxes, libel, or copyvios; otherwise we take other matters into account. We do not delete by default. That is a significant misunderstanding of policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warmly Endorse Deletion We have plenty of consensus at WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and that is exactly what this is. Stifle's close - clap clap - was an accurate interpretation of that consensus; as we all know, AfD is a discussion not a vote so the actual tallies are not relevant here since Keep arguments were not founded in policy. Eusebeus (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You are absolutly right, it is not a vote count. However, I am sorry, I disagree with your opinion that the Keep opinions were not based on policy! The interpretation, may have differed from the oppose, but the Keeps did put forth a rational – intelligent and persuasive argument based on policy. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial. You guys seem to think otherwise, but the policy of Wikipedia is pretty clear on the matter. I suggest you attempt to try and formulate some reason these names are notable, because I fail to see one. Period. What is notable about them? Dying violently doesn't make you notable, folks; we aren't going to list all the victims of 9/11, or the people who died at the Battle of Gettysburg, or all the soldiers who died in the Iraq War. These simply aren't important, nor are they notable, and their names and deaths aren't particularly either. That they died is important, but who they were isn't unless they were individually notable. There is absolutely no purpose to a list of names whatsoever save to memorialize the victims, as their names add absolutely nothing to the general public's understanding of what happened. Their names are meaningless. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a big difference between being among a battle in which soldiers are obviously killed by other soldiers, but in a massacre in which specific people were targetted by the killers, knowing something about these individuals reveals something about the motives of their killers. Journalistis and scholars of the event do indeed care about who the victims were, but beyond their names, their ethnicity, gener, socio-economic background, etc. which provides statistical data about the nature of the incident and those involved. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because SOMEONE cares doesn't mean WE do. We are an encyclopedia, not researchers. And what is the difference between soldiers killing each other and people being killed, largely at random (yes, at random, I know that it is hard for you to understand that, but it is so) in school? What is the difference between these school shooting victims and the victims of car bombings and 9/11? There isn't one from our standpoint. I'm sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on. What makes these people more notable? Nothing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that so many Wikipedians argued to keep suggests that we do care. An encyclopedia is a research tool. There is no benefit to be gained from deletion of a verifiable and coherent article, while there is at least potential benefit from keeping. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We is the encyclopedia, not the editors. We is Wikipedia itself. And frankly, most editors do not understand Wikipedia policy. You are not making an argument on the basis of Wikipedia policy, you are making an argument on the basis of emotion. Wikipedia's purpose is to be a neutral encyclopedia. We do a good job at it generally, but only via the constant vigilance of editors and admins. A lot of what comes to exist on the site has to be heavily edited and pared down, or refined, or better explained, or what has you. Wikipedia is far from perfect. But we constantly try to make it better. You have cited NOTHING to support your position. No Wikipedia policy supports you. You are trying to turn Wikipedia into a collection of information, which makes the encyclopedia useless as such. Yes, this does hurt the encyclopedia. It hides important information and it disguises what is actually important and notable. This is the reason why there are notability requirements on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not seen any cinvincing policy based reasons not to have this article. Neutral books about serial killers and mass murderers typically have information on the victims, many even with pages containing pictures of those victims or other discussions of them. No Wikipedia policy supports deleting this article. It does not hurt the encyclopedia. It provides important information about a serious and notable incident. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, they do. Wikipedia, however, is not a book about serial killers, or any specific subject. We have put forth arguments as to why various policies apply - we have pointed out that this list is simply an indiscriminate list of information, that it is a memorial, and that it is non-notable. You claim Wikipedia policy is otherwise. Explain, then, how Wikpiedia policy supports your position. You aren't explaining why, you're just making claims that we are wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it isn't a forum. If you are hoping to build a consensus for your position, explain to us exactly how this information is otherwise. And yes, random junk does hurt the encyclopedia, as I have explained before - it obscures useful information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This list is hardly "random junk." "Random junk" is hoaxes, copy vios, and libel. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, the subject is verifiable through reliable sources, covers a focused topic with real world notability, and is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on crime or massacres. The article is also consistent with Wikipedia:Lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Random junk includes random, indiscriminately included information, such as this list. This is a crystal clear example of Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be., straight from WP:NOT. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry if I misinterpreted this page. I thought the discussion here was to pertain exclusively to whether the Afd was closed properly or not! Not a continuation or whether to Keep or Delete the article. In reviewing the closure of the Afd, my opinion, is that it was Closed improperly. You had valid arguments made for both Keep and Delete. In my opinion, both made extremely valid and rational reasons. Both were equally split. Both had respected and trustworthy editors expressing their opinion on both sides of the discussion. Again, in my opinion, this is a No-Consensus. At the least relist the piece, and we all can express our opinions and let consensus fall as it may. However, regarding the topic, as it is expressed here, the closure was wrong. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)

Thing is, as has been pointed out previously, AFDs are there to create consensus, not to be a vote, which many people treat them as. The purpose is not to poll Wikipedians but to have a discussion. The format has devolved into voting, where people say Delete, Merge, or Keep (or variations thereof), often with no explanation at all. The purpose of them, however, is to examine the article and whether or not it warrants inclusion or violates Wikipedia policies and should be removed. The admin who closed this felt that the consensus was that the article violated WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, that no one had really said anything which demonstrated that it did not, in fact, violate that, and that thusly it should be deleted. I think this was fine under Wikipedia policy; remember, Wikipedia is not a Democracy. However, people are angry about it because people DO feel it is a democracy, even though it is explicitly stated not to be. They feel they have been ignored, but the reality is that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to respect opinions, but to make an objective encyclopedia - a very difficult task to be sure, especially when people feel they are entitled to their opinions and to make their mark on it.

There were not valid arguments, in the closer's opinion, that the article shouldn't be deleted, and as such, I feel that the closure was appropriate. Just because some people refuse to contemplate the deletion of these articles doesn't mean they shouldn't be deleted or aren't in violation of Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium Dragon I am in 100% agreement with you on this; “…it is not a vote”. You are absolutely right in that we do not count up the Keep or Deletes, the Support or the Oppose, we look to who has made a rational – well thought out – factual argument and count that opinion three – four – five times over the “Well I just like it” voice of reason. I have no problem with consensus! Again, in this situation, sorry to say, consensus did not rule. Hope this explains where I am coming from. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOT: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. - this implies that if someone or some event is notable, it is not disqualified merely because it is also a memorial. There are many notable death-events in Wikipedia. However, this is a discussion better suited for an RfD or other discussion, not a deletion review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overtun to no consensus. Between the quite lower number of outright deletion proposers and the fact that their arguments were quite successfully refuted by the keep proposers, it's either a weak keep or a strong no consensus. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - rendered moot by 1) redirect to Columbine High School massacre is in place, and 2) the list of victims are prominently boxed in the target article. So if the deletion were overturned, an editor has already pre-empted it by being bold and merging it with the target article. B.Wind (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion on a technicality the technicality being a clear lack of consensus. Personally, I'm okay with deleting a redundant article, but deletion review is typically about process not WP:IDONTLIKETHERESULTS. The lack of consensus to actually delete is very clear. I think there would be a consensus to MERGE the articles. A WP:BOLD merge and redirect might even go uncontested.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. I fail to see where lack of consensus is a technicality, since an AfD is about reaching a consensus. None was reached here--simply some stating keep, some stating merge, some stating delete, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and an admin endorsing one of those. I agree with davidwr that a merge may be appropriate, and stated such in the AfD. My concern is not with his statement, but with the way the AfD was interpreted by the Admin. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Perhaps WP:NOTMEMORIAL needs to be looked at again per WP:CCC]. Clear no consensus in my view. -Halo (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre – Again allowing that no knowledge seems to have been lost from the encyclopedia, that memorials aren't done, and that neither AfD nor DRV is a vote, I can find no consensus to overturn the closure. In relation to the broader question of lists of victims, there is a discussion elsewhere. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

no consensus to delete... more users in this discussion supported either keeping or merging information, and argued that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. Just curious how then the closing admin used this as the only rationale to delete? HokieRNB (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The relevant AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination). Not yet have informed an opinion on this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure. AfD may not be a vote, but 9 good faith editors arguing to keep is "no consensus". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn I'm not sure I want this article at all (having it smacks to me of systemic bias and recentism). That said, I strongly disagree with the close. The result was reasonably no consensus which can stick something to admin discretion if there's a compelling policy reason. However, the closer's logic, NOTMEMORIAL, was strongly disputed as being relevant in the AfD. A strong argument that that did not apply existed. Therefore this should be overturned. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant as I have merged it back into the parent article. But yeah, there was no consensus. -- Y not? 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er no. At multiple levels. If people want to merge a merge discussion should occur. Furthermore, that now requires us to undelete the stuff below the redirect to comply with the GFDL. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right as usual. But of course it was pulled out of the parent article in the first place! ... this is the circle of life, Josh. -- Y not be working? 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have pulled the list back out of the parent article until this issue is decided. One step at a time, folks. Per JoshuaZ, a merge with the main article should be discussed.--Sfmammamia (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, if this was pulled out initially there's likely no serious GFDL issue with such a merge then. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep redirect per Y. --Kbdank71 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to "no-consensus" There was clearly not any consensus, so the closer was merely voicing his opinion, not deciding on the basis of the discussion. DGG (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion. AFD is not a vote count and I feel that the consensus, and policy, lean towards deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support closing admin and deletion. The debate is not a vote; the "keep" arguments were not based in Wikipedia policies; the "delete" were. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep arguments were indeed based on policy and refuted the delete votes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn I do not see a consensus reached and believe the decision was premature. Ronnotel (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please clarify why you believe the decision was premature? Stifle (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that there had been three previous AfD's that were closed as Keep, with the latest one from Sept. 2007 as nearly unanimous, I would expect a decision that runs counter to that to have substantially more backing than was the case here. Why was no input sought from the previous closing admins? Ronnotel (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep - being an admin doesn't give you a "super !vote". Admins working AFD are there to judge consensus. Unless there is an overriding policy concern, vote stacking, etc, you should go with the consensus. The AFD did not consider this article to be a memorial and thus chose to keep it. Ignoring that decision is out of process. --B (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and commend the admin who understood that AFD is not a vote and that issues of privacy and WP:NOTMEMORIAL trump any mixed consensus. When it doubt, delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is NOT how our deletion policy works. Please take time off of just going down the list of AfDs rapidly voting to delete and please review our policies on deletion, because when in doubt, we close as no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- by law and custom, any death is a matter of public record and there can be no expectation of privacy. I would and have opposed any list of the wounded on privacy grounds. Ronnotel (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warmly Endorse Deletion per my point above, namely WP:NOT#MEMORIAL enjoys plenty of consensus and that is what this is. Good close. Eusebeus (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The article needed to go, it was a memorial and it was simply not notable. I only counted 8 keeps, and many of them simply were not using Wikipedia policy as a basis for their arguments. For instance, one person argued that as victims of a terrorist attack they were notable, when this is specifically non-notable! We don't list, say, the victims of 9/11, and 9/11 was far, far more notable. The lack of notability of this list is very large. I myself nominated it for deletion ages ago and was shut down by memorializers, but now that a lot of them are gone, only a few are left. There is no reason to keep the list; these people weren't notable, their names aren't important. All that was important was that the event happened. Listing every person who died violently in the history of mankind is unreasonable and is not the purpose of Wikipedia. AFD is not a vote, as some people seem to believe, it is a means of showing conesnsus, and I think those who opposed either are too close to it or don't understand Wikipedia policy adequetely. This is not a knock on them, but the reality is that this has come up time and again, and time and again they present no argument other than claiming that it isn't a memorial without presenting any evidence thereof, or why this list of dead people is any more notable than, say, the list of 9/11 victims, or the list of people who died in the Battle of Gettysburg. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scholars and journalists legitimately research the victims of attacks, what gender was targetted, what race, what econcomic background, etc. Is there any correlation among these statistics regarding the victims? Were they random? Etc. Victims of massacres in reveal something about the incident and potentially baout the mass murderer's motives. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you can come up with a reason why this is different from a list of people who died in 9/11, then you don't have a leg to stand on. And our job is not to copy down the history of every single person on the face of the planet, which is exactly what youa re advocating. Where does it end? I've done research on my family members, that doesn't make them notable. Heck, one of my family members is the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy. Does she have a Wikipedia article? Heck no. Nor should she. She simply is not notable enough. These people are far, far less notable. Being killed violently does not make you notable; we simply do not have articles about every single murder victim, which is what you are advocating. People DO do research on the gender of murder victims, their race, the race/gender/religon/whatever of their killers, ect. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should include information about every single person who has ever lived and died. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a case here. What is notable about these people? Nothing. Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia, not a list of everything. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Far less people were killed in this incident than 9/11, which makes for a much easier maintable article. We are not debating on individual articles; we are discussing a list; thus the comparison with the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is apples and oranges. I see no compelling benefit from not having something that obviously is relevant to a good deal of good faith contributors here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In order: the number of victims is meaningless. You cannot make an argument on that basis; if it was notable, we'd have such an article. It isn't, though, fortunately, so we don't need such an article. Arguing it is difficult to maintain is not a valid argument; it is hard to protect Evolution from creationists, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover the topic. And the comparison with the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is NOT apples and oranges; the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is FAR more important and notable than these people. They get interviewed by NPR and occaisionally show up in newspaper articles. These people simply don't, and never did - their ONLY source of notability was dying, and dying does not make you notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comparing the list under discussion with a list of assistant directors of the Oregan Department of Energy would be a fair comparison, or comparing one of the victims with one asssitant director. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)

The point is that neither are notable enough to warrant articles. You don't understand this. There is nothing notable about this list of names. They have no purpose and no encyclopedic value. You are not making a logical or coherent argument against it. And your argument that having a large group of people makes you more notable is outright long; as is pointed out specifically in the notability guidelines, lumping a bunch of non-notable things together doesn't make them notable. Again, I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable enough to warrant an article on a paperless encyclopedia whose foundsr said we're after the sum of human knowledge and I see no reason otherwise. They have a purpose as many have outlined above and are encyclopedic. I see no logical argument otherwise. Determined, perhaps, but not an accurate interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - rendered moot by 1) redirect to Virginia Tech massacre is in place, and 2) the list of victims are prominently displayed in the target article. So if the deletion were overturned, an editor has already pre-empted it by being bold and merging it with the target article. B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is circular reasoning. The list was broken out of that article in the first place due to space and legibility concerns will likely be pared back for the same reasons. Ronnotel (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a matter of deletion policy, people. This is simply an editorial decision. Nobody's writing bios of the NN victims - just a list of names. The only question is whether it should be a standalone list, or inside the main article, where it's more justifiable, but cluttersome. Somebody please close this stupid irrelevant DRV. -- Y not be working? 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus. Note that I am for deletion of the article, and stated so in the discussion. Yet the discussion clearly was at a no consensus state. Nabla (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion on a technicality the technicality being a clear lack of consensus to delete. I think there would be a consensus to MERGE the articles. A WP:BOLD merge and redirect might even go uncontested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I fail to see where lack of consensus is a technicality, since an AfD is about reaching a consensus. None was reached here--simply some stating keep, some stating merge, some stating delete, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and an admin endorsing one of those. I agree with davidwr that a merge may be appropriate, and stated such in the AfD. My concern is not with his statement, but with the way the AfD was interpreted by the Admin. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Result of original AfD read: "The result was Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If you disagree, please go right ahead and open a DRV. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" This reads like an intentional disregarding of consensus and statement of opinion by the closing admin, followed by a challenge (to do the DRV) Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - Consensus just was not reached one way or the other and there was very strong contention on both sides. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victim Lists and Wikipedia

As far as I'm concerned, there are two issues here (and this relates to BOTH of the victim lists).

Wikipedia is not a memorial.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Lists of victims invariably fall into the above categories. These are their only purposes. People talk about "giving an idea of the scale", but that is an attempt to elicit emotional response from the reader and is completely unacceptable under the NPOV policy. Numbers are fine, but a list of the names is meaningless to the public at large - John Doe is no one important, so the ONLY person that it is meaningful to is the person who is like "I knew that person", at which point it is a memorial. Now, some say researchers will look at these lists, and this is true - but many of these researchers are memorializing people via books, movies, ect. Some aren't, but at that point we're looking at a very small subpopulation of scholars, and they simply won't use Wikipedia for such purposes as they'll use other, more reliable resources. But I think more importantly, this second group is not worth considering because of the second bullet above - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a list of victims is exactly that. Just because it is useful to SOMEONE doesn't mean we should have it; we have notability guidelines to exclude random junk, and this is random junk. These are no more notable than the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy, or of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack, or the dead at the Battle of Gettysburg. These are no more notable than a list of temperature readings at some specific buoy off the coast of Oregon.

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of subjects, and, frankly, these victim lists simply aren't historically notable. Indeed, they are far LESS notable than a list of soldiers who died in some important battle.

Unless you can show how these victim lists do not fall under the above categories, you simply cannot vote in good conscience and in accordance with Wikipedia policy to keep them. If I'm wrong, SHOW me, under Wikipedia policy, where I am wrong. But I don't think you can. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The director of the Department of Energy is ONE PERSON and thus not really comparable with a list of MULTIPLE PEOPLE. Those advocating to keep are not arguing to memorialize the victims and nor is a discriminate list inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Multiple editors arguing to keep means it's useful to more than just "someone." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read more about Wikipedia policy before you contribute to these discussions, as clearly you don't understand Wikipedia policy. The Neutral Point of View policy is essential to Wikipedia, as are the notability guidelines. I'm sorry, but you aren't making an argument on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Explain how, exactly, these lists are not what I have stated. You're just saying they aren't, but you aren't providing evidence to the contrary. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A straightforward list of victims of a historical incident is hardly not neutral. I do not see any evidence that there's a benefit to our project by not having this material. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a fundamentally flawed argument; my argument is that there is no reason for it to be here in the first place, and you need to support its inclusion. It is either a memorial (and thus non-neutral) or it is the sort of information which falls under Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Your argument of "researchers might need it!" falls under the latter. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have presented multiple reasons for its inclusion, I see no reason for it not to be here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this one to me like I'm an idiot - what is the difference between a list of victims, a list of television episodes, and a list of anything else? We split out the "list of xyz" from the main "xyz" article because including it in the main article would double its size. Wikipedia is not the place to publish my great grandmother's obituary, but if the death of one or more people makes world headlines for months and we have a featured article about their death, it makes sense to at least mention their names. I don't see how this is any different from having a list of TV episodes, a list of minor Southpark characters, a list of books someone wrote, a list of John McCain's political positions, etc. --B (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lists should answer some of your questions. Lists like this one would only be appropriate if all of the names were links to articles; these people, however, are completely non-notable and thus do not have articles. Political Positions of John McCain is not a list in the sense of WP:Lists, but rather a "list" in the sense of being a summary of numerous political positions he holds. Notably, this isn't a simple list of worsds, but actual positions; they are in the form of prose and seperated and organized by subject. Lists of television episodes are the same - they are actually descriptions of the television episodes and what came to pass in them, essentially a number of brief plot summaries linked together by being a show under the same title, noteworthy enough for inclusion but too brief to warrant articles of their own. This list is none of those things. Their names are not notable, and give no useful information, nor is any information about the people noteworthy - more or less, the list has no purpose. It is just like if I were to list just the names of every Pokemon episode with no reason for it, except unlike Pokemon episodes, there is nothing TO note here. More or less, these people aren't noteworthy because the articles are about the killer and what happened, not about the victims - the victims are, in fact, entirely incidental, and all that matters are their numbers, not their names. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, expand the articles to have more than just names. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They simply aren't notable, hence the lack of details. There is nothing TO note, and the names themselves are meaningless. That's the entire POINT - these are not notable individuals, and nothing about them, including their names, is notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable in the context of being victims of a notable crime which journalists and others are likely to research, see here and here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are non-notable. Notability guidelines exist for a reason, and these people certainly fail notability. Per the notability guidelines additionally, lumping together a lot of non-notable persons or things does not make them notable. Therefore, the list is, in and of itself, non-notable. Whether or not journalists may do research on them is irrelevant. They may do research on otherkin, or various webcomics which also fail notability. The guidelines specifically prohibit making articles speculatively that they might be notable in the future, and that is exactly what you are advocating, as well as throwing out all notability requirements. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the notability guidelines:

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These massacres have been and will continue to be covered in scholarly articles and published books. I just did a search on Academic Search Complete and you have for example: "Chemenger among Virginia Tech victims," Chemical Engineer, May2007 Issue 791, p54-54, 1/8p; (AN 25430615). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Engineer is a monthly magazine; thus, that was the FIRST edition of the magazine after the shooting. So your evidence actually contradicts your own point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It demonstrates coverage of a victim in a reliable source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key there being a victim. If you could find enough other reliable sources, you could build a WP:BLP-appropriate article on that person. But that does not make the victims as victims inherently notable. -- Kesh (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have "List Of Virginia Tech Shooting Victims: Students And Faculty Who Died In Blacksburg Tragedy" on CBS News's website, which provides more than just a list of name and I would definitely consider CBS News a reliable source. Similar coverage appeared on MSNBC (see "Profiles of victims in Virginia Tech massacre: The slain include an award-winning professor and an Air Force cadet") and Time (see here), The New York Times (see here), as well as NPR (see here), thus considerable coverage of specifically the list of victims in major news outlets both online and print and even journal sources that turned up on Academic Search Complete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not the right place for this discussion The question of whether such lists are suitable for the encyclopedia does need to be discussed, but Deletion Review is not the place to do it. And the decision on whether they are will be decided by the consensus of people at Wikipedia. Personally, I think we need a new discussion on the articles about the individual victims. One Event does not apply when the event is so notable that there are multiple sources over time about the people--sometimes in exceptional cases the individual identity of each of the victims can be encyclopedic content. At least VT was a sufficiently exceptional event. DGG (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been editing for a long time, but I've never done a RFC or a policy proposal before. I have read the RFC page and am unsure whether this would fall under that or something else. How would I go about doing one? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Victim Lists

Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

PyTables – Request withdrawn – Stifle (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please userfy the page, in the interests of don't bite the newbies. http://www.pytables.org/ is GPL, so any copyright violation is debatable rather than blatant. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn simply not a blatant copyright violation. the deletor probably did not notice to GPL. It could possibly be argued that it applies only tothe software itself, but I think that the intent was to license the documentation as well. DGG (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I see from the below that I misinterpreted the copyright statement. DGG (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The software is under the GPL license, there's nothing on the original page which says the text is. And the GPL license is incompatible with GFDL, anyway, since it says, the license gives the right to do anything with the software - except making it unfree somehow. That violates the GFDL right to republish commercially. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - per the reasoning by Corvus cornix. In addition, there is no real reason for userfication since the content is accessible by clicking the cache button, above. BlueValour (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn. The original page says "GPL licensed" but looking closer, I see that is the default footer for MoinMoin wikis, and merely means the MoinMoin code is GPL licensed. There is no statement of copyright that refers to the web page text, so we have to assume 'All rights reserved'. We can't use it. (By the way, userfication would have been better than the cache as it restores the wiki code.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 April 2008

Princess Eléonore of Belgium – Keep closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently closed this AfD, which was immediately contested by the nominator (Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs)). Posting a DRV to cut through the drama and just get more eyes on it. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There certainly was a consensus in keeping the article, but most of the keep voters were ILIKEROYALTY voters in the absense of an appropriate guideline. I thought that people were notable for what they did, not for whose parents they had. Editor of the wiki 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus was very clear, article does not fail any policy and when there is a clear consensus guidelines can, to quote, 'be treated with common sense and the occasional exception'. In the absence of a specific standard on such articles (such as the rejected Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)) the consensus at the AFD should stand. Davewild (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear keep consensus with reliable secondary sources. No cogent reason for deletion given...the deleters threw blue links into the argument that didn't really make sense. WP:ILIKEIT doesn't work when it meets WP:N. --Smashville^BONK! 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While notability isn't inherited, I think the argument seemed to be that it was very likely that this person would be notable due to the similar circumstances that would inevitably befall the baby. In other words, they're not really notable yet, but it's so highly likely that they will be that there's not much point in deletion. At least, I think that's one way to look at it. I'm not even sure if I agree with that assessment, but that is the impression I've gotten. From an organizational standpoint a merge would make sense to me, and wouldn't be a predigest to re-splitting it as more information comes in. *shrug*. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I understand where Editorofthewiki is coming from since few people achieve much that is notable in the first six days of their life. However, we are here to determine whether the AFD was properly closed and not to substitute our judgement for that of the AFD participants. The consensus was overwhelming that 5th in line to a throne is sufficient for notability and, on that basis, the closing admin acted correctly. The way forward, for those concerned, is to revive, and seek agreement on, the WP:Notability (royalty) guideline. BlueValour (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear consensus that the subject was notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AFD... no errors for DRV to overturn, someone just didn't like the close. --Rividian (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse hereditary monarchy is the definition of notable by relation, and the opinion of those responding on AfD is that that includes Wikipedia notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn To me, I truly believe that the AFD participants really did not elaborate whatsoever, for the most part, on why the article was kept when there was strong and sound reason presented why it should be deleted. People entirely confused a notable situation (non-unique, btw) with a non-notable individual, a week old baby. Charles 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was certainly a consensus at the AfD that the subject's position in the in the of succession conferred notability. Hut 8.5 06:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse seems like a bad loser to me. Frankly, the consensus was keep. You shouldn't ask for a review just because you disliked the outcome. Try and start a discussion on royalty notablity and possible guidelines if you wish.--UpDown (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Frankly, I disagree with this close. Royal babies are not inherently notable and can be easily included in articles about the parents. Furthermore this child isn't even something like the heir apparent. That said, the consensus was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Consensus was that this person is notable. (I am not an ILIKEROYALTY person.) --Oakshade (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Children of royalty have always been considered notable. Further relatives are debatable, with no real consensus, but for children the consensus has consistently been for notability, as in the afd discussion here. DGG (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and update the notability guideline to reflect this reality. Guidelines and policies are supposed to reflect accepted practices. If they clash, it's time to reopen the guidelines and policies. There have been several attempts at writing a guideline on notability for royalty and none have achieved consensus. As a result, the controlling guidelines are WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability (people), but it's up to us, as editors, to determine how these notability criteria apply when an article like this is nominated for AfD. The people have spoken quite loudly: In this particular instance, and by extension anyone higher-up on the list of the line of succession to the Belgium crown, are wiki-notable either by virtue of their birth or more likely the fact that their birth was noted in the press worldwide, the words or spirit of any policies or guidelines to the contrary notwithstanding. Expect other royal families to have similar debates over where in line the "line of notability at birth" is drawn as the need arises. The outcome of these debates will serve as an unofficial, non-binding precedent for future articles about that particular royal family. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. I will need to use the "paper encyclopedia analogy" here. Do paper encyclopedias cover people of similar notability? The answer is a resounding yes. The two children of Haakon and Mette-Marit in Norway both have articles in paper encyclopedias (in particular SNL), even though they are very young. Although the Belgian princess is not in that encyclopedia, she is clearly of level rank and notability with people who are included. If traditional paper encyclopedias traditionally cover such people, then Wikipedia should be at least as liberal in including such articles. And that is what the consensus was for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re: Although the Belgian princess is not in that encyclopedia,: She missed the press deadline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: as child of the crown prince - heir apparent - and a grand child of the reigning monarch, she meets the notability criteria. The article should be kept. Notability can come from different things. Descent can be notable as well in solme circumstances. Some people seem to have a vendetta against royal children and make it their task to try to rid Wikipedia from articles about them. Grandchildren of reigning monarchs are notable. -- fdewaele, 25 April 2008, 16:35 CET.
Endorse It is a pity we don't have a version of the failed Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) in force to make debates like this unnecessary. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, seems to be an error-free closure. MrPrada (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by operating system and subcats – I hope no one minds me closing this early, since no one else is supporting anything other then endorsing (other than myself). Per the advice of Jc37 and Black Falcon, DRV is a bad venue for this. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like oh-so-many categories, another group has fallen simply because very few Wikipedians follow CfD. These categories were nominated and deleted with the rationale that they were not useful for per-OS collaboration, an argument in itself that isn't very convincing. What was definitely ignored is that we commonly use these categories for technical reasons beyond direct article collaboration. It's the same reason we have Wikipedians by Web browser or Wikipedians by Text editor, or even by Wikipedia-specific software. Contrary to the CfD nom, it is very helpful to Wikipedia to categorize users by what operating system they happen to use.

Black Falcon did attempt to address some of this technical-aspect, but has missed the point. We don't use these categories simply to find someone else, at random, to see if they can help someone with a certain issue. Often times we are looking for the numbers themselves as an informal survey about what our editors are using. Other times we're not looking for other users for help, but to give notice. I've used similar categories in the past to notify users who might be able to give input on something, but were not directly associated to myself (in other words, find a bunch of users who happen to use X, to see if they can give a 3rd opinion about a discussion related to X).

Finally, we do have the means to take these categories and make their results more specific, using tools such as WP:CATSCAN. You can cross reference any two user categories and get specific results. Need to find a user using Mac OS that runs a bot? I know I did when I first set up my bot.

And while I don't mean to attack anyone or anything like that, but this seems to be the continuing results a very narrow view, minority view on how user categories are meant to be used. Being a CfD regular does not mean you speak for the community, and that is evident in this situation. A failing in CfD that needs to be addressed more globally, but no reason to let it happen in a specific situation like this, now they we're aware of it.

One part of the nom that I don't necessarily disagree with, and would not be opposed to further discussing is the "fringe categories". While it's useful to have a distinction between XP and Vista, not so much for XP and XP Pro.

I propose that we ether re-list the CfD, or more ideally, take the matter to a RfC, so that we can get a better consensus on this issue. -- Ned Scott 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: relevant CfD (I think) at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_by_operating_system --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the nom. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - First, the discussion was unanimous. This isn't CFD 2. But that aside, to address the issue: Wikipedia:Category intersection (and the semi-related "CATSCAN") has been discussed and the idea to using/creating/retaining categories just for this usage has no consensus (And indeed was shouted down when Betacommand attempted creation of such recently.) So other than that (AFAICT), the DRV nominator's concerns about the category (and not the process) were addressed in the discussion, as they would be in any XfD discussion. As usual, if you have concerns about any Wikipedia process, feel free to bring that up for discussion. WP:VP, for example. - jc37 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was hardly a sufficient discussion to delete so many categories that have such a huge population, and have existed for many years. These categories violated no policy (usually WP:NOT#MYSPACE is a concern on uCFD). I believe the community at large feels these categories should exist, and uses them for many reasons. uCfD is turning into the opinion of a minority on what they personally feel, rather than addressing things that actually need to be deleted. -- Ned Scott 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finding some related past CfDs that set a bit of a precedent to not delete these kinds of categories. I will list them as I find them. -- Ned Scott 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike using a certain OS on your computer, using a certain programming language implies that you have some actual skill to use it. An editor can use a certain OS on his computer, yet have no idea about it or how it works (think of persons using the computer only to surf the internets). Similar argument for skill listing. This means that those debates are not relevant to this review. Btw, this same argument is also made on the CfD debate by Dark Vega and Black Falcon, and is supported by ScouterSig and Master Redyva and Horologium. Actually, every single participant agreed on it, and nobody opossed it or argumented that it wasn't a valid deletion argument! --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"every single participant agreed on it, and nobody opossed it or argumented that it wasn't a valid deletion argument!" That's irrelevant, since my point is that the discussion was by a minority that doesn't represent a true consensus by the greater community. -- Ned Scott 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As has been noted multiple times before (though I don't recall if the DRV nominator was present for those discussions), user categories are virtually useless for statistical purposes, since practically no valid generalisations can be drawn from them (with the possible exception of conclusions that are painfully obvious and trivial). The fact that a single edit to a template can reduce the population of a user category from 2000 to 20, or vice versa, is just one reason for this.

The fact that these categories had a lot of members is also irrelevant, since it was the action of just a few editors that put so many user pages into the categories (it takes only one edit and one editor to add a category function to a userbox). As for the precedents listed above, I don't think they are related. I supported retaining the categories in both of the two discussions cited above, yet was for deletion in the discussion for the OS categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's possible that the numbers for a category don't mean anything, I think this is a situation where we should pause to consider it. These are extremely wide spread used categories, much more so than the normal user cat, and they've been around for a very long time. And I myself was included in the category manually, not by userbox, not that using a userbox should always be discounted.

In any case, I must ask you the same thing I asked Jc37, are you that opposed to giving this more exposure? That's all that is being asked. -- Ned Scott 20:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all ... I just don't think that a discussion about process should be made part of a discussion about actual categories. There is, of course, nothing wrong with criticising the process using actual examples (in fact, that's probably the best approach), but the nature of a DRV is such that the focus will automatically be on the single CFD discussion that covered these 30 or so categories, rather than on the process in general (closure, time limits, etc.)... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that - it seems that you do want to focus on these particular categories. If the goal is just to have more discussion and consideration of the issue, I think a talk page would be a better venue for discussion than DRV, which focuses on the procedural correctness of the close and has a 5-day time limit. For instance, when concerns were raised here regarding a procedurally-correct change made to Category:Wikipedians interested in history, a second discussion (in effect, a semi-formal DRV) was initiated at UCFD to try to determine whether the previous closure ought to be endorsed, modified, or reversed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I responded at NS's talk page. And welcome such a discussion. I just feel that (as noted in the banner atop WP:UCFD), there's a difference between a discussion concerning the deletion of a category, and a discussion about the process which resulted in the deletion of the category. - jc37 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not starting a debate for the process (though I am noting that it might suggest that the process is partly to blame). I'm asking that we look at this specific situation. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The related discussion that Jc notes can be found at User talk:Ned Scott#Wikipedians by OS. I'm wondering if I should just move that here. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as not being really useful (see my reply to ned scott above), or make a new one called "wikipedians knowledgeable on OS xxx" or "wikipedians willing to help on OS articles" or similar, which would be actually useful and gather only wikipedians really willing to help --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I like the idea of making a category specific to "knowledgeable" or "willing to help". -- Ned Scott 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carl McCunn Void/Closed without any action; request was made in error. - Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion review debate ended in a No Consensus vote. I would like to bring closure to the discussion by submitting for a tie-breaking vote here. From my perspective, I am requesting a Delete vote since the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS and only received posthumous coverage for the discovery of his dead body. A similar article deletion discussion, regarding Richard Sumner, ended in the article’s removal from Wikipedia. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, inappropriate use of DRV. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Death is a part of life, there was certainly no consensus to delete, and DRV is not for asking further opinions. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am relatively new to this. I was under the assumption that this forum was used to contest the rulings for keeping or deleting articles. The article had an even consensus split in its debate between Keep and Delete, and I thought the final No Consensus decision by User:Stifle didn't resolve the issue. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that it was a no consensus. You are incorrect in thinking that it is based on a vote count. --Smashville^BONK! 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the main Deletion Review page "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". Deletion Review is not for rearguing an AFD. If you disagree with a non consensus outcome the appropriate course of action would be to wait a while to see if your concerns are addressed (at least a month generally) and then renominate at AFD if you still feel it should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well explained by Dave, and sorry if i wasn't clear enough or unfriendly, but it's getting late here.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please accept my apologies for wasting everyone's time. I am relatively new to this process and it appears I misunderstood how this corner of Wikipedia operates. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jean-Marc_Furlan – Was not deleted. Content discussions, and that's what this is, should take place at Talk:Jean-Marc Furlan. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

questionable_delete_by_unknown_administrator Contra-gian (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) My contribution to this stub was deleted. I can't find a link to the administrator responsible so cannot leave notification. The contribution reported an episode of xenophobia on the part of Jean-Marc Furlan. Furlan will be prosecuted through the civil courts, in this regard, by the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA). Although slightly biased, my contribution was not "vandalism" as it was not an attempt to compromise Wikipedia. The contribution was referenced by using reliable internet sources.The French version does include a report of this news item so, it is difficult to understand why the English version should have deleted my report of it. If this deletion happened automatically because the contribution contained the word "xenophobia" then the script has been incorrectly programmed: xenophobic utterances are what should be deleted, not accusations of xenophobia. If the administrator feels that the issue of Furlan's racism is off topic for an encyclopedia, then the complete entry for Jean-Mar Furlan should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contra-gian (talk • contribs) 17:18, April 22, 2008[reply]

Speedy close as nothing to do here. Article was not deleted, Contra-gian's edits to the article were reverted. If you wish to dispute the reversion, it should be discussed on the article's Talk page. -- Kesh (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ansci gallery – While the deletion is not being endorsed, the article has already been recreated by the original author, so there is little point in restoring the history. Rewriting or listing at AfD at editors willingness and discretion. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Jgladsto (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC) The Animal Science Image Gallery began as a partnership between the Animal Science Education Consortium (fifteen colleges and universities in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states) and the National Agriculture Library (NAL).Members of the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), the American Dairy Science Association, the Poultry Science Association, the Equine Science Society, the American College of Theriogenologists and the Society for the Study of Reproduction have served as editors, reviewers, and submitters. The peer-reviewed images are for use in college level animal science curricula[reply]

Comment - I can't see the content of this article, but it was deleted under A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance). So far, I'm not seeing anything that asserts notability under WP:N or WP:WEB for this gallery. Are there any sources you can cite to show how this site has been recognized by an independent organization or news publication? -- Kesh (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Saying that a project is sponsored by the NAL and its associated universities and scientific societies is a clear assertion of importance. Its for AfD to decide if it actually is notable. An extravagant interpretation of the speedy criteria. DGG (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note it will need some references, or it will not be very likely to pass Afd. Still it deserves the discussion, for it does not meet the speedy criterion.DGG (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The gallery may be viewed at http://anscigallery.nal.usda.gov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgladsto (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Should be decided at AfD between WP:N and WP:NOT#repository, but the A7 was improper. MrPrada (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite I went to restore and AFD in line with consensus above, but realized I'd have to rewrite the article to produce even a decent stub; I don't see how to clean up the prior content without rewriting from scratch. GRBerry 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chroma'Agana – "...Target of the redirect had useful history for the DRVer. I've userfied that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" – OranL (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Chroma'Agana -- OranL (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to restore. Was never more than a redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. Target of the redirect had useful history for the DRVer. I've userfied that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tomahna – "...The page redirected to a number of places, but the primary content appears to have ended up at Age of D'ni, which is already userfied. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" – OranL (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Tomahna -- OranL (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to restore. Was never more than a redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per request on my talk page: The page redirected to a number of places, but the primary content appears to have ended up at Age of D'ni, which is already userfied. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Age of D'ni – "Userfied as requested. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" – OranL (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Age of D'ni -- OranL (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied as requested. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeffrey A. Klein – Keep closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am genuinely surprised and disappointed that this debate ended in the keeping of the article of a physician whose sole claim to notability is improving the procedure in which anethesia is administered to liposuction patients. The debate on the article was highly peculiar: the article's author (who is the son of the article's subject) made unverified claims on the subject's importance in the medical world, and resorted to using a sockpuppet to bolster his argument. He was backed by in his claims by a Wikipedia admin who resorted to insults and name calling when I attempted to show that the claims of notability had no verifiable and independent backing. The admin who ruled in favor of the article told me that the subject was saved from deletion because "What he actually did (or did not do) to get that coverage is not relevant to whether he meets wikipedia's notability guidelines" -- but that is a complete contradiction, since what he did is entirely dependent on meeting notability guidelines. (See Admin's response here: [34].) I would appreciate a new review of the article debate, cutting out the obvious conflicts of interest, sockpuppetry, and puerile language that skewered attempts to determine the subject's true notability. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep I agree with User:Ecoleetage's close of this AfD. Guidelines are guide lines that are not absolute. With this in mind, there is an encyclopedic article here that has further potential. --Pmedema (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was my closure! Davewild (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opps... my bad :)--Pmedema (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. My reasoning is that the book had received multiple reviews (including one quite hostile one), and that was enough to establish notability for the author. --Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse KeepI never used any sock puppets. many people other than myself contributed to improving the clarifying the article, and if one were to call up five cosmetic surgeons, 4 will say they know who Dr. Klein is. Also, his notariety isn't about liposuction. Tumescent anesthesia saved lives and improves patient recovery time and safety for countless people around the world every year. As for Ecoleetage, no body called you names. If anything, I felt that you were being uncivilized to me. I never used any sock puppets to make my arguments, and PLEASE stop saying that this article is un-notable based on your hunches. If you REALLY have to, connect with a doctor or two. Find out for yourself. You seem to be the only one against it. Lukeklein (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth noting, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lukeklein. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Worth noting - Response Re: Luna Santin, I am not a sockpuppet of user lukeklein; I have provided irrefutable proof of my identity and my own maintenance of my Wikipedia account to the Wikipedia administrators, and have thus been reinstated, all blocks lifted from my account (please refer to my talk page [[35]]). I feel that I must make a note of this here to re-establish my credibility, as I am well versed in the advancements made to the technique of tumescent anesthesia, and thus find myself compelled to contribute to this discussion. --Procession (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Luke Klein (a.k.a. the son of the subject of the article) or anyone else can please provide details of where tumescent anesthesia is CURRENTLY and SUCCESSFULLY being used in five medical areas NOT relating to cosmetic surgery, I will withdraw my request. All of the research I've shown has detailed its use is limited solely to liposuction. And I would also like to know what Dr. Klein has accomplished beyond improving on existing medical techniques and writing an obscure book. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I do not see the logic behind exacting such a challenge. Tumescent anesthesia is notable because it has transformed the manner in which physicians perform a number of cutaneous procedures. Given all cutaneous procedures involve areas of the Dermis), the use of tumescent anesthesia is necessarily linked to "cosmetic" purposes. Ordering someone to name five different applications of the tumescent technique outside of a cosmetic context is akin to demanding examples of five additional applications of LASIK surgery that aren’t related to the eye. The procedures improved by the tumescent anesthesia technique are, by their very nature, cosmetic. The fact that they are cosmetic, however, does not discredit their importance in the medical field, nor can the entire branch of such procedures be dismissed as simply indulging in an individual’s vanities. However, to prove a point, here are several applications of the tumescent technique that prove it’s usage goes above and beyond its application in liposuction procedures:

I. Though this still fits within the definition of “cosmetic surgery” (as it addresses issues that are cosmetic in nature, you may want to check out the article entitled Tumescent local anesthesia for the surgical treatment of burns and postburn sequelae in pediatric patients. [36] Given that tumescent local anesthesia vastly reduces the incident of complications that are associated with general anesthesia, its application in a pediatric context is a great boon, as infants, by virtue of their size and developmental stage, are more susceptible to the complications of general anesthesia.

Tumescent anesthesia also has applications in the prevention of other forms of trauma—most notably in the form of reducing the trauma associated with various cancerous growths:

II. Tumescent anesthesia has been used within the context of breast reconstruction for patients who have undergone mastectomies as a result of breast cancer. [37]

III.In Roenigk & Roenigk’s Dermatologic Surgery: Principles and Practice, tumescent anesthesia is cited as an ideal form of anesthesia during the removal of “large soft tissue lesion[s],” such as melanomas and other cancerous growths. (p. 51, [38] )

IV. I will also encourage you to review Clinical parameters of tumescent anesthesia in skin cancer reconstructive surgery. A review of 86 patients, from the Archives of Dermatology.[39]

The application of the tumescent technique is also valuable not because of its ability to reduce complications, but because it lessens the pain and discomfort

V.In a study published in the book Innovative Techniques in Skin Surgery (Basic and Clinical Dermatology), Breuninger found that 96% of the “542 patients who had previously experienced other forms of anesthesia (general or regional anesthesia) for the same kind of operation preferred SITA [Subcutaneous Infusion Tumescent Anesthesia].” (p. 196, [40])

I believe that the above citations, coupled with previous examples of the advancements and applications of the tumescent anesthesia technique, make for a viable argument concerning its importance in the medical field, and the subsequent notability of its inventor, Dr. Jeffrey Klein. --Procession (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's some examples:

Total Mastectomy Under Local Anesthesia: The Tumescent Technique

Vascular Surgery

The Ambulatory Anesthesia and Perioperative Analgesia Manual

[http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/134/3/279.pdf Acute Herpetic Pain or Postherpetic Neuralgia]

Treating burn victims and managing blood-loss

Release of severe post burn neck contracture (often life threatening)

another example of neck contracture

Neonatal Skin Grafting

Scalp Surgery

Skin Cancer reconstructive surgery (enhanced surgeon visualization of the surgical planes) Lukeklein (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's still noteworthy.64.128.73.42 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse keep very reluctantly, --I gave a "reluctant keep" at the AfD; Keep, because of the book reviews which showed what is regarded here as sufficient notability for an author, regardless of subject and the number of citations to his work, which was extremely high (as is typical for people who publish methods--but it shows the method is widely referred to), Reluctant because cosmetic and plastic surgeons of all specialties rely very heavily on advertising and make sure that they get as large an amount as possible in the way of published material. The above comment by Ecoleetage is irrelevant--notability as a cosmetic/dermatological/plastic surgeon is sufficient, and the anaesthesia method, as I understand it, is specifically for one widespread type of cosmetic surgery, so asking for it to be shown notable in other subjects also seems absurd. I note the references show that most anesthesiologists seem to consider the method a very poor idea, but that isn't relevant--we don't have the responsibility of judging. DGG (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete I agree that this is a very disappointing close, made all the more so by the fact that editors who normally demand respect have chosen to allow such clear COI guff to weed up what is an encyclopedic project as a result of strenuous squinting to discern even the vaguest notability to justify their own inclusionist inclinations. I submit the close was in error and that we need to take a much harder line against this kind of COI stuff to prevent it from propagating. That said, clearly this DRV will not overturn the highly regrettable decision to Keep. So, to the nom: bring it back to AfD in six months, when exactly nothing will have been done to improve this dross, and we'll get it expunged then. Eusebeus (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. I always bristle at these sorts of congratulatory, COI influenced articles and tend to want them gone, and I always have a hard time with articles whose subjects are famous for something we would all likely be better off without. However, this doctor and his methods do appear to have gained a sufficient degree of noteworthiness in the medical community (and, to an extent, beyond it) to justify inclusion here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it belongs here, nonetheless. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response Regarding the comment: “The above comment by Ecoleetage is irrelevant--notability as a cosmetic/dermatological/plastic surgeon is sufficient, and the anaesthesia method, as I understand it, is specifically for one widespread type of cosmetic surgery, so asking for it to be shown notable in other subjects also seems absurd.” Actually, nothing has been presented to support the statement that Dr. Klein’s career as a whole is notable. Please review the article as it stands to confirm that. The comment is also relevant because User:LukeKlein, both in the original debate and in this discussion, kept insisting the procedure in question goes beyond liposuction. Well, I cannot locate any notable usage outside of liposuction. I’ve read about the possibilities of its use elsewhere, but no evidence of its actual practice outside of liposuction. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not AfD round 2. --Smashville^BONK! 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liposuction is a very widely used surgical procedure, so notability within that field is enough.DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep; the closure was clearly correct. Perhaps another AfD, in the future, might come to a different conclusion; however, it would help if both sides were a bit calmer in that AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. First and foremost, user Ecoleetage is completely off-base. I am not a sock-puppet of user lukeklein (as I’ve clarified above). I’ve worked in the same field as Dr. Klein, and as such I feel that I have a unique insight into his prominence within the medical community. It is disingenuous to engage in an ad hominem circumstantial [41] attack on lukeklein; regardless of lukeklein’s connection to the subject of the entry, Dr. Klein does in fact merit a Wikipedia entry. Erroneous allegations of sock-puppetry notwithstanding, Ecoleetage’s claims that Dr. Jeffrey Klein and his innovations within the medical community don’t warrant a Wikipedia entry are just wrong. The most cursory search of “Jeffrey Klein” and “liposuction” under Google’s Book search yields several results that support his prominence in the medical community. For the sake of argument alone, I will reproduce some of these:

In the book Dermatology at the Millennium, A. Carruthers writes that “Finally, Jeffery Klein, with the introduction of tumescent local anesthesia, introduced a tool which is still only beginning to find its usefulness and which offers us much promise for the future.” (p. 115, [42] In the same publication, S.V. Pollack writes that “the most significant innovation in liposuction in recent years has beeen the use of tumescent anesthesia, introduced by dermatologist Jeffrey Klein in 1987....The use of smaller cannulae, another innovation popularized by Klein, has lead to more precise fat removal and the ability to remove more superficial fat deposits without the risk of surface irregularities.” (p. 414, [43]

In another book, entitled Tumescent Local Anesthesia by Hanke et al., the authors write that “tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) was developed by the dermatologist and pharmacologist Jeffrey A. Klein, associate professor of Dermatology of the University of California in Irvine, California. He first described this method of local anesthesia, originally intended to facilitate fat suction in cosmetic surgery, in the January edition of the ‘Journal of Cosmetic Surgery’ in 1987.” (p. 5, [44])

Regarding the dispute about Dr. Klein being the sole inventor if the tumescent technique, Dr. Patrick J. Lillis has published an article in “Roenigk & Roenigk’s Dermatologic Surgery: Pricincples and Practice, wherein he relays, and I quote, that “Dr. Jeffrey Klein is the originator of the tumescent technique. [emphasis mine] I was influenced by Dr. Klein in the “early days” of the development of the tumescent technique as have been in a position to contribute to the profound implications of Dr. Klein’s work.” (p. 42, [45]) In light of this evidence, the dispute over the origin of the tumescent technique is now settled.

Dr. Jeffrey Klein is clearly an influential physician in this branch of medical practice, and as such rightly merits an entry in Wikipedia. --Procession (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. My original vote at the AfD was neither COI, sockpuppetry, nor used puerile language. It was the correct policy argument for keeping it, while the nominator's was simply wrong. Proper closure and no procedural errors to overturn just because one is unhappy with the outcome. MrPrada (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coalition for diversity – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I apologize that I did not realize there was a debate as the deletion of theThis is notable entry because of the national significance of the topic matter of affirmative action and the instrumental role of this particular student group. I do not agree that student groups are generally uninteresting as a proposition. Take, for example, SNCC. It is interesting because it is part of a larger political movement that has generated much debate and controversy in regards to the Supreme Court's stance on diversity in the context of public education. 69.238.218.27 (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion endorsed - Nothing wrong with the AfD or its closure nor has so far any new evidence regarding "the instrumental role of this particular student group" been put forward. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. AfD consensus to delete was clear and their rationale sounds solid to me. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion a debate with relatively little participation, but a more extensive one would come to the same conclusion--a student organization of this sort within a single law school is not notable generally, and there was no evidence otherwise.DGG (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Perfectly valid AFD. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AfD and it's closure were proper. No new evidence or compelling argument made in the request to consider overturning the AfD. WP:ORG applies to this subject, and the article was not passable when scrutinized against it. Even an AfD with low participation can achieve consensus, as many editors such as myself will pass on commenting on an obvious AfD rather than !voting solely for the sake of achieving some pseudo-quorum. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 April 2008

Mark Mullen – Speedily restored, major misjudgment on my part. – Nakon 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is clearly notable NewsGuru (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying that the subject of this article is not notable is simply wrong. I mean I saw a page for Curt Young, the assistant hitting coach for the Oakland A's the other day. Mark Mullen is the current China Correspondent for NBC News and is on television at least three or four times a week. If Curt Young, some random hitting coach who is rarely in the news, is notable, the China correspondent for the number one newscast in the country is certainly notable.

I cited four different sources including links to NBC video of stories he has done from Beijing. He is also NBC's point man for their Olympic news coverage this August, an event that will be watched by more than three billion people worldwide. If that isn't notable I don't know what is. I mean the guy has won an Emmy.

Here's a link to the NBC Nightly News article that lists him as a correspondent and here's a profile of him by PBS from a show he works on there: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/globalwatch/about.html.

NewsGuru (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)NewsGuru[reply]

Restore - While the article did not indicate the importance/significance of its subject all too clearly, I don't think that an article with 4 sources should be speedy deleted under criterion A7, especially when some of the sources are reliable. In any case, an article about a chief correspondent for NBC News and winner of an Emmy Award needs more consideration (i.e. AfD) – if it should be deleted at all, that is. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Black Falcon. Hut 8.5 06:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore a very poor speedy. Asserting a national correspondent for major networks is assertion of importance enough to pass speedy, referenced or unreferenced. with the references, it should be enough to pass AfD as well. I notice the deleting admin has deleted 81 articles in the last 24 hours; Fellow admins may want to review them. I have notified him of this discussion. DGG (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

M4+2 engine – Closing with no action. The article has been userfied and has been subsequently merged with other content and substantially modified from the deleted version. Therefore there is nothing further for DRV to consider. The user is encouraged to seek further review from others to determine if there is any question as to the new article's notability, and if appropriate, to move the improved article to mainspace under the appropriate title. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons for deletion given by nominator no longer exist. At least 4 out of 5 references are valid sources according to WP:N, and after they were added there were no more votes. So I don't understand the ruling of the closing administrator. I was sure the AfD procedure is not a majority vote, otherwise any attempt to improve the article during such procedure would be just pure waste of time. Please reconsider relisting it one more time. greg park avenue (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From closing admin, copied from User talk:BanyanTree#M4+2 engine: "Later AFD participants had a chance to evaluate the journal article, which appears to be the strongest support for notability, and still thought it merited deletion. I looked over the web-based articles and none appeared to have the weight of a journal article. (The cosmetic changes obviously don't establish notability, neither does the patent link as nobody is disputing that it exists.) I am satisfied that this is an accurate reading of the consensus." Note that I suggested DRV if the user remained unsatisfied. Banyan Tree 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what participants in the AfD discussion later think? You must just be a mindreader, are you?. And it is not true what you suspect or speculate; for example: User:JeremyMcCracken acknowledged in the AfD discussion that he was not for deletion (forgetting that he was the first one to vote for it) but for notability or its lack, but he suspected that notability has been reached after the article had been significantly improved (not just cosmetic changes you have implied), still he can't handle Polish. Can you? Yet you sound like you can handle this but I don't think you can handle this, having been an expert in the field of engineering notwithstanding. That's why I tagged this article with the "expert" template hoping the participitants in the discussion and closing admin will have at least BA in this area of expertise or something close, but obviously those are in demand here in Wikipedia. That should answer your question why no one took part in this discussion after proper references were added. If it was an obvious hoax or advertisement or autobiography, many Polish-American Wikipedians who are active here would cry wolf and vote for deletion. But they kept their distance since they're mostly historians and just would not like to interfere. And I just asked for another re-listing after which one new faces always appear, not for argument who is right or who is not. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fix't AfD link above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to nominator: If you believe that the article deserves to be here, you might want to try recreating it. Assuming, of course, that you can write it so that it won't qualify for WP:CSD#G4 while you're at it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saved it by pure premonition it would be deleted. Now I am recreating it in unabridged version M4+2 engine/Temporary. Hope, didn't break any rules. Subject to speedy deletion after this review is resolved. greg park avenue (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the temporary page for now; since it doesn't preserve the edit history of the original article, it violates the GFDL license. If you'd like to work on the article, its content (and page history) could be restored and moved to a subpage of your user page... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have created a subpage on my User:Greg park avenue page titled "M4+2 engine/Temp" ([46] and I would like to restore this article here together with its history, don't know how to do it though. Hope you can help. Sorry for violating GFDL, didn't mean that. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) I've moved the article's content and history to User:Greg park avenue/M4+2 engine (basically, I undeleted the article and moved it to a subpage of your user page). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated for your help - you made my day. Added 2 more independent references - one from Germany, one from Spain - about this invention. From some fair or exposition I guess. Both in English this time. Also 2 links related to this concept - 2/4 engine from UK and US. I think it's enough to relist this article one more time. I think a note to list of Technology-related deletion discussions should be included this time to speed up the process. Besides, what the big deal about re-listing? The AfD nom didn't even bother to ask for an expert opinion. Cheers! greg park avenue (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to User:Greg park avenue/Two and four stroke engines after incorporating new design of 2/4 stroke engine from UK. Hope shouldn't be a problem since this article is about this particular concept of invention, not an inventor. greg park avenue (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Magic: The Gathering rules – withdrawn / 'no consensus' closure endorsed; no prejudice to renomination of the article at AfD after an appropriate period of time. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AFD was closed as no-consensus, the discussion concerning whether this fell under WP:GAMEGUIDE was somewhat controversial. I'm not arguing against the decision that this didn't fufil the criteria to be deleted under GAMEGUIDE, but that considering the nature of the AfD, I'm requesting that it be re-opened and re-listed to garner additional discussion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin, I'm not in principle opposed to a relist, if people here think this might yet yield a "delete" consensus – but I think this is not very likely. Could you explain why you think otherwise? (For future reference, it's more polite to ask the closing admin first instead of going straight to DRV.) Sandstein (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No consensus was a reasonable call. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was entirely reasonable from where I stand. Usually, asking to overturn no consensus closes at DRV doesn't go anywhere, since anyone can just relist it on their own. However, I'd suggest waiting a few weeks, or at least a few days. That way it won't seem to be a rush job, and you'll have more time to think up more reasons to delete it as well. I would also like to note that I'm probably biased towards the article overall, since I used to play Magic, so my opinions on this subject may reflect that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - not an obviously wrong close. If the nominator remains concerned then a relist is the way to go. BlueValour (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally just felt that the discussion wasn't as through as it could be, I'm still sort of new here, but now I know next time that a relist in a few weeks would have been more appropriate. Sorry for wasting your time guys, I'm perfectly fine with withdrawing this! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Centurion (Scarrow novel) – Overturn and refactor closing decision as No consensus. The decision to relist at AfD is left to the discretion of others. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 argued for keep versus 3 for delete and just before the AfD was closed even more sources were added thereby indicating that any sourcing issues were actively being addressed. Thus, the discussion was if not a keep, then at least a no consensus. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: it was fairly clear that some of the "keep" votes were WP:ILIKEIT and thus weren't weighted the same as other comments. I have offered to userfy this article to allow the sourcing to continue, but as it was the article didn't demonstrate notability. - Philippe 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletes were mostly of the repetitive WP:JNN argument to avoid variety, whereas those advocating keep found multiple sources and improved the article during the course of the discussion and were still in the process of doing so as the discussion ended. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the only person who voted to keep based on my opinion, the others supplied reasons and evidence of notability. So there is still at least 2 voters (Eastmain and Grand Roi) with various evidence of notability, whereas the people wanting to delete just said - no evidence of notability, though it has been proven that it is notable, so they are wrong to delete it. Rigsy05 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I added a book review from the Yorkshire Evening Post at http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/book-reviews/Centurion-.3905940.jp just before the article was deleted, and I was about to add one from the Coventry Telegraph, http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/whats-on-coventry-warwickshire/book-reviews-and-news/2008/04/21/centurion-by-simon-scarrow-headline-12-99-92746-20794309/ , and I think that would have been enough to establish notability. Besides, the book was on the Sunday Times bestseller list (not a notability criterion, but a strong hint that the book might be notable). --Eastmain (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. The new source still doesn't go far enough to demonstrate notability, but that's beside the point. As I read them, the keep votes generally do not address policy, instead they stay pretty much in the realm of WP:ILIKEIT. Trusilver 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The keep arguments address policy by providing multiple sources to demonstrate notability. The delete votes rather tend to be more WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What he said ^^ Rigsy05 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at AfD - One of the sources (the Yorkshire Evening Post review) was added just five minutes before the AfD was closed, and there is apparently at least one other source. Since neither the arguments for keeping nor those for deleting were especially decisive or overwhelming, relisting the article at AfD to permit evaluation of the new sources would be appropriate, in my opinion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on the basis of the review and the best seller status. That it was a Sunday Times Best seller was present in the article from the beginning, and mentioned in the discussion. The !keep votes were in large part based on that, and that is soundly grounded in policy. The close seems to have been made without proper consideration of either the discussion or the final state of the article. DGG (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per DGG. Over the course of the AfD discussion the article was improved from a near-speedy candidate to an article that was reasonably worth keeping. --Finngall ^talk 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist If I didn't offer other evidences of notability this time, it's because I honestly thought that notability were established, I didn't !vote based on WP:ILIKEIT. If the neutrality is still disputed, then relist. Cenarium^Talk 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion The "sources" adduced to establish notability per WP:BK are a canard since the subject itself is not sufficiently meritorious per the WP:N standard therein elaborated for its own article, whereas the sources address only vague WP:V and WP:RS concerns, which are themselves not even at issue. Eusebeus (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I cannot see the article at present so I cannot comment on its merits, however, the AfD looked more like a no consensus to me, especially if, as has been suggested, the article was being changed almost up until the second it was deleted. It may very well turn out to be that deletion is indeed the appropriate action, but I'd feel better about it with a few more eyes on it and a clearer consensus. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The article had plenty of proof of notability and was being continually improved by various people. /Unrelated/ Thanks to Eastmain for adding the links to reviews. Rigsy05 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Numerous sources have been provided above. We generally should have article on bestsellers. Catchpole (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find two keep votes which I would have discounted. As such, overturn and close as no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Releeshahn – Page history userfied to User:OranL/Releeshahn. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: User:OranL/Releeshahn -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saavedro – Page history userfied to User:OranL/Saavedro. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: User:OranL/Saavedro -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a reasonable request. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that there is something salvageable from these articles, I have no problem with giving you access to them. Give me about a half hour, I will put the articles as they existed on your subpages. Trusilver 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bahro (Myst) – Page history userfied to User:OranL/Bahro (Myst). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: User:OranL/Bahro (Myst) -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable request. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Terahnee – Page history userfied to User:OranL/Terahnee. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: User:OranL/Terahnee -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Garternay – Page history userfied to User:OranL/Garternay. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: User:OranL/Garternay -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

D'ni kings – Page history (located at List of D'ni kings) userfied to User:OranL/D'ni kings. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review. If approved, please place on my User subpage: User:OranL/D'ni kings -- OranL (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this user access to the deleted material for review and possible incorporation into other articles. No other action should be needed. Trusilver 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 April 2008

13256278887989457651018865901401704640 (number) – Redirected to AACS encryption key controversy with deleting admin's permission. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm under the impression that where applicable, protected redirects are preferred to protected deleted pages. In this case, I see no reason why it couldn't just redirect to AACS encryption key controversy. I have left a note on the talk page of the protecting admin's salt page, but this note has gone unanswered for over three months. Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have just contacted me on my talk page... I don't mind if the article is redirected to AACS encryption key controversy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Onion Trump – Overturn. Though possibly only having a marginal potential to survive an AfD, this article should be considered by a broader base of wiipedians, and given an opportunity for improvement that often is the result of such discussions. I am restoring the article only; it shall be left to the prerogative of any wikipedian to list it at AfD as they see fit. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

00:49, 11 April 2008 Michael Greiner (Talk | contribs) deleted "Onion Trump" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. using TW) - this speedy deletion was incorrect as the band meets criteria 6 from WP:BAND viz "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." - in this case Richie Edwards making the band de facto assertedly notable. (Talk Exxolon (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - meeting a criterion of WP:BAND is certainly enough to avoid a speedy deletion. BlueValour (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Could an admin undelete this page and fully protect it so that participants in this discussion can see what it was like before it was speedy deleted? — scetoaux (T|C) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied it to User:Scetoaux/Onion Trump Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The band appears to have certified notability by the inclusion of Richie Edwards. Notability itself can be established at an AfD if someone else deems it necessary. But as it stands, the article does not qualify for speedy deletion. — scetoaux (T|C) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; the article doesn't claim they've released anything, that they had any notability at all, besides some possible side-notability by Richie Edwards. I see nothing that couldn't be validly merged to The Darkness or Richie Edwards. I guess it does technically meet one part of WP:BAND, and hence isn't a speedy candidate. --Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as well, for much the same reasons as above. A quick Gooble web search doesn't seem to indicate much notability by WP:N, which we'd want to verify that it does meet WP:BAND. I'd suggest working on the userfied version, it's most likely to get the article back up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD. Article doesn't quite qualify for speedy due to contested notability (it does fulfill a small part of WP:MUSIC guidelines, albeit not much.) I would favour redeleting it in any AfD discussion due to lack of sources and insufficient notability, but it does deserve its day in court, a proper consensus, and a chance to improve. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not only should this not have been speedied, I don't think it warrants deletion at all. It should be taken to AfD so the community, not the admins, can decide whether or not it is notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list with respect to the admin who deleted it. There are most certainly a lot of articles like this that warrant a speedy, but this one was probably a bad call. aliasd·U·T 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Giant Bomb – There was insufficient support to overturn the closing decision. Suggest userfy and present an improved article for consideration, or make the redirect more specific to a section on the target article that can be expanded. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was speedy deleted because it "doesn't indicate importance/significance".[47] But I think its notable. This website was created by someone notable, Jeff Gerstmann. Plus the launch of this site was covered by X-Play [48] any many other sources:[49][50][51][52] If you want to go Alexa raking, Giant Bomb has a higher ranking than other video game websites with Wikipedia articles. Like Gaming Target [53]. Also theres countless amount of media coverage regarding Jeff's firing and future plans.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure enough here for an overturn !vote, but I can tell you that an easier solution is probably to recreate an article on top of the redirect. Or you can reference the Giant Bomb section of the redirect target, since it's currently unsourced. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp Minsi – Userfied article so editor may present an improved version for a future restore request. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was re-created in an attempt to address the issues brought up in a previous AfD. The new incarnation of was an appropriate article covring a notable Scout camp, and asserted its nobility in line with other local council camp articles of equal or lesser notability. The article was well-sourced and well-written and (most importantly here) was significantly different than the one that was deleted in the AfD. The article was deleted under G4 ("Recreation of deleted material"), however it was not the same as the material contested in the AfD. If one feels that the issue of notability is not adequately addressed in the new article (although I feel nobility was adequately asserted and cited) that issue can be addressed with some discussion (possibly even an AfD if one feels strongly about the topic); but deleting this new article speedily per G4 with absolutely no discussion, consensus or notification (and then locking the page) was not the appropriate action here -- it was not a recreation of deleted material, but rather was a genuine attempt to create a quality article covering a notable topic (albeit a topic that was previously deleted due to an old article that poorly constructed). -- Minsi (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. I suggest that you stop trying the same thing over and over; DRV has already ruled on this. Camp Minsi should stay salted; your only real hope is making a seriously better article in userspace, and using it to argue for an article in mainspace. If that has a hope; I might have closed the AfD as "no consensus", but trying to repeatedly stick the article back without going to DRV first hasn't helped your case one bit. Nor has repeatedly posting to DRV with essentially the same argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought this up again was because there was no consensus (either way) from the last DRV; and because no on really addressed my main argument last time - they all talked about what they felt was a subjectivly weak assertion of notability and not the real issue of the deletion which was if this was a fair speedy delete under G4 (Recreation of deleted material)..... Well, could someone userfy the deleted article so I could attempt to make a "seriously better article" in my userspace? Minsi (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; previous DRV's for this article:

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Article has been userfied to User:Minsi/Camp Minsi note that the previous article was previously userfied to User:Evrik/Camp Minsi, as well. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 April 2008

Image:Giafront.jpg – Closer is now of a different opinion so undeleted. All's well with the world. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fair use image for a deceased individual with the impossibility of obtaining an open soure image (back in the days who would take a picture of a model and then abandon the copyright?). This image should be restored and added to the article. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - The FUR looks reasonable to me; at the very least it merits an IfD. Doesn't look like process was followed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin says restore - Hmm, I might have been wrong on this one and not realised she was actually not living. Sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ray Ventura – Incoherant request. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please. Mistakes? --TarzanASG (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Is there a reason for challenging the article's deletion? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No Use For Nickels – Deletion endorsed and note the deletion code should have been CSD#A7, not CSD#A4, but this does not warrant undeletion. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is significantly different from the original version. The article is clearer about the fictional elements of the organisation. The organisation does not actually destroy or promote the destruction of Canadian currency. It is merely a social group that actually exists in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada that has based its website on the pretend notion that the nickel (Canadian coin) should no longer be circulated. Although this “war against the nickel” is a joke, the organisation has made videos and written “facts” about the subject (also meant to be taken as jokes). All 95+ members listed on the NUFN website are real people who have themselves decided to become members. An article about the No Use For Nickels Organisation is as notable as one about any other club or organisation. With time the article should be able to be improved substantially. Thank you for considering this request. Juliancaza (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Was speedied as a G4, but the previous AfD linked to was closed as a speedy the same day it was opened. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization in question is fictional, and the portions that are real are irrefutably non-notable. This article has no place in an encyclopedia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted should have been specified as A7 rather than G4, but I think it was a harmless slip of the mouse. A valid speedy. A club without claim to notabilityDGG (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by deleting admin I agree that I should have changed the CSD from G4 (the tagger's reason) to A7, given the nature of the AFD. Regardless, the article is still meets the A7 criteria and so I believe it should stay deleted. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that voids my concern pretty well. Change to neutral, only because I can't see the article in question. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by original editor To clarify, the NUFN is a real organisation with a fictional cause. All 95+ members are real. Sorry, I may not have made this clear originally. Juliancaza (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that's not the reason it was deleted. It was deleted because the article doesn't tell us why the organisation is important. Why it deserves an article. I hope this helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by original editor Thanks for your comment lifebaka. I would argue that the fact that the organisation is real and that the membership is substantial makes it as important as any organisation.Juliancaza (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Gayl.pdf – This is a very moving tribute. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it could be turned into an encyclopedia article. Deletion respectfully endorsed. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The doctor in question had a significant on the practice of emergency medicine and emergency medicine law as well as setting the nationwide legal precedent for precluding the admission of students for psychiatric observation when they seem to pose a threat to other students on a campus or in a school. The case served as the basis for current legal education concerning when to avoid admission of patients for psychiatric observation if they pose a public safety risk before they have committed an overt act, such as shooting someone or stabbing someone. The case in question occurred years before Columbine and is still cited and remains unique. If necessary I can include the legal discussion related to the case and the eventual ruling by the Michigan State Supreme Court. Mstytz (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Part of the problem was that this was a PDF file consisting of plain text. If you want to get text into Wikipedia, you should type it in as text rather than trying to upload a PDF file as an image. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - unwanted PDF file because Wikipedia is not a repository for source texts, potential copyvio. Are US state rulings in the public domain? MER-C 13:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (note: I nominated it for IfD) not only is this in the wrong format but it would need to be completely rewritten as the tone and most of the content are unencyclopedic. I understand if you are upset about your wife's death, but Wikipedia is not the place to build a memorial. I doubt this is a copyvio though. Hut 8.5 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - extremely moving. However, as described above, it needs to be converted to plain text and rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. WP:DEV, WP:BIO, and WP:RS may help. BlueValour (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 April 2008

Followers of Set – Contested prof automatically restored. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of the 13 major clans in Vampire: The Masquerade. See: Clans in Vampire: The Masquerade. Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list at AFD. This is a contested WP:PROD and should be undeleted and brought to AFD for discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If undeleted, I think it should be userfied until the notability concerns are addressed, which was the reason for the prod in the first place. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO The AfD should be combined with the two other entries to establish a guideline for VtM clans. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as combined AfDs typically muddy the waters and often result in "No concensus" results, which then end up being nominated separately. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not sure what happened here but AFD seems more appropriate than a speedy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a speedy, it was a WP:PROD. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cappadocian (World of Darkness) – Contested prod automatically restored. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of the major clans in Vampire: The Dark Ages. Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list at AFD. This is a contested WP:PROD and should be undeleted and brought to AFD for discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If undeleted, I think it should be userfied until the notability concerns are addressed. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not sure what happened here but AFD seems more appropriate than a speedy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy, it was an expired WP:PROD. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salubri – Contested prod automatically restored. Any interested party can list at AfD. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of the major clans in Vampire: The Dark Ages. Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list at AFD. This is a contested WP:PROD and should be undeleted and brought to AFD for discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If undeleted, I think it should be userfied until the notability concerns are addressed.--Craw-daddy | T | 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not sure what happened here but AFD seems more appropriate than a speedy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an expired WP:PROD, not a speedy deletion. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 April 2008

Audubon movement – Restored by deleting admin. – Joe 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The stated case for speedy deletion was blatant advertising? In the article I discuss the history of the Audubon movement which started with John James Audubon a famous american painter in the 1800's that sprung a movement of conservation founded on bird protection. In the article I reference many separate Audubon related organizations, and talk about the network of over 500 independent Audubon Societies and groups. I also link directly to many of these independent group's pages that have already been established on Wiki. The problem with the Audubon movement is that people don't realize that there are many "Audubon's" out there. There isn't simply one single Audubon Society, but rather a movement made up of many Audubon Societies. I am completely baffled by the deletion. I've discussed this with the editor that deleted the article and he stated that it read like a press release or written poorly, but in the wiki policy on deletion it states: If a page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. The editor that deleted the page also stated that it read too much like an advertisement. I really don't understand that at all. Who is it suggested that I am advertising for? Zephyur (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. I have looked at this article. It is clearly not advertising anything, although it has a bit of a POV promoting the Audubon societies. It should be improved, not removed from wikipedia. --Bduke (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disambiguation page for Audubon could use some help. I am not certain that there is in fact an Audubon movement as an organized movement that can be discussed in an encyclopedia article; are there any references and sources discussing it as an organized movement? The deleted article does not contain any. Absent such, we'll end up with a merge or deletion after AFD, because John James Audubon#Legacy should cover the matter. But, since I don't think the speedy deletion was appropriate; overturn and list. GRBerry 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in retrospect, I think I made a mistake here. This is what happens when you're trigger-happy with the delete button and you're tired. If anybody wants to restore it that's fine with me. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more than happy to add references to support the document and the existence an Audubon Movement, but literally 5 minutes after the page was posted it vanished into the world of speedy deletion! I can't even see the article to improve upon it. Here is one of many references [54] to come. Also, I must admit I am completely new to Wiki and just learning the formatting/writing styles/requirements etc. This was in fact my first attempt at ever putting something on Wiki, and I must admit not a pleasant introduction to what I have heard is great online resource. But I do understand the need for protocols, standards etc. and also the need to error on the side of caution. Otherwise the wiki site would become filled with garbage, and so for that I am thankful that there is a team of well minded editors out there looking over stuff. Now can we get this page turned back on already! :) Zephyur (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undeleted it; somebody else can go ahead and close. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, okay, nevermind, got deleted again. I'm not terribly interested in this debate personally; I'm still in favor of restoration, though. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Restored again, I'm assuming it was only re-deleted because Veinor didn't remove the CSD tag after restoring. The article is clearly not blatant advertising imho. --Stormie (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp Minsi – repeat nomination less than 24 hours after closing the last DRV with no new information, speedy closed. – GRBerry 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was re-created in an attempt to address the issues of a previous AfD. The new incarnation was an appropriate article for a notable camp, and asserted its nobility in line with other local council camp articles. The article was well-sourced and well-written and (most importantly) was significantly different than the one that was deleted in the AfD -- it was deleted under G4 ("Recreation of deleted material"), however it was not the same as the material contested in the AfD. If one feels that the issue of notability is not adequately addressed in the new article(although I feel nobility was adequately asserted) that issue can be addressed with some discussion, but deleting the article speedily per G4 with absolutely no discussion or consensus (and then locking the page) was not the appropriate action. Minsi (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 April 2008

Christine Smith (libertarian) – Speedy close, nothing to see here. – Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accidentally deleted it 71.175.31.106 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as nothing to do here. Article was created as a redirect, deleted under CSD R1 (invalid redirect), and recreated as a proper redirect since. -- Kesh (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insitu – Speedy close; copyvio is never restored – Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

dont-recall-or-see-copyrighted B.rad (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and Speedy close - Copyvios are non-negotiable. -- Kesh (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - copyvio of http://www.insitu.com/history PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swift's printers – Speedy deletion not endorsed but the article is in the author's user space. If the author is confident that it meets the various inclusion policies and would survive AfD it should be moved back into main space right away. Would it? Probably not, but that's another story. Apart from stating the blindingly obvious, which I just did, I'm not seeing what else I can do here. Over to Ottava. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't appear to neatly fit into a speedy delete criterion, and probably worthy of a discussion at WP:AFD.--PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment As the original creator, the page was made to put forth the legal disputes that were involved over the printing of Swift's books, from the transfer of the original copyright, to the lawsuit based on the original copyright, to the Irish constitutional claims based on Faulkner publishing vs Motte publishing, and Harding's arrests for publishing material and how Swift used his arrest as an opportunity to make another move in support of Irish constitutional freedom. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your goal? Do you want this back in article space right now, as it was? We already know there's at least one editor who considers it unsuitable. Do you just want it temporarily somewhere (not in article space) for further work? The latter we can just do; no deletion review needed. Friday (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on it while working on two other pages. The page was there to place corresponding, but not pertinent, legal issues surrounding some works. The page was designed to also allow there to be links to people who are not necessarily notable, or at least notable on their own. For example, Faulkner and Motte are notable because their legal copyright battle became an issue over Irish independence and the right to publish intellectual material, but this is based on what they printed and not, necessarily, on themselves. If you look here, you will see that the page would have an extended detail on that matter which extended beyond the Drapier's Letters. However, user:Geogre has made it abundantly clear how he feels about my edits, and deleted my page to start his own. It would seem that any work of mine in the area will only be met with hostility, and the restoration of the page (while being good for those wanting information related to the publication disputes and issue constitutional theory in regards to copyright issues) will only bring me more grief, as can be testified by the various people who have supported Geogre's attacks upon my person. As for material on the issue, I have three books that devote chapters on the later legal dispute and other copyright issues. There is also many legal interpretations made on the case and what kind of impact it had for copyright law and the Irish independence issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion- even the author does not want this page back. What is there for deletion review to do? This is not the complaints department. Friday (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thats not what I said. I said I do want the page back. I don't want him harassing me over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I've userfied it to User:Ottava Rima/Printers for now. Is this good enough? Can we call this closed? Friday (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a small update on some of my information to the page so that people can have a sense of what the page will eventually turn into. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must also note at this time that I have more to add, but with the Pope's visit, access to my office and to two of my libraries is currently closed. I will also be attending his speech on education, so I will not be around tomorrow. I will try to add what I can from the few scraps that I have laying around. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and discuss Does not in the least fit into any speedy category. Deleted totally outside of process with the explanation "(Duplicate material in Jonathan Swift and articles on each work" . this is in fact true to a considerable extent, but it needs to be discussed. Not really at afd, on the talk page of the article about a merge. The plans for the article were not evident in the existing draft, which talks only about 4 of the printers in about a paragraph each. But it is not uncontroversial routine housekeeping, and that's the only conceivable speedy category.

I do not think the author actually wants to delete the page, just thinks it's hopeless to try to keep it against the opinion of an admin. Deletions based on the opinion of an admin that an article is not good, without fitting into any of the policies are simply wrong, and we need to say so clearly, and the way to do that is by restoring the article.

Friday, " We already know there's at least one editor who considers it unsuitable." is not a reason for deletion. Your opinion or mine of anyone else's about the suitability of the article is not decisive--speedy cannot be used for controversial deletions of this sort. There are a few thousand articles in WP I have noticed that I consider unsuitable, but don't fit within speedy & aren't worth the trouble of a contested AfD. I could simply delete them all, but of course I would then deserve to be desysopped. DGG (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fork. It was unforked. This could have happened just as easily without anyone using the delete button. Let's focus less on technicalities and more on content issues. Sure, "one editor considers it unsuitable" is no official reason for deletion. But it may well be a good reason to not just blindly put this stuff back in article space. We're allowed to use our judgement. Friday (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As Friday says, it's a fork. What's more, it's a fork that doesn't manage to have a tine. I used the "duplicate material" standard for a speedy instead of the more laborious form, but that's because I considered it utterly obvious. This was not "one admin's opinion." This was one admin's judgment that the case was so blindingly clear, and the article's author's statements so obviously at odds with article creation, and the contents so unbelievably null, that it was better to delete as duplicate than to go through a long talk that will result in people asking to "merge," when the material present is actually not even correct. (For only one example, look at Faulkner "born in 1699" in "Swift's printers," when he was born in 1703.) Geogre (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG. Joe 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG and list if anyone wants to. The reason for deletion was completely outside accepted practices for admin-discretion speedies, given the summary in the log. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Reasons to endorse: Needless fork trying to get out of a content dispute over OR and UNDUE in the main article. Reasons to overturn and undelete: Process wonkery. Not a tough call, endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you back up those claims with diffs that show I was involved in any content dispute? Or will you admit that you are making such claims because you don't like me based on a history that I can provide and cite with diffs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a dispute over whether this piece of content should be deleted.. We're here at deletion review because of this and you ask for diffs? Please. This is ruleslawyering of the worst kind. Friday (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, I asked for diffs of the content dispute that I was supposedly involved in and lead to me "forking" the page from another page. That claim is outright absurd, and betrays the intentions of the above user, who should recuse himself for his previous documented uncivil behavior to myself and his history of acting in such a manner with users. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Per Guy—process wonkery at it's simplest. Article wouldn't survive AfD, there's no reason to waste time and red tape by sending it there. It's been userspaced if Ottava Rima wants to make something half decent article, that actually meets some content policies and isn't a fork, out of it. Good luck to him. We don't need an AfD for that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so do you support letting any admin who cares to delete all articles they think won't survive AfD in their present form? I must mention that this was deleted by the admin in the course of an ongoing dispute over content of related articles. So it isnt only a deletion outside of process, it's using the tools in a contet dispute one is engaged in. The possibility of that happening is exactly why we need process. DGG (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think letting any admin delete anything is a good idea. My reasoning behind endorsing here is that 1) It's been userfied anyway, if he wants to work on it. 2) It would get deleted at AfD. If this was speedy tagged or something, I would support removing that tag and going to AfD. Now that it's already been deleted, I don't think going back to AfD to redelete is necessary, or "worth it". I understand your content dispute comments...that in itself isn't a reason to overturn (since the deletion was correct, IMO), but it could be a problem, and you could go up the DR tree (or just trout slap him) if you thought it necessary, or worth it. I don't think we should undelete for process sake something that will be redeleted at AfD...let him work on it in userspace if he likes. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this has been userfied then there's no policy or guideline stopping anyone from moving it back into article space, and requiring an AfD. I'm very tempted to do just that. -- Ned Scott 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make this fork any more pointy than it already is, please? -- Kesh (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: process wonkery my ass (and I'm usually easy to "process wonkery" conclusions). It's a basic tenet of adminship not to delete on a whim—say, because an article doesn't suit your vision, or because you don't like the article creator's style. Is this not as clear-cut as "deletion review" gets? Perhaps it's moot, if the fellow wants to work on it in userspace, but it's an "overturn" in principle. –Outriggr § 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh? Outriggr, would you care to tell me what my "whim" was, or "vision" was? See below. Do not announce my motives. It's a basic tenet of Wikipedia to discuss the edits, not the person. Geogre (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll clarify my "tonish" comment above and explain about "whim". I take single-handed article deletion seriously, and I expect that any administrator will unilaterally delete only the stupidest, most pointless articles. That's not what happened here, so I called it "whim", because it looked like whim to me. If the article is "stupid", it is not stupid in the sense of "Bob is cute (end of article}" or "The Nile is a river (end of article)". No, the question that has to be asked here, and ideally would be asked at "Articles for Deletion" if that had happened, is to determine whether "Swift's printers" is a topic that exists synthetically, "in the literature" as it were, in such a way that Wikipedia could cover it; or whether the article is indeed a "coatrack". That is not the type of decision that is within the purview of "speedy deletion", whether or not the deleting admin is an expert in the area. (Am I wrong?) Now, some more context: the deleter appeared to be in a disagreement with the article creator, and the article creator appeared/appears to be working in good faith in the subject area of the deleted article. In this context especially, is speedy deletion appropriate? Did the deleter ask the article creator what his intent was with the article? Did he communicate that he would submit the article for deletion because he didn't believe the subject had a synthetic existence "in the literature"? No, he appears to have just deleted it. I don't see the communication occurring here, in this, a context that deserves it (the type of communication that the deleter so rightly expounds should occur more in other venues). It was not a speedy deletion candidate. Talk about its synthetic value (its potential as an article, in addition to its current content), take it to AfD, but don't just make it disappear. –Outriggr § 00:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) [resigned from user:Outrigger][reply]

Overturn. There was no valid rationale for deletion, period. I may not believe that this would pass AFD, but it certainly fell under no speedy criteria. CSD is not for admins to substitute their judgement for the community, it's a janitorial task to clean up within certain carefully prescribed limitations.--Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Deletion did not meet any CSD, nor was it the result of an XfD. I'm unsure why we are even bothering with DRV in such a clear-cut case. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted: Here is the rationale:
1. The material at the page (name, dates, 'he printed for Swift') was present in several articles. In some cases, there were full biographies of the figures, but, even where none of those existed, that much material was present at each work's article (A Tale of a Tub, Gulliver's Travels) and, of course, the proper place, Jonathan Swift. That is a speedy deletion rationale.
2. The page was not merely created, but was the target of a redirect he/she put up for every bookseller who didn't have an article.
3. The article was misnamed. Swift's "printers?" Suppose a college student wanted to know who published Gulliver. Suppose that person doesn't know that he's supposed to go to The Drapier Letters (not Drapier Letters, not The Drapier's Letters) to find the sole link to this page. Would he type in "Swift's printers" in a search box? Printer, publisher, editor, or bookseller? Or would the person simply look at the Swift article?
4. The article was a lie. These people were not Swift's printers. (John Nutt, not mentioned in this list, was a printer.) They were between publishers and editors and printers.... The relationship is cloudy during this era, which is what makes it important to know what they did and how, which is why putting them in an unsearchable stub is a bad idea.
Had the article been at AfD, it would have been unbelievably clear. It's an orphan, a glorified stub, and duplicate material. The primary author has said that he created it not to talk about Swift's printers, but rather to talk about one printer. Well, isn't that when you create a biography or a section? Weird. Geogre (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're at WP:DRV, not WP:AFD. What is "unbelievably clear" for one editor might not be seen the same way by another, and we shouldn't assume that people will agree with that point of view (no matter how obvious it might seem to that person). This is why it's so important that we don't delete articles in this way, and it's why we have AfD. This clearly does not meet any CSD, not by a long shot, and you've had personal disputes with the article's author. -- Ned Scott 10:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for orienting me to where I am. I do get lost. It's my judgment and discretion as an administrator that's at stake here, and that was informed by my scholarship, experience, and knowledge of Wikipedia. The rationale above was not an AfD rationale, but the rationale that I used when deciding to delete. This was because "duplicate material" is a speedy delete criterion, and this was duplicate material. It was created as a fork. It was also created, the author says, to talk about only one person, but the author didn't want, apparently, to write a biography (too much research? not enough material available? those are proofs that the material should be discussed at Swift or at the work in question). So, here's someone making a fork for no legitimate reason, and it contains duplicate material. My judgment was that it was speedy delete for duplication. Finally, I have not had "personal disputes" with the article's author. I do not mean that merely literally, either. I have no Wikipedia relationship with the article's author. I think the author is a dunce, but I think lots of people are dunces. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think an article should be deleted. (Have I speedy deleted any article by the people I am assumed to dislike? No? What, in all this time?) The allegation that I have deleted out of vindictiveness is insupportable, insulting, and absurd. Geogre (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked at WP:CSD and I do not find any provision for speedy deletion for "duplication" -- except for images and other media, redirects, and foreign language articles. Maybe I missed it, can you give a exact quotation? Sometimes obvious duplicates have been deleted as G6, Housekeeping, but that is limited to " Non-controversial maintenance". DGG (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy and Geogre. No need to waste time on this. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, on principle. I do agree with Folantin above that, the article having been userfied, there is no need for further action here. That said, the original speedy deletion was also obviously inappropriate (I'd very much like to hear which criterion is supposed to have applied), and indeed the proper response, once the article had been deleted and the deletion contested, should have been speedy undeletion on grounds of the issue being evidently not uncontroversial. Sure, the article may have had problems — indeed, some are obvious. It might have qualified for a merge or even just plain redirection, it might not have survived AfD, it might even have succumbed to a simple, well-reasoned {{prod}}. But we do have WP:CSD for a reason, and this was not one of the times for ignoring it — nobody would've died or been sued just because of the article existing for a week longer. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Are we really going to have to go through an AFD that is going to have the exact same outcome? Process for process' sake is a pointless waste of time. Ani Mate 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like there is some disagreement here over what the result of the AfD would be. the way to find out is to have it. Even more important is the principle that no administrator can delete unilaterally except as provided by policy. Otherwise we'll have a free for all. Given there are over 1000 active administrators, each with different views, I wonder how much would be left. DGG (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Article has already been userfied, and its current incarnation reads like a ~~POV~~ WP:COATRACK for legal issues that occurred during Swift's career. Overturning at this point would be process for process' sake. Let's let the user work on this, and we can review it afterwards to see if it should be moved back to article space, or deleted fully. -- Kesh (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The legal issues extended beyond Swift's life, and eventually turned into a constitutional issue based on conflicting copyright laws between Ireland and England. Also, please explain what part of the article is biased when it deals with a conflict between the people that the article is about and has not favored one side or another that was not endorsed by credible and reasonable sources on the matter? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was biased, I said it was a WP:COATRACK for the legal issues. The article claims to be about one thing ("Swift's printers") and instead goes straight into noting all the arguments over copyright. The premise that the article is about the printers fails, because it really isn't: it's about Swift's opinions and the litigation matters. -- Kesh (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about Swift's opinion in the page at all. I don't know if you have read the same page, but as writer to the page, nothing is stated by Swift except to form basis if he actually gave permission to a publication or not before his death. Furthermore, COATRACK is primarily about biased pages. Hence "in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." right there at the top. If you don't see the connection between COATRACK and bias, I really don't know how to respond to you, except to ask you to chose your words in a very different manner. Your ruleslawyering doesn't seem to be backed up by anything you have actually provided. Furthermore, legal issues over printing of material by printers is surely about "printers". If anything, your dispute would be over the name that, surprisingly, is fixed by a simple move. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the pamphlet, Swift argued that Harding was "a poor Man perfectly Innocent.

So, yes, Swift's opinions are part of the article as written. On the second matter, coatracking is often used for biased pages, but the general term applies to anything where the article purports to be about one subject, but really is about another. As you put it: legal issues over printing of material by printers is surely about "printers". However, the entire article is really a setup for the legal issues and not an article about the printers themselves. If it were primarily about the printers, it would be about them, with the legal issues as a small sub-section per WP:UNDUE. That's why this fits the aspect of a coatrack, in my opinion. Most of the article is about "X got arrested" and "Y Legal Battle." If you want to rename it "Copyright issues Swift's works" or something similar, that would help, but the article would need more work to make it clear that this is the focus of the page. And, frankly, I don't see that as necessitating a page of its own; it would easily fit in as a paragraph or two under either Johnathan Swift or articles about the works in question. The bits about people getting arrested are rather tangential to the subject.

Honestly, I have no emotional investment here, but I get the distinct impression you are getting angry over this. My intent was not to upset anyone, but to explain why I feel the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines as of yet. And this discussion is starting to get beyond the intent of DRV. -- Kesh (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry? Why? Because I asked you to back up a claim of rules violation? I'm sorry, but demanding evidence is not a sign of "anger". However, common decency and respect would call for someone to provide evidence to back up such claims before making them. As I have already demonstrated, your claims were patently false and based on a misunderstanding of language of a rule, which is demonstrated by your statement above in which you were not talking about "bias" at all. I suggest you strike your comments, instead of accusing people of being "angry" in order to misdirect criticism against your words. And it is not just on copyright issues, but legal issues resulting from the printing of Swift's material. It has nothing to do with Jonathan Swift, except that it was his work. It has everything to do with the printers. It would be completely off topic. The incidents are notable because of their involvement with early Irish constitutional problems, not because of Jonathan Swift. Furthermore, this is a discussion that belongs on that page's talk page, but there is nothing in Wikipedia that shows it shouldn't be there based on Verifiability and Notability guidelines, and those are the two guidelines that apply right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So, yes, Swift's opinions are part of the article as written." Actually, that was a pamphlet produced anonymously and was propaganda, so you can't make any claims that it is based on his opinion. Sorry. Also, "the general term applies to anything where the article purports to be about one subject" If you read the lead, you would see that it deals with legal issues with printers. So, you can't make that argument either. "However, the entire article is really a setup for the legal issues and not an article about the printers themselves." I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how the beginning has biography about the printers, how they first started printing for Swift, and then the later sections deals with how the printers were involved in legal battles over their role as printers, then, well, I don't think you actually bothered to read what was written. "with the legal issues as a small sub-section " Haha, thats absolutely absurd. UNDUE clearly says to give each based on the amount of publicity and information out there. The other sections have far more about them then the simple biography/background of the other sections, especially in terms of Constitutional theory. Once again you play ruleslawyer without actually using the rule. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your emotional investment in this matter, I see no point in banging my head against the wall of your opinion. My comments stand. -- Kesh (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proof that I am "emotionally invested", especially when my language has been completely cold and abstract. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This, I think, is a gross misapplication of WP:COATRACK. If indeed he had copyright disputes with his printers, then we should rightfully cover them in an article on the printers. Coatrackery would apply if in mentioning his printers the article descended into or unrelated issues, but I don't see how copyright lawsuits are tangential to his relationship with his printers; I would call them essential. Personally, I would break out the lawsuit as a separate article entirely (with the amount of cited material it could easily stand on its own), but I don't see how it is inappropriate in this article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn I frankly don't care much about the fact that it has been userfied. We don't need deletions like this. Period. DGG explains this very well. I don't know why we have so much trouble getting this into peoples heads. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow for a reason. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Process is important... — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Due process is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Wikipedia doesn't do due process - we do common sense and clue. The article was clearly unsuitable, so why the hell would you want to restore it? I've done deletions like this before, and there's nothing wrong with doing so, provided the encyclopaedia really does benefit. Moreschi2 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide the community with what aspects you feel make the article "clearly unsuitable"? Because many have already expressed their opinion on the matter, and "why the hell would you want to restore it" is rather condescending and uncivil in regard to their viewpoint. It would seem odd that you would risk offending people without providing anything to back up your own assertions. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre speaks for me in this case. I've had a look at the article, and I agree with his analysis of it. And, again, why the hell would I care about the risk of offending anyone? That is not my concern. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that procedure and policy about civility don't apply to you? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we deal with things where one person's idea of "common sense and clue" does not agree with that of others? We do it by consensus of the community , which we find by following the rules. We do not get it by arbitrary action the way one person thinks right, and hope that others will let him get away with it regardless. This was deleted by an admin who is continuing to quote a speedy deletion reason that does not exist: "This was because "duplicate material" is a speedy delete criterion". If a candidate at AfD said that, they would not be given the tools. I am really startled by the endorses here, because this is a clear violation of the basic deletion policy. I do not defend the article. I continue to comment here because i believe that actions like this deletion must be stopped, or policy degenerates into who has the strongest friends. WP IS NOT AN ANARCHY DGG (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Dhartung. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Due process is required. We can't work on common sense because common sense doesn't exist. My common sense is that this shouldn't be deleted in the first place. At all. Other people have different notions of what should be obvious. We have to find consensus for the extreme act of deleting something, which is why we have XfDs. With luck, the use of A7 will decline over time as people check for sources and try to improve rather than delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. Not a clear-cut deletion and not qualified for speedy. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Susan Hubbard – Overturned and most recent incarnation undeleted, can be sent to AfD by anyone who cares to do so. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page "Susan Hubbard" was deleted and is now protected from recreation due to "repeated recreation of page about a non-notable person," yet the America author Susan Hubbard does not meet the criteria of a "non-notable" person. She has written over 26 award-winning short stories and essays, has published 6 books (2 of which are recently published by Simon and Schuster) and is currently professor of creative writing at the University of Central Florida. She is quite notable, and has received teaching awards from Syracuse University, Cornell University, the University of Central Florida, and the South Atlantic Adminstrators of Departments of English. She has been a Writer in Residence at Pitzer College, Claremont, CA; Georgia State College and University, Milledgeville, GA; and The National Writer's Voice, Tampa. She has been awarded residencies at Yaddo, the Djerassi Resident Artists Project, the Virginia Center for Creative Arts, and Cill Rialaig. How is Susan Hubbard "non-notable?" Authors of less achievement have pages on Wikipedia.

Here are some links to prove her notability:

http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Susan+Hubbard&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en http://www.cce.umn.edu/mentoring/mentors/SHubbard.html http://www.simonsays.com/content/destination.cfm?tab=1&pid=484733— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillShuput (talk • contribs)

Overturn the latest three deletions not related to copyvio that all mention numerous book and journal publications and an award.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It is hard to explain how the admins who deleted it thought an article which asserted awards and multiple published books in multiple countries had no indication of notability. (My guess is that they saw the previous deletions and did not look carefully enough). DGG (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - the standard for A7 deletions is whether the article indicates importance, not whether it proves notability. The mention of the various awards is enough to preclude an A7 speedy deletion, as should be the presence of multiple references (even though they do not seem to be enough to prove notability, they should be enough to prevent speedy deletion). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, because the five different admins who have deleted this all apparently saw that the awards are not actually important ones, that the major contributor is a single purpose account, that the same single purpose account created the article six times, three times as a copyvio direct form the subject's site, and that any way you paint it, we are being spammed here. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omgfivedifferentadmins do not speak for the community. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG!! Five people, mops or not, does not consensus make. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The award she won is apparently worthy of its own page Janet Heidinger Kafka Prize, and she has multiple books published and translated (I even found translations in my Dutch library, not of high literature, but still..) The fact that creator is desperate to get the page, can't be a reason to delete it. Joost 99 (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn does not meet CSD. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; seems to have met the level of demanding an AfD. Guy, we don't delete something because any number of admins have deleted it; we have to have a reason going beyond "I said so".--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Does not meet CSD. I also agree with Ned Scott: the five admins who deleted the page do not speak for the community. Furthermore, if we go the route of how many admins support what, in addition to the other users supporting an overturn of the deletion, there are three other admins who feel that deletion was inappropriate. — scetoaux (T|C) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Ned Scott. "omgfivedifferentadmins do not speak for the community." Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and slap deleting admin with a trout. Subject doesn't come anywhere near a speedy. Lots of sources, reviews, awards, and essays regarding the subject available from which to write an article. Should have been improved, not deleted. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 April 2008

Banderlog – history restored below redirect – GRBerry 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! :) In March, this article was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, Nandesuka deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? Thanks! :)

I would ask the deleting admin directly, but it seems they are on an extended wikibreak. BOZ (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History merge. I've gone ahead and just created the redirect, but a history merge for GFDL's sake would still be good. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - yes, could someone restore the history to Banderlog please? :) BOZ (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Stifle (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. :) BOZ (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiJob – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been cleaned up, opinion removed, references supplied following previous deletion. Redsuperted (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following an earlier deletion I re-wrote this article about the website WikiJob. I included sources and took out speculation and inappropriate content. However, some was left in and I have now taken this out - the article should read more objectively, and I have used references to back up my information. The "mentions in the press" section can be taken out or made in to further references - what do people think of these sections? Are they allowed?

Further to this, when this article was deleted links to WikiJob.co.uk were blacklisted - please could this blacklisting be removed? -- Redsuperted (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I am sure Redsuperted has a COI (to put it mildly). Wait until an independent person writes the site up. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi - Yes I do have a certain level of COI BUT - please check here - http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Redsuperted/sandbox for a new version of this article without previous subjective opinion. Redsuperted (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Spam article on site that was spammed and is now blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi JzG..this isn't a spam article and I find that reasonably derogatory considering the time and effort I spent editing this and re-editing this to attempt to make sure it conformed to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Yes, it may have been "spammy" to start with, but I am a new member of wikipedia and at first, was unsure of how articles were made. I did not intend to simply SPAM wikipedia, but to make an article about the website WikiJob. This is a web/magazine that receives 30,000 uniques a month and I feel it has a place on Wikipedia.
Furthermore WikiJob is only lacklisted because YOU blacklisted it, so to endorse deletion based on your own blacklisting....isn't that just plain ridiculous? ? ? please re-examine my sandow page here http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Redsuperted/sandbox Redsuperted (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed and re-edited WikiJob page

Please see edited and updated version here - http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Redsuperted/sandbox - I have taken out all subjectivity and opinion and left only fact. I do have a COI to this, but honestly, what is in my sandbox is not subjective. If you find it so, please suggest how I can changes things for the better. Redsuperted (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you think it's not spam, but clearly you are not objective. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You say that, but why specifically?Redsuperted (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Guy If you have a COI then leave it for some other editor to write the article. Real world sourcing (i.e published media) is lacking as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, I deleted the logo since it was unsourced and clearly had to be a copyvio and was only being used in userspace against our non free content criteria. If the article does get restored you can reupload the image but must make sure that you comply with the criteria if its not to get deleted again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above and Sandbox page. The fact that it's not notable is going to make anything written by someone with a conflict of interest come off as blatant advertising. --Smashville^BONK! 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
....but if you read the article, it's not blatant advertising. Read the sandbox, there is no advertorial there. Perhaps you could read the article before judging the article!! :) Redsuperted (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the sandbox. Hence, "Endorse per...Sandbox page". Not to mention that your entire - ENTIRE - edit history has consisted of adding links to this site to articles or making edits related to adding links to this site. That is just simply not a good conflict of interest. --Smashville^BONK! 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per sandbox at User:Redsuperted/sandbox. No independent sourcing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per all above. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Guy - if you have a conflict of interest you should wait for someone else to write the article. Hut 8.5 09:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If people feel that my conflict of interest means that this - http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Redsuperted/sandbox - is not acceptable, could anyone actually just look at - http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Redsuperted/sandbox - and make the necessary edits to make it acceptable and then publish the article? Would this not be the simplest/easiest thing for everyone. ? Redsuperted (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion Aside from the COI issue (which could be easily handled by having other editors examine the article and keep track of it beyond the initial recreation) none of the sources are non-trivial. They are all passing mentions. This doesn't appear to meet notability. It might in the future but at this point I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guernsey Live – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD debate's final outcome was the article in question lacked sources for the event to be checked. From the outcome of this debate I wrote an article improving what my friend had written so hopefully it would remain. Thus since, it has been deleted for advertising. Please see my talk page User:Dead6re for what the article was like the last time. Dead6re (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Other AfD contributors were satisfied with the sources but still questioned the notability. It's awfully hard luck having your top act (Pete Doherty) banged up! And sadly this makes the event less likely to succeed. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia for advertising - OK, Dead6re, I don't think you have any COI. But just be patient, son, it's only a fortnight to go. Let the event happen, let's see how many people turn up and, more importantly, what the media think about it and then we might reconsider. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay its bad luck to have out Sunday headliner put in jail but I think the organiser Warren Holt on behalf of Positiv Productions is doing well. He managed to get another headliner (The Enemy) within 7 days. Perhaps it doesn't look the best but the organiser is committed to the event and I highly doubt the event will be cancelled again for the second time. Dead6re (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Non-notable at the present time, Wikipedia is not an advertisement source. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was advertising, it would be written in a much different form. I feel this means you have not looked at the updated article as I would agree with the previous versions. Our local newspaper did mention ticket sales after the first day and I wish I get the article that mentioned it. Dead6re (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did look at it. The subject still isn't notable yet. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the creator Markhi90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) does not inspire confidence and neither does the content. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris Frangou – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page "Chris Frangou" is unable to be created due to previous deletions on the basis that it it not notable. I disagree with this statement and i would like it to be reviewed. Chris Frangou is a notable Australian musician and he meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability.--Chrisjazzbass (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Chrisjazzbass[reply]

No offense intended, but if you don't prove it to us we can't help you. Could you please provide links to reliable sources that show that thie guy is truly notable? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Chrisjazzbass is an admitted sockpuppet of indefinetely blocked User:Chris funk bass, an enthusiastic SPA and sock-puppeteer and most likely Chris Frangou himself. I would suggest an early close but my dealings with Chris could be seen to have affected my objectivity. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and salting and, if necessary, trout-slapping. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Lifebaka. The editor requesting undeletion hasn't offered any new sources here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion I searched for new sources and was unable to find anything significant. The editor here has not supplied anything for us to even look at. Give us sources and then we can examine it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 April 2008

Image:Munch_vampire.jpg – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was either the deleting admin or the person who moved this to Commons even literate? Did they even look at the talk page? This file is not legal for Commons but is here. -Nard 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion, but the hostility is not necessary or productive. Superm401 - Talk 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oceaneering International Services – deleting admin restored one version, rest restored for GFDL compliance – GRBerry 13:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Its an NYSE traded company that should have an article, if the content was poor, that could have been fixed as a surmountable problem--Tbmorgan74 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion but allow recreation. Not sure that the latter part is really needed though. The article is not salted, so there's nothing really preventing the creation of a new, well sourced, non-spammy article at the location. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs some cleanup but never should have been deleted... "component of the S&P 600 stock market index", traded on NYSE, etc. Have we stopped reading articles before deleting them? --Rividian (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History merge. The deleting admin restored one revision, and I don't see any reason (besides possible copyvios in some revisions of the current article) why the old revisions shouldn't be in the history. Of course, if for any reason that isn't possible/realistic, the article currently exists and doesn't need a DRV. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anastasis Michael – Article has been restored already by somebody else, and it is currently listed at AFD. No further need for this discussion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC) – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

An article about a Cypriot politician, candidate for the Cypriot Presintentship. It was in Wikipedia for some time and at least 2 editors have contributed for it. I think the person is more important than many footballers, but the article was not very good. Article deleted by User:Seicer with A7. I requested undeletion so an Afd to be made and see if the article can be improved. Seicer agreed with me but within 20 minutes, User:Cobaltbluetony deleted again and refused to undelete it. Check the deletion log as well. I request once more undeletion so the article has the chance to go though an AfD. Note, that the creator who is not me, wasn't never warned for that and that the article was link in four different articles in Wikipedia and none went to fix the red links at least. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per WP:BIO#Politicians, failed candidates are not automatically eligible. The article text stated that this candidate only got 0.03% of the voate, making him highly unnotable. No other information about this guy was presented; it would horribly fail an AFD. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and optionally send to AfD. That it would probably fail Afd is not the criterion for speedy. Being on the ballott for president of a country is a claim to notability. That a prev. admin undeleted it is something one can miss when doing a speedy, but to refuse to undelete it after one is told that is very close to wheel-warring. DGG (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Nothing more need be said; DGG has said it all. GRBerry 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outcast (Warriors) – Endorse previous action, unsalt, and history merge userspace version. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted a couple months ago and is a protected redirect. The article was deleted mainly because of the lack of evidence of notability and the fact it hadn't been released yet. However, Outcast will be released in only eight days, and new information has surfaced that, I think, establish notability. What the article would look like can be seen here. Obviously, some sections can't be filled in until the release, but I'll complete them when the information becomes available. Thanks, Shrewpelt (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - undoubtedly, when the book is published, it will be notable since all the other books in the series have articles. Having said that there really is very little in the userspace version that constitutes notability. However, when this DRV is closed there will be just 3 days to go to publication. At that point it would come back here. It seems rather policy wonkish to decline recreation only for it to be recreated 3 days later. BlueValour (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then, what do you want to do? Shrewpelt (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Actions per TexasAndroid looks the way to go. BlueValour (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt redirect, Restore history, and History merge the user page version over the old page. The user page version looks good, and much better sourced than the versions in the deleted history. And once the article legitimately exists and has gotten past the notability and WP:CRYSTAL reasons for it's deletion, which the user page version appears to do, then there is no reason IMHO to keep the older stuff deleted. And finally, a move/history merge of the user space version woulf allow Shrewpelt to get credit in the page history for his nice new version. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Endorse all previous actions. My above opinions in no way should be taken to mean that I think the earlier actions were incorrect. I believe that they were perfectly correct at the time. But the situation has changed, and we have a nice version presented in user space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 April 2008

Calin chi wong – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

deleting admin might not have caught this but the subject WAS after all the subject of stories at the highest reaches of the print and broadcast media (London Times, New York Times, CBS Evening News, etc. JeanLatore (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure I might have !voted to keep the article, but DRV is not AfD, and there is nothing to suggest that the AfD discussion, which plainly bore out a consensus for deletion, was somehow flawed or was undertaken without respect to, or explicitly in contravention of, policy and practice; those participating considered that the subject was the/a subject of various stories and nevertheless adjudged Wong to be non-notable or to have been covered as a primary subject insufficiently to merit encyclopedic treatment. To be sure, if new sources the presence of which one might reasonably expect would have changed the AfD result present themselves, one might try DRV, in order that the community might consider the new information, but there is nothing new, AFAICT, to consider here. Joe 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse near-unanimous deletion, WP:TABLOID. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus in the AFD, decision in line with policy, and no new data in the nomination. GRBerry 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per GRBerry. DRV is not round 2 of AFD, nor is it a place to try speculative relistings in the hope of getting a more sympathetic outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Starsonata-small-banner-logo.png – Restore both images. This actually should have been done when the deletion of the article they were in was restored at DRV. The whole deletion was overturned. Separate discussion for images in an unnecessary process. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also nominating File:Ss palaceattack.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These images were deleted as orphaned fair use after the deletion of Star Sonata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has since been overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4; the article was subsequently retained per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd nomination). I therefore request that the images be restored so they can be added to the article. John254 19:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore both. They were deleted only because they were orphaned fair-use, and under the circumstances it makese sense. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore both but be prepared to immediately update the image tagging; the old tagging doesn't meet current standards. GRBerry 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image_tags – Deletion endorsed, per general consensus on cross namespace redirects and lack of convincing arguments to make an exception. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Helpful redirect EdwinHJ | Talk 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a helpful rd to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and had been around for several years, deleted and another editor restored it. Deleted again without much process. It does no harm and is useful, no real reason to get rid of it. EdwinHJ | Talk 16:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Redirects#D5 - cross namespace redirects from article to wikispace are not allowed. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the deleting administrator, I am firmly neutral. Although it is eligible for deletion because it's a cross-namespace redirect (and if it doesn't, the criteria for speedy deletion should be amended to reflect common practice), I think it's quite a useful and harmless redirect to have around, and wouldn't mind undeleting it. east.718 at 09:14, April 14, 2008
Endorse deletion - WP:USEFUL isn't going to get us far. Cross-namespace redirects are problematic, and I don't see any reason to give an exception here. -- Kesh (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per the consensus, however much I am against it, that cross-namespace redirects aren't allowed. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 April 2008

Mark Foley scandal – Overturned by only person who suggested endorsing deletion (but begrudgingly). Sceptre ^(talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC) – Sceptre ^(talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

As there seem to be threats of desysopping should I overturn this without a DRV then I guess I best file one (even though the article hasn't even been deleted). This was redirected because of BLP concerns, but I honestly fail to see them. I believe the main reason for the redirect was because of the word "scandal" in the title - that isn't a valid reason. All the information was well sourced and there was no reason whatsoever to delete the contents of the article, especially without discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:AN#Sigh.... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted under its current title, support a neutrally worded title. Seriously, so many problems with the content and you can't see one? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's seriously not an excuse to delete the whole article. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP ring a bell? Do no harm, and this wasn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point I'm making. Foley might mention it himself. The point is, the article was negative, not the subject. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, please slow down, calm down, and provide coherent arguments. Comments like "WP:BLP ring a bell?" and "Ding ding ding ding" (at AN) are not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn redirect. There were BLP problems, but we don't delete in such cases. We remove negative unsourced material. As noted by Dragons flight, this article had been worked on a great deal by many people, had over 100 references, and generally didn't deserve to be completely wiped. Having the word "scandal" in the title is not a problem, and at risk of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS I cite every other article we have with that word in the title. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert redirection Out of process deletion opposed by half a dozen people at AN. Restore and take to AFD if you must. This was a notable event and when its good enough to get an article, we prune or move to the Right thing, we don't chop off the entire limb. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
revert, restore to original per MBisanz. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete/overturn/whatever/bring it back I am willing to work on the POV issues and clean it up to a more acceptable standard if need be. -- Naerii 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As am I. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - possibly overturn redirect, and look at integrating with the material at United States House of Representatives Page#Scandals, and creating an umbrella article covering the scandals, without having a title that focuses on Mark Foley. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that's the best idea (that said, I speak as a teenage Australian who had never heard of Foley before now)...it seems there would be too many, and another behemoth article would be created (kinda like this one was) where there isn't enough control over possibly negative content. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/delete redirect. Concerned users may use the article talk page to find a better article name and may deal with BLP problems in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - overturn redirect; Carcharoth's suggestion is a good one. --John (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral title and model article is available at 1983 congressional page sex scandal. Good length, well sourced, good historical distance. Let's aim to do the same at 2006 congressional page sex scandal. This would have been obvious if people had taken the time to STOP AND THINK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that title could work fine - that said, the article content is just as much an issue (ie. some of it needs trimming. Some.). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modelling on the 1983 scandal is a good idea. At any rate, the page should not be three times as long as Monicagate and the resulting impeachment hearing combined. We should make a clean slate and use the information from Mark Foley, then merge relevant data so we get a page that's about 15kb, 25 tops. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But will you help out, or will you carry on and stub other problematic articles at a faster rate than people can keep up with you? Guy did this the other day at Ian Blair. I tried to initiate a rewrite here, but people lost interest. At the moment, the only change has been a list of Ian Blair's titles and positions. Will the same thing happen here? Will people sit on the sidelines and watch others do the work? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep a watch on the article. And with the Jean Charles case, the proposed rewrite could be shortened even more to a paragraph or two. But what I must stress is that the pre-scorch version should be visible as little as possible from now on. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to peruse the article history, it would be noted that it was originally titled Congressional page sex scandal (2006) (see afd for it), presumably after the 1983 one, but it was later changed to be Mark Foley-centric. For some people, this is both maddening and...folly? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that the prior page scandal involved more than one Congressman, and was ultimately about how the page program was managed. This one took place largely outside the page program and was about how the knowledge of Foley's activities was handled. Also note that there was discussion as to whether this even fit the definition of "sex scandal", given there was little evidence of actual sex (again, unlike the 1983 edition). --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per DHMO and, well, most everyone at Wikipedia:AN#Sigh.... We might debate theoretically whether an article's being situated at a BLP-violative title but being otherwise unproblematic is understood by the community providing a sufficient basis for BLP summary deletion, but that broader theoretical debate need not to happen here, where it seems eminently clear that, whatever may have been the good faith of Cobalt and Sceptre, the argument they advance (viz., that the title itself egregiously contravenes BLP) does not command the support of the community. On the upside, summary BLP deletions (or protected redirections, I suppose) of this sort, citing the Bdj RfAr and suggesting that DRV is the proper venue to seek to overturn those deletions, are increasingly seen as inappropriate except in extreme cases, and it may be that the community will soon, as I advocated it do in the wake of the Bdj RfAr, make explicit in BLP that certain principles of that RfAr should not be understood as mandated by or consistent with policy, in order that we address a bit of well-intentioned ArbCom overreach. Joe 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn The argument that this is an irredeemable BLP violation doesn't withstand serious analysis. As someone who edited this article several times, the article was very well sourced. Agree with Ryan ... the claim that an article with the title "scandal" in it is inappropriate isn't even remotely convincing. Blueboy 96 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. WP:BOLD perhaps taken a wee bit too far, here, and I'm only saying that because we don't seem to have an WP:OMGWTF?!?! available. HUGE story, covered worldwide, with massive numbers of facets and massive numbers of references to back them up - and it's summarily redirected and protected with no discussion whatsoever? Good heavens. Overturn immediately. Rename if necessary. Just... wow. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per WP:OMGWTF?!?!. WP:BLP does not mean "Never, ever mention something negative about someone somewhere". A new title for the article sounds fine, but then again.. it was a scandal, right? --Conti|✉ 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Scandal" is a word to avoid. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia:Words to avoid is a guideline. It's not policy. You don't get desysopped for not following it. Anyhow, the guideline proposes to use "controversy" instead, which is rather fine by me. The article can still mention that countless sources call it a scandal, of course. --Conti|✉ 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. WTA outlines that use of the word "scandal" constitutes, except in rare cases, a NPOV (thus possible BLP) vio. Thus making the article eligible under RFAR/BDJ. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your reasoning, that would also make the redirect again WP:BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's leniency for redirects: see Dalmatian Kristallnacht, which is given as an example in WP:REDIR. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, quoting the relevant section: "The term 'scandal' should not be used at all in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources ... " This was referred to as a scandal by highly reputable sources--Time, the Washington Post, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. Blueboy 96 01:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible overturn. This almost appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the BLP policy by showing its potential for egregious and anti-encyclopedic misuse. The barely veiled threat to have Ryan Postlethwaite blocked is so far out of bounds I'm left nearly speechless. Mark Foley was an elected member of the United States Congress. He is the very definition of a public figure, imbued with the highest trust a Democracy and free society can bestow upon a human. He's not some fat Chinese kid that badlydrawnjeff read about once on the Internet. He had influence over a budget of trillions, the wallets of billions, and the lives of hundreds of thousands. He was involved in a scandal -- an abuse of a free society's trust -- that forced his resignation from office. We are not a free society, and most certainly not an encyclopedia at all, if we allow the abuses of the most powerful men on the planet to go disguised. If there is a better title than Scandal, so be it. But you do realize, literally, that it is a Congressman who sits two tragedies away from the Presidency of the United States. --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I was thinking the same thing: namely that Sceptre may have inadvertently shot BLP in the foot, so to speak. I would suggest, in order to avoid a community backlash against BLP work, that BLP regulars pick their stance on this issue carefully (BLP still has its grey areas, just like any policy), and that BLP regulars also help to write the balanced BLP compliant article that is needed here, and not leave others to do that work. Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not particularly relevant here, but it should be noted that it is the Speaker of the House who is two tragedies/blessings/heartbeats away from the Oval Office; Foley was a rank-and-file Representative. Joe 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hopefully, Joe, you've encountered me enough on Wikipedia to know I'm an educated person. Indeed a Congressman (well, at the moment a woman) and not all 435 of them simultaneously, are two T-bone steaks away from The Football; I don't believe my comment could be read to suggest otherwise :) My point is simply that a seat in the House is not some trivial office in the United States (the Speaker is selected by peers, not voters) and that this protected redirect is itself a trivial skip away from disallowing an article on the Watergate scandal until April 22, 1994. --JayHenry (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, a key aspect of l'affaire Foley was in fact the culpability of the then-Speaker, Dennis Hastert, whose career took a sudden nose-dive by having taken insufficient action against a loyal party trooper. It wasn't just about Foley (who may only have been inappropriate), it was about the House Page Committee's handling of the complaints they received, which were communicated to senior Congressman in the then-majority party. (It really was the exact opposite of how sexual harassment complaints in any organization are optimally handled.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate overturn and discuss the title on the talk page. There was very clear consensus at The Admin noticeboard that the deletion was wrong, and that should be just as good as redoing it here. Frankly, this could have been best cleared up by Sceptre reverting his deletion when it was challenged. given the events, I dont see how the title is the least violating BLP, but perhaps it is somewhat redundant with the title on the main article & should be reworded to Mark Foley sexual abuse scandal or something descriptive of that nature. DGG (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn. Enough to bring me out of retirement. This is a disgusting abuse of editorial privilege. Absolutely, ridiculously, unimaginally ridiculous. I would recommend desysop for any admin which protected this redirect. Unconscionable. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If Foley wasn't brought down by a "scandal", what, did he just submit his resignation out of the blue? If there are objections to the title then bring them up on the Talk page, but there is surely no question that this was a scandal. Or did BLP rewrite the dictionary, too? --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold a proper discussion. "I'm right, you're wrong, I've deleted it" isn't the correct way to deal with POV problems in an article. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn redirect and restore article Disucss the title on the talk page don't just delete a well sourced article. As others have said this is the sort of action that brings BLP into disrepute. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate overturn per DGG. Clearly a case where consensus was apparent but action was taken against that very rule that is in place to keep Wikipedia going. Further discussion is urgently needed to overturn this discussion, maybe even for the title also, judging by above comments. Rudget (review) 10:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate overturn. Speaking as the author of WP:NPOV#Article naming, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and the relevant guidelines in WP:WTA, I have to say that Sceptre's actions were clearly mistaken, even if well-intentioned. "Scandal" is a word to avoid; to quote WP:WTA#Scandal, affair, "The term "scandal" should not be used at all in article titles on current affairs". "Controversy" has been the preferred term for a long time and it would be preferable if this article was retitled something like "Mark Foley congressional pages controversy". However, blanking and redirecting is absolutely not the right way to proceed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate Overturn. Quite a horrible decision for reasons outlined above. A title change might be in order and there might well be BLP issues to address: the thing to do in that situation is to discuss those things and work on them. It's really not that complicated. Sceptre's CSD tag was quite ridiculous and I can't believe someone actually took him up on it. I also noticed that Sceptre claims he "almost tagged Osama Bin Laden for summary deletion for the same reason ("terrorist"=POV, always has been used)." I would hope that was a joke, but it does not sound like one. I'm a big believer in the idea that the term "terrorist" is thrown around far too recklessly and is deeply, deeply problematic in and of itself, but it boggles my mind that a serious contributor could actually consider summary deletion of our article on bin Laden. Sceptre might want to step back and take a breath here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close this, minimise drama, all concerned now know that badlydrawnjeff Rfarb doesn't cover this sort of action, move on swiftly. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography – Relisted – --PeaceNT (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON I wish to object to the deletion of the subject "American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography." I do not understand why an article describing a non-profit credentialing agency, which is the largest on Earth for Diagnostic Sonographers is considered an advertisement. When I first posted it, it was called a "stub", now that it was expanded, you call it an advertisement!

How do I call for a review of this deletion?

Terry J. DuBose, M.S, RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM

Relist The AfD was at [55]. It was closed after minimal comment. What would help most is a reference to a article or 2 in a professional journal about the Registry--that shouldn't be difficult. DGG (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Do you have any sources? Any references to show the notability of this orginization under the notability guidelines? I would suggest recreating this in user-space to try and make a workable article, then we can move it in when it's ready. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Comments at the AfD are minimal, as DGG said. I'd really like to see more of a discussion before any sort of rough consensus is read. Also note that this DRV brings up no reason to overturn this other than disagreeing with the AfD itself. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Working in the healthcare profession, I can tell you that ARDMS is the certification board for sonographers. I also found 328 google news hits. --Smashville^BONK! 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD, per the above. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 April 2008

1541_ultimate – Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD as already anticipated by deleting admin – Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

My article applied to none of the 12 Criterias that warrants speedy deletion, also even if you dispute the notability it says on that page: "Articles that are about obviously unimportant subjects are still not allowed for quick deletion", so it deserves at least a "Request for Deletion" status. I would like to file a complaint about the admins blanchardb and cobaltbluetony for deleting an article they didn't even appear to have read before marking it for QD - DeeKay64 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, I want to make it clear I am not an admin and I have not claimed to be one. Because of COI issues regarding my role in this mess, I will remain neutral. In retrospect, I believe Cobaltbluetony and I went overboard in speedying this article (me tagging, Cobalt deleting, and more often than not Cobalt deleting before I had a chance to see), but I believe this deletion review will probably be better managed than many AfD's I've seen. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the actual discussion is over the article deleted as 1541ultimate -- the form above is just a redirect to it. DGG (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and optionally list at AfD the article is about a video game cartridge speedy deleted 4 times as non-notable. But articles about such things are specifically excluded from the criterion. cobaltblue, why be bureaucratic--this isnt the place for the discussion--just undelete and send to AfD DGG (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD, doesn't seem to be a proper speedy. I'm not sure it will meet the notability criteria, though. -_UsaSatsui (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guys. I would just like to add that the 1541 Ultimate is as much a "video game cartridge" as an SD-card is a "photo medium". I plan to use mine for transferring selfmade stuff back and forth between c64 and Mac. And as for notability: Jens Schönfeld, maker of similar cartridges such as this like the MMC64 and Retro Replay even was two times on german Television already. It's not that common to produce hardware in 2008 for a 1982 Computer, and quite a few geeks do show interest in this, having grown up with a Commodore 64. Also, many people want to play old games on a real machine and can't find a way to transfer the .d64 images they find on the net to a real c64, and cartridges like these make this possible. ;-)DeeKay64 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status: Cobaltblue does not seem to react. Should I just recreate the article? And put the "hangon" tag in it? Or do we need to wait for him to undelete it? DeeKay64 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If he lives on the West Coast, he's in bed at this moment. I don't think there is so much of a hurry that the article needs to be available right away. Additionally, putting the hangon tag on an article not listed for speedy deletion automatically lists it, and a clear consensus here is that we don't want that. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. A7 only applies to online content, not technology in general. Beyond this, the article appears to have asserted importance. Hasty tagging and deletion, but good faith as far as I can tell. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much point, since there are no reliable sources and never were for any of the four deletions. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, do you really think that no reliable sources is a grounds for speedy? According to what policy? It's even been rejected as grounds for deletion at AfD. DGG (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, if there are no reliable sources, it won't survive AfD. So overturning is just process wonkery or Wikilawyering. -- Kesh (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

CareFlash – Keep deleted – Stifle (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like the page CareFlash at User:Klostermankl/CareFlash to be reviewed and reconsidered for posting. I also welcome any language/wording advice. Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is currently an MfD here. I've suggesting waiting for this outcome before going through with that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't allow move to mainspace right now. As well writen as that is, a lot of it reads like advertising. I'd suggest working on that and adding some inline citations using <ref></ref> tags. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't allow move to mainspace The editor who created the page is attempting to Spam it by posting on different articles that he would like to add a link to his article. The editor is SPA account just set up to include this article in Wikipedia. I recommend to the editor a few month ago to make the article notable per policy, but in these few months he did nothing more than go around the project and solicit for this article to be linked to. Wrong way to go! Igor Berger (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the user page version certainly needs work (deleting the section Alliance Partners, or item by item sourcing, would be a good start) and the references need to be moved in-article. However, sources such as this and this show at least nascent notability. I also agree with Igor Berger that this page now needs to be brought to a resolution. There are four days left in this DRV and my suggestion is that the nominator puts that time to good effect and brings the article up to a standard that is fit for a move to mainspace (no doubt with an attached AFD). BlueValour (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. No evidence of notability, article is basically not improved. Same problem as with the last deletion review, really: a spammy article written by a single-purpose account whose name matches the CEO of the company. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - there has been no attempt to address the concerns, during this DRV. BlueValour (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp Minsi – No consensus to undelete. – Stifle (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Properly addressed issues from previous AfD in recreation. It is an appropriate article for a notable camp and is in line with other local council camps. Sourced and well-written. Minsi (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article is certainly less of a problem than the prior version, which is userfied at User:Evrik/Camp Minsi. I don't see evidence in the deleted article of notability; which sources were independent and contained substantial documentation of the camp? I don't see any in my review. Without those sources, the most important issue highlighted in the AFD, notability, has not been addressed. GRBerry 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The main issue at AFD was the notability of Camp Minsi, which was not addressed in the article when I nominated it for a speedy deletion. While it did improve from the version deleted at AFD it did bot address the notability issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn delete The article appears significantly different than the one that was deleted in AfD and so I don't think qualifies under G4. Further, http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070817/NEWS13/708170312/-1/rss19 would seem to be a wonderful source (if local which I don't think is a problem per WP:N) and the other sources are by-and-large RS, though a few are only trivial mentions. I'd have no objections to bumping it to AfD, but it I think this is well above the bar. Also, the article seems very well written and reasonably sourced. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That source was present in the article that was deleted at AFD and does little to establish notability; yes this article has been cleaned up since the AFD, but the main issue at AFD was the notability which has not been addressed, no new sources have been added that would establish notability (some sources have been removed but nothing has been added.) As such this qualifies for a g4 speedy because the changes made "do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." TonyBallioni (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm having problems seeing the old version via cache at the moment. But my recolection is that the articles were significantly different (could be wrong). So:

"Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."

Would seem to indicate that if the copy isn't substantially identical it isn't a G4 candidate even if the issues from the AfD were not addressed. If the articles are substantially the same, the that's fine (like I said, I can't tell at the moment). Hobit (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Article does not fix the issues addressed at AfD. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn delete: The article was significantly different than the one that was deleted in the AfD -- it was not a recreation of the deleted material. As such it does not qualify for deletion under G4 ("Recreation of deleted material") as it was not a substantially identical copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. Reguardless of if the notablity issue of the AfD was adequetly addressed or not (although I feel it was), the article should not have been a speedy deletion per G4. If the article does not assert nobility that can be addressed, but deleting it speedily per G4 was not the appropriate action. Minsi (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Camp x-ray detainees.jpg – Whether we might like it or not, this image deletion took place before images were restorable, so this DRV is moot. – Stifle (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was ported to the commons, but the source information points to now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. A cropped version also points at the now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. Image:Camp x-ray detainees cropped.jpg This image was probably part of the same roll of film as this low resolution image from January 11th 2002... Image:First 20 Guantanamo captives.jpg Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing text that was on the en.Wikipedia image page is on the Commons description page now. No link was ever present on the en.Wikipedia image page. I can't see anything to do here. GRBerry 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was from a DoD handout to the media of January 11, 2002. I can't find it in the DoD picture library, but that's where it came from originally. It's by Petty Officer 2nd Class Shane McCoy, US Navy. You can see an uncropped version of it at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11381321/ . -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography – Duplicate – Stifle (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wish to object to the deletion of the subject "American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography." I do not understand why an article describing a non-profit credentialing agency, which is the largest on Earth for Diagnostic Sonographers is considered an advertisement.

How do I call for a review of this deletion?

Terry J. DuBose, M.S, RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM DuBose 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such article. Never was such an article. An article without the quotes was nothing but a redirect to a page which was deleted in 2007 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography. You can create an article in your own User space, such as User:DuBose/American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, then come back here for a review as to its neutraility and whether it provides reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. There's another DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12 that's receiving more attention. I've notified Corvus as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tom Poleman – Allow recreation of new version – VegaDark (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 after a short (less than 4 hour) AfD, for not asserting notability. However a simple Google News Archive reveales plenty of references, including being featured as a "top 40" individual in both Billboard Radio Monitor and Crain's New York Business. I've recreated and expanded the article with references at User:DHowell/Tom Poleman and brought it here to DRV, as the deleting admin indicated I should do. DHowell (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. The version DHowell has made clearly asserts notability and is in all likelihood a clear WP:BIO passer as well due to the accolades in various publications. The original deletion seems to have been partially based on the lack of sources cited in the article, and for a BLP that is a fair concern, even if it's not an A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's refreshing. Much better version. Sorry for the trouble here, I did close the AfD after I deleted the article that was, as well as being AfD tagged, was speedy tagged A7. (BIO) I deleted it while clearing out speedies, then went and closed the AfD. Happens all the time. Allow recreation of DHowell's version, very clear assertion of notability;excellent sourcing. No need for new AfD, IMO. (And to DHowell, You had me at Haiku. :-). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Keilana/Deleted cabals – There is no clear and overwhelming consensus either way. DRV, as a forum for cloture, is expected to reach a decision anyway; "no consensus" is not a possible outcome here. Reading the discussion below, the RFC, the MFD, and the two ANI threads, it is clear that the community is divided on what to do about these pages. WP:IAR was the justification for deletion, and the normal standard is that an IAR decision was correct only if, upon testing for a consensus, such a consensus is revealed. By that standard, these deletions were incorrect - and Keilana is so informed; the deletions are not endorsed.

However, there is also no consensus that the pages should be restored; indeed a significant fraction of the opiners below that don't endorse the deletions want them restored and taken immediately to MFD. With greatest attention to the discussion here and the RFC, to the extent there is a consensus it is that individual judgment needs to be applied, not all "cabal" pages are identical. Almost all of the discussion within does not attempt to apply individual judgment, probably due to the structure of this discussion. So we can hold individual DRVs, individual MFDs, or be less formal. We're going to skip individual DRVs. If a user who was involved with one of these pages makes a case as to how that particular page contributed to and will continue to contribute to improving the encyclopedia (article/portal space), any admin may immediately restore that page. Depending on how compelling the case for restoration is, they may or may not also immediately nominate the page at MFD. – GRBerry 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list of deleted cabals can be found on the listed page, that page is not under deletion review. There has been a lot of discussion about these deletions recently, and it seems that the issue should be settled properly. I know it's odd to review one's own deletion, but I feel this is the right course of action to properly gauge community consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I'm not seeing any cabals there that shouldn't have been, and should therefore remain, deleted. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Keilana's deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and take each to MfD. People keep forgetting that 'cabals' were not deleted, pages were. Untagged pages. Regardless of content, they were haphazardly deleted, with no speedy criteria, and no AfD consensus. These pages were deleted arbitrarily under IAR and each page should get its day in court. the_undertow ^talk 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at MfD, at least multiple listings by user. Deleted against consensus and out of policy citing IAR is not appropriate. Lara❤Love 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion (if one likes, of course, list at AfD) per the The undertow, both supra and here, where he happens recently to have, relative to this issue, properly observed, at greater length than he does here, that summary/speedy/IAR-inspired deletion is almost always to be disfavored in situations like this. Joe 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I believe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals shows consensus, and I thus think that going to MfD would be WP:BURO-ish. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The RfC seems to have obtained a wide consensus that the deletion was in order as they served no encyclopaedic purpose. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake helps no-one. Am also in agreement with Mbisanz's and DHMO's comments. Orderinchaos 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion to end the drama and reinforce the "not MySpace" message, which seems to me to need doing at the moment. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Guy, let's end this now. George The Dragon (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send each to MfD per the_undertow and LaraLove. Walton^One 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
restore and list at MfD per Undertow, Lara and nom. I really don't care about these much, but in general essentially harmless pages should get their chance to make a case for inclusion. Furthermore, as long as editors are being productive encyclopedia editors I don't see any compelling reason not to let them have a little fun. Reducing drama is not a compelling argument; the solution to that is for people to stay civil during discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that the editors concerned were, for the most part, only editing these "cabals", and having nothing to do with the encyclopedia. That is a major part of my concern. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merit of editors is not part of any deletion criteria that I know of. Furthermore, it's about the userpages that were deleted, not about your opinion of the contributors. the_undertow ^talk 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion criteria were never designed to handle this situation. In this case, and in these circumstances, it's a fair consideration. Orderinchaos 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Userpages are handled at MfD. This is not a unique situation. the_undertow ^talk 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There has already been a MfD [56] on most of them, and the result was speedy keep. I do not see a consensus to delete at either of the AN/I discussions, or any consensus at all at RfC--certainly not enough to justify proceeding via IAR. Personally, I would very much like to see them go, and some other cabals also, but there needs to be actual demonstrated consensus. If some eds. think the consensus has changed in the last month, start individual MfDs. There was considerable support in many places that they should be considered individually. Trying to shortcut process in the presence of dissent in the name of avoiding BURO is counterproductive--it produces more complicated debates than ordinary proceedings would have. DGG (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been discussed many times already, the MfD took place without the information necessary to make a decision, and in an atmosphere incredibly hostile to non-groupthink opinions - and in addition was speedy closed after just 2 hours, so in no way demonstrated either the letter or spirit of consensus. Pretty much every rule was ignored in the MfD. Also, doesn't the multiply-endorsed views at RfC (in some cases well over 20) represent a much more constructive consensus than a !voting process on what is quite a complex situation? Orderinchaos 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you speak as if the view to delete them all had 20 endorsers, and nobody endorsed anything else. That was not the case. I see 27 editors endorsing the opposite view that these should all be kept. [57]. adding all the endorsements, I see 83 endorsements saying essentially that they should be all kept, 68 all deleted, 64 something else, usually delete some and keep others.--of course this doesnt mean much since many people endorsed more than one view. But just by a count, it looks like the view for deleting them all was in the minority. DGG (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Maybe it's just from having been on Wikipedia, or maybe just from having been around the internet for awhile, but these days, whenever I hear the word "cabal", even in jest, it sets me on edge. It makes me feel the need to research deeper, and examine more thoroughly the "something". I just think that even if it's a subtle sociological "knock" of elitism, group therapy, or whatever, these are little different than what ended up with Wikipedia:Esperanza. Esperanza was something I was strongly in favour of, at first and even second blush. But when you started to look "deeper", it had distinct sociological issues. Maybe I'm looking deeper at something that isn't necessarily there. But when I consider the smile campaign started by User:Pedia-I, only to discover a sleeper sock account... Well it makes one wonder. And the use of the word "cabal" doesn't help. I'm a big fan of community in Wikipedia. I strongly believe that the strength of our community, inevitably, is a large part of the strength of the growth and development of the encyclopedia. I think humour pages, for the most part, (and presuming that they actually are intended as humour), are usually fine. But "feel good" lists of users... I don't think that that's a good idea. And I'll note that I was aware of one of these, and even allowed myself to be placed as an "observer". To me it seemed to be a place that was socially connecting Wikipedians with an interest in the works of Douglas Adams; a rudimentary beginning which may have developed to a point where they "might" eventually collaborate on such articles. Almost a begining "Work group". People were actively contributing to the page, and so on. But so many of these just aren't. And if one borderline case needs to go because the rest really need to go, so be it. Besides... It's not as if there aren't WikiProjects out there desperately almost begging for Wikipedians to help out... (WP:HHGTTG, for one example.) - jc37 00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this set of lengthy comments conveyed what I wished to. So please, feel free to ask for clarification. - jc37 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Undeleting all these pages and bring them to mfd seems overly bureaucratic to me. I'm not even sure that the participants in these cabals want to rebuild them. The rfc has, independently of his main purpose, confirmed that the consensus is for deletion. What is the point to relist them ? That would be a loose of time. WP:IAR has a purpose among others: don't loose your time with useless bureaucracy, it still applies now. If it had been done "in the rules", we may have gain more time in the end, though I'm not even sure about that, but now let's go ahead. Cenarium^Talk 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user wants to review the deletion of a particular cabal, ok, but massive undeletions doesn't seem to be the right course of action here, it's purely for the sake of procedure. And I've the feeling that the majority of the involved users no longer care for these cabals. Cenarium^Talk 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we have a process for these things. Is there a good reason not to follow it in this case? The only argument I've seen is that the RfC replaces an MfD. But I don't believe notification happened correctly nor that the RfC showed consensus. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was out of normal process, but I'm sure that mass undeletions will accomplish nothing. RyRy5 feels that stuff like that doesn't or shouldn't belong here at Wikipedia., Basketball110 requested deletion of User:Basketball110/UserSpace. What's the purpose to undelete these ? Where is the benefit for the encyclopedia, the people involved ? Cenarium^Talk 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn
1. ~~out-of-process~~When it comes to policy IAR is a great thing, but ignoring process seems like a bad idea unless everyone is on board.
2. I don't see consensus in the RfC.
3. Were all the editors user-space pages were deleted notified of the RfC?
4. Were editors of those deleted pages notified of this review?.
5. While I have no doubt it's in good faith, bringing something a group of articles that you've already speedied in a way non-admins can't see them (as far as I know) seems like a poor idea at best.
6. Per DGG(above), there was just a MfD on some of these less than 3 weeks ago. SNOW keep. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, barring a good reason to avoid process (and avoiding drama isn't a reason per anything other than perhaps IAR) I'd say bring them to MfD. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I randomly looked into two of the editors who had userspace pages deleted. Both seemed to be quite active in WP and one felt his cabal would easily fit the new guidelines. He said:
"Looks good to me, I would have to change maybe one line in the cabal I made to fit this perfectly. When is this debate suppose to end?--Pewwer42" Hobit (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user's page (42) was what I was referring to above. - jc37 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nominator - Would you be opposed to the 42 "cabal" being split into a separate nomination? Not that I'm necessarily supporting it being kept (at least under that name), but the rest of these seem rather clear, while that one would seem to be somewhat different. And I'd like the community's thoughts on it separately. - jc37 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one wouldn't have a problem with it being considered separately or even restored. It did fall into a different category to the others, and the user who created it wasn't part of the behaviour management issue which existed with the others. Orderinchaos 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - As with "secret pages", an out-of-process deletion would've been successful, but taking the matter to MfD showed no consensus. I believe the same would be true here. IAR is for non-controversial decisions -- cases where policies seem to disallow the course of action that everyone agrees is correct. That's not this. It's not right to do something just because you're sure that you're right and that other people are wrong. That's not what IAR means. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. (A fairly large percentage of Wikipedia's administrator corps could do with learning that message, IMO.) Walton^One 12:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - Per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Cabals. The community said that the Cabals would be safe, but they were deleted and the administrator who did so ignored the decision. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Ignoring the method by which they were deleted, which is and should be irrelevant, I feel that these should be deleted. (for those who say that consensus should be reached to delete, consensus is being gathered here, is it not?) The members of the useless barrage of so-called "cabals" were all completely identical in nature and having the same members. One might argue that some, such as the "Giant Panda Cabal" and the "Doggy Cabal" worked to improve mainspace. I say, prove it. How much did these cabals actually improve the articles? Look at this. This is the sum of their total contributions to the giant panda article. The dog article was even less contributed-to. The others, such as the "42 cabal," were inherently useless except for perhaps a fun break from mainspace contribution. However, as has been said countless times before, the creators and members were not at all strong content contributors, which is what differentiates this from things like WP:BRC. However, my rationale depends somewhat on the "clones" issue, and so I make a concession: One cabal can be restored, the others, which, as I have said, are practically identical, can not be. One last thing: Look at this. These have found a new home, have they not? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why do I care? If that essay was cited here, a destroying of the spirit of the essay itself would ensue: "There are a lot of busybodies on Wikipedia, but before you become one of them, consider this: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look?" Are the cabal members strong content contributors? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The method is actually all that should be relevant. This isn't MfD, it's deletion review, to explore the possibility of an improper deletion. Improper deletions, which we are here to designate, get sent back to MfD, where the merit of the pages themselves are discussed. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Restore & send to MfD Some of these pages weren't even tagged and, therefore, a full discussion did not ensue. WP:IAR should rarely (if ever) be used to justify a deletion of a user page/subpage. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion, and if Keilani feels that the pages should be deleted, let her MFD them. IAR shouldn't be used like that. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Lets not overdose on process, I think the RfC is a pretty firm consensus for these pages being deleted and yet another discussion at MfD seems pretty pointless. Can't see that any content beneficial to the encyclopedia has been lost here. WjBscribe 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trivial Intersections – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to appeal the decision to delete both of the above categories. The discussion was on going and no clear consensus had been reached. The arguments for deletion were extremely poor. This was a very poor decision and I think this reflects Wiki in a poor light. The the info was not even preserved in list form and the articles were not even added into other relevant armed forces categories. Can you also explain why these categories were deemed to be trivial intersections but :Category:Politicians with physical disabilities was not. This seems to be a double standard. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. Consensus was clear. --Kbdank71 19:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and the fact that another category survived when these didn't is irrelevant. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant! Rules and policy on deletion should be consistent. If one category is kept then all should have been kept. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD rules and policy were consistent. Kbdank correctly interpreted the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_26#Category:Politicians_with_physical_disabilities and closed it as keep. He also correctly interpreted the consensus for these categories and closed them as delete. Same rules, same policies, same closer. Otto4711 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - consensus was clear. However I agree with Djln that the articles should have been upmerged to suitable parent categories. (X in Category:Footballers who served in the RAF has to go upwards into both parents - 'footballers' and 'RAF' categories.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had checked a good cross-section of the articles, and they are already in a multitude of footballer and military personnel categories. --Kbdank71 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I withdraw my reservations, with effusive apologies. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in category should have been listfied to preserve info which is now lost. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The info is not permanently lost, and it would not be too difficult to find a complete list of the affected articles. However, I must wonder whether such a list would be justified per this guideline. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the consensus, whether evaluated from the meaningful perspective of strength of arguments or the more superficial perspective of a count of votes (9 to 3), was to delete. The nominator's argument that the intersection of "footballer" and "military service" is a trivial one was never adequately rebutted (as one example, consider the case of countries that have conscription ... virtually every male footballer in those countries has served in the military). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per valid reasoning given above. (IOW, it's been said) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - For the reasons already stated, and for the additional prior precedent - See: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. In looking over both the original CfD, and this DRV, I haven't seen anywhere where anyone linked to the explanation of "trivial intersection" at WP:OC. Perhaps if the DRV nominator were to read over that page, they may come to see that this closure is actually fairly consistant with previous closures (only a few of which are actually listed at WP:OC). - jc37 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 April 2008

List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents – Closure endorsed – Stifle (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as no consensus, but I do not believe that accurately reflects the debate; numerous editors want to have the list, but only one adequately sourced entry can be found (and someone just removed that one). Most of the removed entries were about sexual abuse, not sexual attraction. This was discussed in the debate, but not reflected by the closure; keep votes included the assertion that it is "not controversial" and "quite a common theme" based on the length of the list - but the list entries were all unsourced. I really don't see that we can support a list of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents - an extremely controversial label to attach to a song - without credible independent secondary sources to support the idea that this is a theme which attaches to more than a handful of songs, and without equally credible independent sources for every inclusion. In this case only one entry survived the sourcing process, and even that has been removed as disputed. In the end, though, the major problem here is that the songs listed - and the sole supporting external link, http://s-fe.com/Singing_the_song_of_child_sexual_assault - are about sexual assault, not "sexual attraction". There is indeed some evidence that there are songs about sexual assault, but that is not what this list documents and there is little overlap between the two. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure I'd suggest that Guy's argument, shared by many of those supporting deletion, depends on a stricter construction of WP:V than that for which a consensus of the community exists and on an overstatement of our deletion policies (most relevantly, if a reasonable article might exist at a given title or about a given topic, a deficient existing article at that title or about that topic should not be deleted unless it is entirely useless as a framework for a broader, more proper article or is wholly unencyclopedic; here, an article with a reasonable lead, noting that various songs have been written about sexual attraction to children and adolescents and that there exists—as it seems there does—some treatment of the issue, both generally and with respect to specific songs, would, even with a list of just one song, suffice, at least temporarily) but we really need not reach the underlying merits; it is clear that the discussion did not bear out a consensus for deletion, and because there exist no fundamentally unaddressed "delete" !votes and because the "keep" !votes did purport to consider policies, guidelines, and practices and were not facially contrary to established practices, a "no consensus" closure was entirely appropriate. Joe 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such, no. The list contained mainly unsourced entries, but one or two were sourced form (copyvios of) the lyrics; in these cases the interpretation of the lyrics which led to inclusion was, IMO, questionable at best - inclusion of the word "jailbait", for example, does not mean the song is "portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents". Hence the need for reliable independent sources in each case. In many cases, though, a google for song title + sexual came up with only one hit: our list. There is no evidence that a reasonable article could exist at this title, since a list implies a meaningful number of songs and I am not aware of any significant number of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents (as opposed to featuring sexual abuse, which is rather more common). The lead asserts that a number of songs have been written, but no evidence is presented to support that assertion. You are right that there must needs at root be an encyclopaedic subject being, more or less, songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. I see nothing to support such an encyclopaedic subject. I'm also concerned that this was part of a grouped close, but there is good evidence that there are books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, Lolita being the most notorious, but that evidence does not exist with respect to songs; the subject is probably too complex to be readily amenable to such brevity. Right now we have an empty list. With some work we might get that to only nearly empty. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse Frankly, it seems rather wasteful of everyone's time and energy to appeal a non-consensus close. If one thinks it should rather have been deleted, one need only wait a month or two and renominate. DGG (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Joe. The debatability of the requirement of citations for the lyrics of common-knowledge songs and the questionable removal of the existing material and citations by the nominator aside, those in favor of deletion did a poor job of refuting the arguments of their inclusionist counterparts; for example, Guy said there was consensus on censoring pedastry-related material on Wikipedia, but when pressed, was unable to provide anything substantive; all he could provide was an AfD regarding a POV fork of a pedastry-related page that was deleted as a POV fork. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close I see no compelling policy reason to reconsider this at this time. I do however, strongly disagree with the notion that we as a community would directly censor material related to any topic, even one as distasteful as paedophilia. I don't think however that Guy was advocated such censorship although I can see why someone might think so. The issue here is sourcin. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nominator just seems to be restating the case which he made during the AFD and which failed to convince. No process-based reason to review is advanced. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it was a group close but this list is different from the other two in the group. It is also currently unpopulated due to sourcing issues. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Spellcast hit the nail on the head. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcast? Hobit (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a user that posted on the AFD and wanted the page deleted. In case you are interested this is what the user wrote

Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DIRECTORY #5, and largely amounts to original research. The cited ref (which uses copyvio YouTube videos and lyrics) is of course not a reliable source because it's just a wiki. --76.69.166.27 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The object here is to decide whether policy wasn't followed in examining consensus, not to recapitulate the AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse; if all it takes to get an article deleted is to delete the content, we can delete any article! If you can honestly claim that Gary Puckett's Young Girl isn't about sexual attraction to underage women, despite the link to the singer saying so, I don't know what to say.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closing admin. I wrote a rather long closing statement so I have not much to add. I presume all noticed that I considered three similar AfD, started on the same day, and that the closing statement is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Contrary to user JzG's (Guy) statement here I did considered the whole discussion, reflected on it, and tried to express that in my closing statement when stating that keeps looked weaker. Yet many deletes are not that strong either: being unsourced is not a reason to delete the article, is a reason to delete it's unsourced content. Actually very few delete opinions were about the articles' subject but about editing issues. All in all I think it is a quite clear case of 'no consensus'. - Nabla (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bye Bye (Mariah Carey song) – Stale (this DRV, not the song) – Tikiwont (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although I understand that the page was created by the sock-puppet of a banned user, and that the single was unconfirmed at that time, it has since been confirmed as Carey's new single by her record company, her official website, and various third parties (including VH1. It is also being given a digital release on April 14 2008. As it is now confirmed, there should be no reason for protecting the page, nor should it be speedied repeatedly as it has been today. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this page once. This was solely because it was recreated by a sockpuppet of a blocked vandal. I would not at all oppose undeleting it or allowing its recreation, now that it can be sourced appropriately. There's possibly still some WP:CRYSTAL issues, but I just want to point out the reason I deleted it. I am not the most recent admin to delete this page, nor was I the first to delete it however. --Yamla (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it's not linking properly here, but the article was first deleted (by me as closer) after an AFD debate located here. It has since been recreated a couple of times, and deleted per speedy G4. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't linking because of different capitalisation of "song", I fixed the above link. - Nabla (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: G4 states that the page must have been substantially similar without addressing the AfD concerns. The main concern was the wholeWP:CRYSTAL aspect; on the AfD, I even voted delete for that reason. However, it's now been confirmed by various sources, and it was noted as such on the page. It's currently playing on radio, and the digital release is next Monday. As such, I feel that G4 wouldn't apply, because the concerns were addressed. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per WP:MUSIC the individual song must appear on charts, have a music video, or otherwise have notable coverage. The protection came as a result of a user circumventing our policies by using a sockpuppet, indicating no respect for community consensus, and a likelihood to repeat this action. Notability was the driving force behind the deletion, and vandalism/sockpuppetry was behind the protection, both valid and reasonable applications of policy in my opinion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But were the speedy deletes valid if the article was not substantially similar? Hobit (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on with this one. First, I deleted it after a nearly unanimous AfD. Nearly all the AfD participants said "recreate when sourced" It's sourced. I endorse undeletion. It looks in the logs like someone undeleted it days ago (an admin that hasn't participated in this DRV) Is this DRV closed then? What's going on? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Silent protagonist – Deletion endorsed without prejudice to recreation – Stifle (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The phenomenon of silent protagonists is a notable feature of many computer games, particularly role playing games. A recently successful AfD against it claimed that it was Wikipedia editors who think games have silent protagonists - not exactly true; here are some articles from the gaming press that cover the phenomenon of silent protagonists: [58] /kill-the-silent-protagonist-325121.php [59]. There is no reason to delete a non-BLP article simply because it currently doesn't have enough reliable sources, only that it could never have them. 80.41.241.166 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as closer - the consensus was quite clear. If you've got some good sources now, not dependent on OR, create a new article and let it stand on its own. This one was closed properly. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per closer. BTW, the AfD link up top is for the first discussion, which was closed as "keep". The second discussion, which resulted in "Delete" is here. Horologium (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close but allow recreation per new sourcing and Orangemike's comment. It may be helpful to userfy the old version, have that improved and then have a DRV to approve that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allow re-creation there are additional sources. DGG (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure but permit recreation consistent with JoshuaZ's suggestion. Joe 07:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NASIOC – Not an easy one, this. There's plenty of opinions, as well as mudslinging and accusations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, WP:SPAs, and general disruption from both sides. I am most swayed by the comments of Guy and Friday — if I overturn the deletion and start another AFD, it is just as likely to turn into a train wreck. So weighting everything together, I think the result is deletion endorsed but without prejudice to recreating the page. – Stifle (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, I realize this is the third time this has popped up here in about 24 hours. Mind you, the first one was a post to the wrong forum and the second was before the article was speedy deleted. I've spent some time thinking about it...and while I believe FCYTravis didn't handle this the best way, I believe he was right. At the very least, I think this needs to be relisted at AfD by a non-sock user. We did have a clear consensus to delete, but I think our opinions were swayed by the sockpuppets and SPAs. The NASIOC people did provide sources from a Subaru-owned magazine, which were determined to be primary sources. However, as NASIOC is an organization of Subaru Owners and not actually affiliated, I believe this could actually be a secondary source. As I mentioned in the ANI thread, I find it hard to believe that no secondary sources exist for the world's largest Subaru organization, I just don't think we know where to look. And I believe the sockpuppetry that brought on the forum shopping made these editors defensive to the point that instead of providing useful information, they believed we were just throwing bluelinks at them to spite them. Even the closer stated that he was leaning towards closing this as a trainwreck. Smashville^BONK! 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider only the relevant facts. Who started it is not relevant. What makes or breaks it is sources. The best sources people could find were brought up during the AFD. They were analyzed, and they turned out to be not good. I see no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources of the type that is needed to write an encyclopedia article. Sure, the AFD was messy, but when you clear away the muck, useful facts still remain. We can evaluate this on those facts. So, in my view, the closer did it exactly right. Endorse deletion. Friday (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion While a Yahoo search turns up 468,000 sources, there isn't a reliable source among them. There needs to be more than just the NASIOC site for there to be an encyclopedia article in this. Blueboy 96 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply]
Restore Two offline references to NASIOC include mentions in Subiesport[60] (June 2005) and an article in Maxim about Trunk Monkey. Additionally, NASIOC is a sponsor of The Subaru Chalange [61]. Its difficult to find other mainstream media regarding NASIOC due to how the members are usually operating under their regional chapters. However, the same can be said for the numerous other auto clubs already listed on Wikipedia. Additionally, I don't beleive the negative comments on the club's forum regarding wikipedia should have any bearing on the article deletion as User:Keeper76 is suggesting[62]. In fact, I believe several of the !votes came because certain editors were offended by comments in the offsite forum. Beethoven05 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big question that is going to be asked, since there is not an online copy of the article...is the Subiesport article actually about NASIOC? --Smashville^BONK! 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article was written about NASIOC, and myself as the owner and a Subaru enthusuiast. We are in the process of contacting the magazine staff to get a copy or some sort of electronic copy. I believe they have them available in PDF, but I'm not positive they will allow public distribution of the article. I'm going to try to negotiate what I can with them to get some rights to post the articles themselves. In addition I have also asked for their cooperation in getting other notable cites from their magazine. Since NASIOC is a fairly large hub of the Subaru community, there have been numerous articles about events and other happenings that directly involve NASIOC. --NickNASIOC (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - comment Given the obvious conflict of interest, Subiesport can't be considered a reliable source about the notability of anything Subaru-related! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment So a published article about NASIOC in an independent internationally distributed magazine, that can be picked up at any Barnes & Noble, is not notable for NASIOC because it's about Subarus? Just to play Devil's advocate here for a moment: If I were creating a wiki article about some new field of physics research and one of my sources on this new field was in a widely distributed educational journal about physics, would that as well not be considered notable? Does that logic really only not make sense in my head? I'm really trying to understand the rules to help guide the NASIOC article in the right direction. But It feels as though we are right back where we started on the AfD. We find what we're told in one breath what would be notable, only to find it, and have someone else tell us it's not notable. I guess I'm not sure why the articles about NASIOC have to be in sources that typically have no business caring about a site on the internet. Does this mean that all wikis require press in newpapers or magazines (ones without direct relevance to the topic of course). I'm sorry if I'm coming across as frustrated, but we are trying our best to do all that has been asked of us, but again it seems that the rules keep changing just enough every time we get close to notability to keep NASIOC out. --NickNASIOC (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, just a question, but what would the "obvious" conflict of interest in the source be? As they've pointed out, it's an article about their organization in a reliable independent secondary source? Obviously they have a conflict of interest in writing it, but we can always edit it to maintain neutrality... --Smashville^BONK! 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly reasonable question. My reasoning is that as a Subaru-fan publication, Subiesport has a vested interest in making Subaru fanclubs seem notable, both to excite people about Subarus and to get more subscriptions from members of the fanclubs they portray. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without getting in to the main argument about the notability of NASIOC, it should be pointed out that Subiesport did the report on NASIOC, not any of the legion of other Subaru enthusiast groups out there. If the article is about NASIOC, and is not written by someone affiliated with NASIOC, it qualifies as a sufficiently independent source for the purposes of establishing notability. Additional sources would be required to establish notability and verifiability, as per the relevant policies. Needless to say, NASIOC is a specialized group, some of which qualify as notable outside their field of interest and some of which do not. Horologium (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I vehemently disagree that "fan"-created publications are not reliable sources. Does that mean that we can't use the Sierra Club magazine or the National Audubon Society magazine as sources in articles about environmental issues? Would it be prohibited to use National Geographic as a source in an article about geography (they're all geography fans! conflict of interest!)? Where does it end? Can we not use a conservative publication as a source in articles about conservatives, because there might be a "fan bias?" Silly, to say the least. FCYTravis (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Other automobile associations exist on Wikipedia, cite no sources, yet continue to exist without being called into question. If this article is deleted, by reason of equality, all other automobile associations without sources cited must also be speedy deleted. Manarius 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Friday (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Friday, I disagree. Let us use a similar argument as given in the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS article. Perhaps, we should allow for a ring of "car ownership club" pages on Wikipedia. Manarius 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - unsourced, evidently non-notable. Maniarius, if there are other such articles, you can prod or AfD them; indeed, I would encourage you to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CANVASS meets WP:V and WP:N. The latter, quite properly, won the day. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, which by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with their blog, as Beethoven implies (but thanks for that). Any article, without reliable independent sources or proof of notability, should be deleted. This includes NASIOC. It may, or may not, include other car enthusiast clubs. I could care less about car enthusiast clubs. If you show me a dozen car enthusiast clubs' articles that are as unsourced and unnotable as NASIOC was, I'll nominate them for deletion myself. That said, I didn't delete the article, and the assumption you are making Beethoven, that I advocated deletion because of a petty blogpost is, well egregious. I'm better than that. I even told the meatpuppets that I would be their advocate for inclusion if they could show any reliable, independent, third party sources that verify their worthiness of an article beyond spamming for their organization. I really strongly resent being singled out in your DRV nom, Beethoven, and I hope you'll retract your comment. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still unclear how the article by Suburu isn't independent of the group. It seems to be a perfectly fine 3rd party reliable source. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist Well let me ask this, if the forum thread was of no bearing, why was it important to link it in the AFD. if it wasnt to persuade others, it surely would have that effect. remarks made about you or anyone else away from the AFD should never have been used in the AFD as the AFD is not based on remarks made elsewhere. It would be in the best interest to allow Nasioc to continue to provide information to notablilty. In order to increase the Wikipedia community and to show fairness maybe some assistance and time to meet specific request and not those of a sock. Obviously the person who initiated the AFD had an agenda beyond the benefits of wikipedia. if the admins were insulted, well so where the NASIOC members who not wiki experts. Keeper, I am sorry but you opened yourself to question of bias when you posted the site. --Rcrookes (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The whole conversation got derailed, on purpose IMO, by socks. Those who are experts aren't experienced wiki-folk and they didn't know what to do to establish notability in the face of truly obnoxious socks. I think this is notable, but agree it is debatable and should be relisted so an actual set of facts can be determined than then a consensus (hopefully) settled on. Hobit (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear.. if the AFD was "tainted" and thus unusable, due to outside involvement, what of this deletion review? I see a couple different accounts who've done almost no editing here, other than on this single issue. Friday (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found one...the majority of this article is about the NASIOC reaction to the 2008 WRX: [63]. Edmunds is most definitely a reliable source. Not the total primary focus (although the reaction of the members is)...but definitely not trivial. --Smashville^BONK! 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do sources like this help support notability? If so, there are many more like this out there. Edmunds article regarding NASIOC scoop on '09 Forester[64]; PR on MotorTrend covering a NASIOC sponsored event [65]; Slashdot article covering The Star Wars Car [66]. I don't want to clutter up this discussion, but there are more similar to this if it is helpful. Beethoven05 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with those is that the first one is a blog...because blogs are generally not factchecked, they aren't considered reliable sources (although they can be used in some instances, but more as a reference than as evidence to notability); the second one has a similar issue...press releases aren't allowed (believe me, I found a ton) because they are more or less well written advertising; slashdot has the blog issue, too...you're on the right track, though...can you guys find any local news accounts of the events the chapters put on? --Smashville^BONK! 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't searched for Chapter coverage yet, but there are several cases were quotes from NASIOC are used in newspaper articles including the Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL), The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) and The Ottowa Citizen (Ottowa, Ont.). Beethoven05 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - clarification - It's long-established that being quoted in a newspaper story not about the subject, does not make the subject notable. Unless the newspaper articles are about NASIOC, they are irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        clarification The articles we are referring to would not be glancing quotes from NASIOC, but would be specifically about events held by the local chapters of NASIOC in their regions. --NickNASIOC (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I'd say those would be most helpful, but heck, I already think this group is notable. And I don't own a Subaru. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore due to too much sockpuppetry in the previous discussion and even when their edits are removed, there was really no consensus, i.e. strong disagreement existed even among established admins and regular good faith editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I think it needs to be noted that while NASIOC itself has not necessarily been covered in print very often, there have been quite a few articles that have cited NASIOC as a place for tech info within other articles. On another note, I see a lot of calls for verification of notability, so it seems to me that this is a pretty large gray area within Wikipedia. NASIOC may not be horribly relevant to the layperson, but as online based automotive clubs go it's fairly large and well known. I would daresay that there is not a trivial number of people involved in any given automotive message board that has heard of NASIOC in some way. It's nearly impossible to prove, beyond knowing that there have been threads in the past which have had members from a myriad of automotive boards checking in. At any rate, to me Wikipedia is supposed to be a vast repository of information that you definitely won't find explicitly in a ink and paper encyclopedia. To that end, it doesn't hurt to have articles which may pertain to things that you won't necessarily find in ink and paper sources. Upnygimp (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per Guy above. Eusebeus (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Guy says it all. The reappearance of the SPAs from the non-notable forum again attracts my attention; the original delete was correct; that article should be kept deleted per WP:N. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of SPAs in the DRV is not a reason to endorse deletion/protection if there are reliable secondary sources. It appears that they were the primary focus of an independent magazine article... --Smashville^BONK! 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you would like to re-read what I said? "The reappearance of the SPAs from the non-notable forum again attracts my attention". At no point did that feature in my reasoning and my opinion is not changed by your misrepresentation. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that interpretation is clearly contradicted by the fact the author of the original writing used a semicolon after that phrase, which means that it is more tightly connected to the phrase that follows it than if a period was used. If you re-read the text, it's clear that the reference to SPAs must logically lead into "the original delete was correct" as that phrase leads into "the article should be kept deleted...". As per the Death of the Author and your use of the intentional fallacy, I must conclude that Smashville's interpretation is much more accurate than yours, --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist, semi-protected if need be From what I saw of the AfD, there were more dregs than tea. 7<=>6 (the number of keep/delete args after all the SPAs and sockpuppets are discounted) isn't exactly a consensus; I've seen noms close as "no consensus" with larger margins than this. If there is so much as a shadow of a chance that disruption might continue with a new AfD, semi-protect and monitor the page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 18:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, unless someone can actually show reliable sourcing that isn't just a trivial mention in passing. For those on "margins", say it with me, AfD is not a vote. If those advocating to keep do not actually show sourcing that justifies keeping the article, their arguments are irrelevant, if those sources can be shown, arguments to delete are irrelevant. Here, little to no sourcing has been brought up, aside from some unreliable and trivial mentions, so the number of "keep because I like it" is not relevant. Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is also irrelevant, there just aren't the sources here to justify an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A whole article on the topic isn't trivial.. And the Subiesport article appears to be both reliable and non-trivial. And while some of the other articles look a bit on the weak side, there are clearly multiple reliable sources where the group is at least a topic of the article. Hobit (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - The AfD was created by a sockpuppet troll with the intent to disrupt the encyclopedia, and the discussion was clearly impacted by the fact that a number of the troll's other sockpuppets showed to up to !vote delete along the way. Further complicating the matter were SPAs coming in from the forum to defend the article. The result is an unmitigated mess and I don't believe that we serve ourselves best by leaving an appearance of impropriety that results from a patently disruptive/trolling AfD attempt. If the article truly needs to be deleted, then surely another AfD can be made by a legitimate user and the discussion can proceed without the taint of sockpuppetry and trolling. FCYTravis (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, think of the articles. The last thing we should do is relist. Nobody's presented a credible plan for making a new AFD run better than the old one. But, more and more sources are being dug up all the time. I think all we have to do here is remember that if someone writes a properly sourced article on this topic that is substantially different from the old one, we don't have to be bound by the old AFD on the old crappy version. So I guess all I'm saying is, don't immediately delete a fresh stab at a new article on this topic, if someone tries to make it. Friday (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of course there's a plan for making a new AFD run better than the old one. The sockpuppet trolls involved have all been blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that solves the problem for the 10 seconds it takes to make a new account. Anyone got a better idea? Friday (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I've been following this discussion off and on for awhile now (I'm not affiliated with NASIOC) but I came across an article this evening that was also nominated AFD, it did turn out to be 'no consensus, default to keep' citing that 'Lack of sources doesn't always mean delete - it's an invitation to clean up, and I truly hope that the editors of this article will do that.'. That AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination). My question is.. in the spirit of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules why can we not look at this article in that same light? It seem as though some editors or whatever you want to call them are all offended and extending their long arm of the law to squash this content out of spite; which is doing nothing towards improving wikipedia. As someone who's been here for a long time in the sense of an anonymous IP address it really does make this group look rather uh.. unprofessional. I suggest that since there seems to be strong desire for many people to have, keep and improve the article, this gets restored so that it can actually see the light of day and be improved. I'm sure that's not what some of you want, and you'll continue waving your "no sources" flag till the cows come home, but I thought I'd comment anyway. Mobilepolice (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also want to make one other note just as a preemptive strike. I know I'm going to get the oft-repeated argument about the article that it is Advertising and/or spam in some nature. To reply to that (before it's repeated to me in a rebuttal sense): Anything on here is Advertising, for that fact we shouldn't have a movie list like Awake (film), one for which I recently restructured the plot, because these advertise the film themselves. That's my personal opinion, the difference between a film listing and an article on an enthusiast club is that the film listing may generate revenue from the particular person who saw the listing, read the plot, and decided to see the movie. To this extent, demanding independent sources does not change weather or not an article is outright advertisement. NASIOC has nothing, in my opinion, to gain in a monetary sense by the article on wikipedia. They sell nothing, the advertising on their website from the looks of it goes to support and pay the bills of the popular site. Since I feel they are not a retailer of any good or service with the intention of making a profit (I do not believe the website is a registered business either), I do not feel WP:SPAM is a valid argument. Furthermore if there is any disagreement on that front a demand of independent sources per WP:NOTABILITY then I must stress that the inclusion of independent sources do not invalidate the WP:SPAM argument. I don't care to do the digging right now but I believe I have come across some small articles in the past written about startup companies or new technology patented by said company, reviewed on major news networks (like CNN etc), and remain on wikipedia; these are nothing more than advertisements with sources, where do you draw the line? Just curious. Mobilepolice (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mobilepolice's first and second edits here were to this discussion. Blueboy 96 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For my previous edits please see Special:Contributions/68.52.101.103, I only created an account recently after my changes to Awake (film) and decided if I was going to be making big edits like that I'd like to get credited with them. Mobilepolice (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist consensus was extremely difficult to determine in that one. Semi-prot the afd from the getgo. Viridae ^Talk 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Follyglot – Deletion endorsed – Stifle (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I changed my mind.

Archived discussion where category was deleted (disposition: speedy delete, creator request) here.

I have been persuaded that the tips on the former category's talk page (now relocated here) are not as visible when relegated to user space, and that they are of general enough interest to warrant more exposure.

So, I've reconsidered and would like to discuss that. Would it be a good idea to recreate the category somewhere, albeit with a more useful and conventional/proper name than the original?

Thanks. Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Associated userbox here. Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I understand a want to have the information easily accessible, I don't think a category is the way to go for this. I suppose you could consider moving this to Wikipedia: space as , at least, an essay. But be aware that there will be those who will suggest moving it back to your userspace. As for that concern, there are a lot of subpages in userspace that are found just fine. Perhaps there may be some other Wikipedia-space pages which you could place this page as a "see also" link? - jc37 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Endorse) I second Jc37's suggestion; your tips can be helpful, but I don't see the utility of a user category. A userpage (with see also links in appropriate locations) could eventually evolve into something useful enough to merit a page in Wikipedia-space as a full-blown essay, which I would support. I don't think it's there yet, but given time and other sets of eyes, it might. Horologium (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per comments above. This category is not useful for Wikipedia, and even if brought back (under any name) it would get re-nominated and would almost certainly be deleted, as consensus was heading in the last nomination before you requested deletion, prompting a speedy. VegaDark (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jc37 and Horologium, I think searching for users with this particular skill/interest is useful. You disagree?

Suppose some member gets roped into porting a complicated template to multiple shaky-language projects. There might be another member sporting both the follyglot badge and an "I understand parser functions" badge. There would be no convenient way to find that person/resource without the userbox/category pair. Right?

Suppose somebody just has a random question. They could put it on the essay discussion page. When I've done that, unless the author monitors, I've never gotten an answer. They could put it on my user page, too. But I don't log in here every week. Sure, somebody else might modify the essay, or contribute significantly to the discussion page. That person might monitor, or they could put a discussion page note there, too. But I imagine there are more people whose knowledge is on par with mine (who might share my interest and join a userbox category) than whose knowledge significantly surpasses mine (who would feel the need to add to what I wrote).

But I've seen the userbox+category model work in similar situations. So if somebody's frustrated with a simple question still unanswered after 10 days when I haven't logged in, they have the option of checking out the profiles of other people on the list. Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closer of the previous discussion - I do not oppose a relisting for discussion at WP:UCFD, if that is what is being requested here. - jc37 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't have a problem with the concept here, but I disagree that a category is the way to go. If someone is frustrated that you haven't answered their question after 10 days, sure, they can ask every other person in the category, but what happens if they're unavailable as well, or doesn't have the answer needed, or has no interest in helping anyone out, they just want that userbox for their userpage and the category came with it? Said person with the question will have wasted a lot of time spamming everyone in the category and will still be no closer to getting it answered. And that's if the person with the question even has heard of the userbox/category. --Kbdank71 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

National High School Center – Not really the right place to put this request. No arguments have been made to support restoring the article, so deletion endorsed, but I expect the copy that User:Highschoolimprovement is working on may make it into mainspace before long. – Stifle (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, This is in regards to an article on the National High School Center. The National High School Center is a non-profit organization set-up by the Department of Ed. and I posted an article on the Center last December. In February, the article was deleted for copyright reasons and I was encouraged to re-write the article using original content. I have re-written the article and would like to re-post. Is there any way to get it reviewed here before posting it again? Highschoolimprovement (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in your user space, and post a link to it here would be my suggestion. This seems common for deleted articles. Be sure you have solid sourcing first...Hobit (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion. The article is now up on my user space. Any way someone can review it and give me suggestions? --Highschoolimprovement (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article draft is now at User:Highschoolimprovement/National High School Center, but so far it lacks any third party references other than by the organization itself. It also resembles still an organization describing their mission and offerings. Before moving it to the article space you should add some sources and do a major rewrite.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clive Watkinson – Restored as contested Proposed deletion. Listing at AfD at editor's discretion. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a perfectly reasonable, long standing article that is unbiased and factual with good external links to good sources (BBC) - this was no reason for it to have been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BRChamber (talk • contribs)

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

International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam – Deletion endorsed. The sources have been discussed at the AFD and found laccking. Nor are there any other arguments here that would invalidate the AfD and its closure. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

with no good reason

This article could have been STUB instead of DELETE.
Nine direct/indirect references were provided to mention the notability of the article
The deletion of this article is unfair
Should be restore

Iamsaa (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion DRV is not a rehash of AfD, and this does not address or shed any new light on the AfD. As to the references, they were brought up at the AfD, and (correctly) dismissed as trivial name-drop mentions of the subject, unreliable, or both. If the nominator would like to see this article restored, I would encourage that they actually provide substantial sourcing, or that will not happen. Conflict of interest also appears to be at issue here, and while that is not in itself a reason to delete anything, it certainly should make us cautious. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion - I found Scientizzle's arguments persuasive. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist It shouldn’t be deleted, because it was an appropriate article in all the way, with number of sources provided. If you want I can highlight even hundreds of article poor than that article, which are not just exist but thriving day by day. It should have been stub. I want this to be restored.--Falconkhe (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hut 8.5 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion these arguments were brought up in the AfD and rejected. Deletion review is not a second run through of AfD, as Seraphimblade points out - it is simply a way of reviewing the closure of deletion discussions, and here Moreschi closed the debate in line with consensus. Hut 8.5 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion I have studied deeply, this article was improving time by time and its progression was continue, it shouldn’t be deleted. Nine references were provided to support this article. Deletion is like an unjust. I strongly recommend to restore this article.--Asikhi (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NASIOC – Withdrawn by nominator. – Stifle (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was deleted through a pretty clear consensus after a 7 day discussion after group forum shopped the debate and was still never able to provide one single reliable secondary source. An admin who participated in the AfD (and voted keep) superceded the initial deletion discussion, restored the deleted article...my G4 speedy was declined. Ignore the below discussion on the same article. This restoration was highly, highly, highly out of process. Smashville^BONK! 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that...OrangeMike redeleted as G4 while I was writing this. --Smashville^BONK! 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dalton Prejean – Withdrawn by nominator – Stifle (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I realise that he's dead, but WP:ONEEVENT now re-directs to WP:BLP1E. There is absolutely no evidence this person was notable other than for murdering and being executed, something that none of the "KEEP"s addressed. Nor were they policy based. This was apparently a non-admin close (his page makes no reference to being one) and I spoke with the closer and I don't agree with the reason for his close especially the assertion that this is a notable event --it's a death row inmate who was executed, unfortunately the US has a lot of those, so we're here. Thoughts? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my closure, which is justified on the following grounds:

(1) As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalton Prejean had a unanimous consensus favoring retention of the article, and did not raise issues of severe policy violations (such as copyright violations or unreferenced controversial information concerning a living person) it is highly improbable that an administrator would have deleted the article on the basis of this AFD discussion. Respect for consensus on Wikipedia is usually sufficient to preclude the deletion of an article against the wishes of every participant in an AFD discussion except the nominator, absent an extraordinarily compelling justification.

(2) WP:BLP1E is a subsection of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and is to be construed accordingly. Therefore, it is inapplicable to deceased subjects. Dalton Prejean, being dead for the last 18 years, is no longer within the remit of the biographies of living persons policy.

(3) Even if

(a) Dalton Prejean were a living person and

(b) it were established that he was only notable for a single event

WP:BLP1E would still not constitute a compelling reason for deletion, as WP:BLP1E advises editors to cover notable events as such, rather than in the context of biographies of otherwise non-notable participants: "Cover the event, not the person." The article could easily be reworked into coverage of Dalton Prejean's execution, and the events preceding it, subject matter which apparently does not receive detailed treatment in other articles. Renaming the article to Execution of Dalton Prejean and revising the text accordingly would be far more efficient than deleting the article and attempting to write a new article concerning the event. John254 01:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse close/ welcome to relist BLP1E/ONEVENT are essentially stylystic and editorial concerns. In general, it is often more useful to focus on events than the individuals. When they are living people there may be additional reasons to do so. Those concerns don't apply since the individual is dead. Consensus was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. I have yet to see any evidence that the event is notable, which, living or not, is why I still see it failing the policy of WP:ONEVENT. Is being a murderer notable? I don't think we've established this which is the crux of the issues. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BLP concerns do not apply, since "BLP" stands for "biographies of living persons." Figuring out why that does not apply here is left to the reader. Other than that, clear consensus to keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. Case reached the supreme court, attracted attention from the European Parliament, and is one of the fairly rare examples of the US executing someone for crimes committed as a juvenile. Article was also well-referenced. Add all that to a unanimous consensus to keep, all of them making reasonable arguments, and I see no way this AFD could be closed as a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unanimous keep decision. DRV is a venue for explaining how the deletion process wasn't followed, not a second round of AFD to try and get your preferred result. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which is exactly what I was explaining, a non-admin close that I didn't feel followed generally accepted guidelines and policies, I realise BLP1E doesn't apply to someone dead, really wish ONEEVENT wasn't a redirect there now as NOTNEWS is NOTNEWS dead or alive. Clearly others disagree, that doesn't mean I was trying to get my 'preferred result.' Clearly there is a consensus that NOTNEWS/ONE:EVENT doesn't apply, fine. It didn't hurt to ask since I thought that was the point of DRV. Someone can feel free to close this TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 April 2008

NASIOC – Inappropriate pre-emptive listing. – Stifle (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

notablilty has been proven and this discussion is still open. It has passed the 5days and it seems as if there is a personal vendetta by the person who recommended the AFD. Rcrookes (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - The AfD is still open; there is no deletion (or other type of closure) to review. There is currently a backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is why the discussion has been open for more than 5 days. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - This is not the forum, as pointed out above, the AfD is still open. --Smashville^BONK! 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the AfD is now closed with a outcome of "delete". Pegasus «C¦T» 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allison Sudradjat – Recreation permitted – Stifle (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article on an AusAIDs Minister Counsellor in Indonesia was originally created by Jack Merridew/Davenbelle in May 2007, and nommed for deletion with a delete result. In March 2008 (9 months later), I was asked by the article creator to fetch the original article and place in his userspace as he added some sources so it would qualify for notability. I felt it did now qualify and place in Mainspace but was deleted by Pegasus under CSD G5. However, as far as I can tell, Davenbelle and socks are all indef blocked not banned as such. According to this Arbcom decision, he is blocked not banned (?) and I felt the article should be judged on its own merits and so am placing it here for the community to decide whether to relist at AfD, or endorse deletion. Unfortunately only admins will be able to see and judge deleted material. PS: I apologise for placing it in userspace the first time as I realise I should have come here first given the situation}} Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]
comment as original closing admin at the time of the Afd May 2007 I said there may be cause to recreate this article if more WP:BIO information becomes available. I see nothing of issue with Cas's restoration in March 08 he acted in good faith to a user request, the deletion of the martial under csd#g5 in was also reasonable after the user was identified as being indef block due to Arbcom sanctions. From the talk page of the arbcom case I've made the most recent block indefinite. Moby Dick really has no useful contributions outside of an impressive amount of stalking, and there is no reason not to consider him banned. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)source, IMHO the article should be recreated from fresh rather than restoration. Gnan garra 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, Moby Dick is subject to a de jure partial ban imposed by the ArbCom case that applies only to "articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues" and a de facto full ban caused by the fact that he is indef-blocked and no one is willing to (or ought to, I suppose) unblock the account. In the end, it seems to me that the validity of the speedy deletion hinges on whether a de facto ban is enough to activate CSD G5 in the absence of a more formal ban (Moby Dick does not seem to be on the list of banned users). I suppose WP:IAR could also be invoked... Since I don't precisely know why the creator was sanctioned by ArbCom and indef-blocked, I'll refrain (for now) from endorsing the deletion or supporting undeletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The history of this blocked/banned user is complicated, but the reasons for the blocks/bans, which are many, do not include anything to do with Indonesian-related topics. I suggest that the article be evaluated for notability based on its inherent merits, without prejudice to any other situations involving the user in question that might arise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support restore per Newyorkbrad; she is notable because of the multiple non-trivial independent write-ups referenced. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support restore - with Moby's contributions as Jack Merridew being mostly in good-faith (Merridew was far less-stalky than previous sockpuppets), I'd put Moby on the cusp of banned users now (whereas pre-Jack I'd say firmly "banned"). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of an appropriately-sourced article. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of an appropriately-sourced article if someone can do it. Hobit (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of an appropriately-sourced article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

George Navarini – Overturn and list on AFD – Stifle (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sir,

Please note that Lt Col Navarini is the first member of CAP to be awarded both the Order of the Star of the Ethiopean Empire and the Order of Intare of Rwanda. You can confirm this by checking out the Wikipedia article on "Order of the Intare". I was there when he was presented these awards on 3 March 2007, as was King Kigali V, and others.

You can check the Florida Wing website www.flwg.us, or contact National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol at [removed contact information for privacy, available in history].

He is also listed on LinkedIn, and you can of course Google his name, although I understand this is not a good primary course.

I noticed that you have an issue regarding "noteriety", and that sir, is rather subjective. Does a mass murderer (who has loads of noterity) command space of Wikipedia, while a hard-working piller of the community who has been in service to his community, state and nation across three decades, and is one of the most well-known members of Florida Wing, Civil Air Patrol is concidered "too small"

A fine example sir, regarding the small fact that you may have been helped by Colonel Navarini, as the colonel was part of CAP's Katrina deployment, as well as well over ten other hurricane and tropical storm deployments in the past decade. These are not listed as many of our active members have done the same and as such, this bring little "noteriety" in CAP and emergency services circles.

If being on television counts, the colonel has been on TV and radio countless times, as the Wing (state-level) director of Public Affairs. He has been the voice of Florida Wing many times, both during and after hurricanes and during Air Search and Rescue Missions across Florida. You can verify this by contacting Lt Col Valerie Brown, Wing Chief of Staff at [removed contact information for privacy, available in history] or Lt Col Art Giles, Florida Wing Vice Commander (currently in Washington DC for FEMA training) at [email protected].

Finally, Colonel Navarini was the first member of CAP to attend FEMA's Emergency Management Institute last July, as a CAP officer. He attended the Advanced Public Information Course. You can confirm this by contact EMI directly at: [removed contact information for privacy, available in history], or calling [removed contact information for privacy, available in history].

With all this information now in your hands, I sincerely hope you will reconcider your earlier decision and restore Colonel Navarini'd article.

Respectfully Submitted,

AMANDA J. LENARDSON, C/Capt, CAP Cadet Recruit Training Officer, Past Cadet Commander 286th CAP Composite Squadron, Florida Wing FLWG-CAP (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can an admin give logs so the rest of us can figure out what's going on here? Was this speedied? Why? It's kind of useful to have this information.... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I fail. I was looking at the page with all caps; I figured it had been scrubbed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and list at AfD. Subject was killed in action (See FLORIDA WING MOURNS FALLEN HERO. US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Washington, D.C.: Jan 30, 2006.') in Iraq and seems to have been involved in the production of a squadron-produced monthly television show, as well as appearing on TV as a spokesperson a few times. Subject is also the recipient of the Royal Order of the Intare. Individually, I don't think any one of these makes him worthy of an article. However, as a recipient of a notable award, per WP:BIO, I think his notability is debatable enough to be put to AfD. Will it succeed? Probably not. Should it be given the chance? Yes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and list at AFD. Knowing he has received these awards does suggest potential notability. The wonderful things he has done and the wonderful feelings people have about him do not factor into this. It is possible to be accomplished without satisfying notability. To Capt. Lenardson, though, notability is not subjective. It is based on either inherent factors (such as being elected to certain offices) or derived from reliable sources making note of the individual. We are aware there are other articles on Wikipedia which may not seem as notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the heading to the proper title of the deleted page. With that in mind, overturn, undelete the oldest version (only; the intermediate versions are all a protest at the deletion) and list at AFD bearing in mind the claim of notability. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn, undelete the oldest version only, and immediately list at AFD. To the requester, every soldier and sailor who has ever died in battle is regarded highly, but not necessarily the kind of subject that encyclopedia articles are written about. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor is it the army archives. But this article does warrant further scrutiny at AFD, based on the media exposure and award(s), as Celarnor mentioned. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I understand the subject is alive. His current assignment is as Director, Marketing and Public Affairs and a such he will issue notes as the one mentioned above, which is about the death of Dennis J. Flanagan [67].--Tikiwont (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 April 2008

Jerec – Restore and redirect to allow merge. It is not considered necessary to pass trough user space, but rather preferred to keep the edit history in mainspace. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobody who posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerec mentioned the possibility of merging Jerec into List of minor Star Wars villains, which I think should be done. DocumentN (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with the deleted material moved to DocumentN's userspace for DocumentN to merge him/herself. --EEMIV (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to EEMIV's suggestions. Undelete and move to userspace for cleanup and merger seems like a reasonable solution here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article, selectively merge relevant content, and redirect the page. What's the point of moving to userspace? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same reasons/points it was deleted from mainspace in the first place. --EEMIV (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would still be useful... And if the article is restored, merged, and redirected, then there won't be any mainspace version (if you're worried about recreation, the redirect could be protected...). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete to allow merge and redirect per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and merge per Brad. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/undelete/redirect Seems obvious. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 April 2008

Maternity clothing - New article started, and being worked on by multiple people. Previous history restored, nothing really left to review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The site was deleted because it was felt that it was spam. This occurred when I was linking it to other sites which I felt were relevant like pregnancy. This seemed to disturb some. In any case I am happy not to link my site to any other wikipedia sites. I feel my page had a lot of content on the history of maternity clothing which would add to wikipedia as a whole. I think users should edit a page before deleting pages so rapidly which obviously angers users who spent a lot of time researching a particular topic Danmasri (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, it seems that after your post a new sourced article has been started, with help from the deleting admin, so how about all joining forces there? The deleted article contained some commercial links, but also some content (although not sourced). If that hasn't been copied and pasted, I wouldn't mind restoring the full history giving thus credit for covering this gap. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, it would make good sense to join forces, using content from the deleted article (but properly sourced) to produce, hopefully, a better one. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NCTSA - Contested PROD automatically restored. Anyone is free to submit to AFD if that is desired. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that the article on NCTSA should not be deleted because it is certainly a notable State TSA chapter. One of the most influential state chapters in the country. For those of you who don't know, TSA is the Technology Student Association and is a Middle and High School technology and leadership organization. With over 70 chapters and many members. To call NCTSA an un-notable TSA chapter is calling a state un-notable. 18:00, 7 April 2008 (ESTD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.204.244 (talk • contribs)

Overturn and list at AfD. The article in question was actually North Carolina Technology Student Association and was deleted as an expired prod. Now that someone's contesting that, I believe restoring the article and taking it to AfD is the usual procedure. I have to say, however, that deletion via AfD seems very likely, given WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." Deor (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

RCS Guambo – Deletion endorsed. Further guidance provided below. – Tikiwont (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you actually take the time to read the article, you will see that while this is high school sports team, it is one of the most influential teams in the entire metro session. I believe winning over 10 championship tittles quite a feat, and is definitely wikipedia worthy. 162.83.183.35 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (as a deleter of several versions of the article). High school sports teams aren't generally notable, even very successful ones. No indication that they've been covered in reliable sources other than the local sports pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, small-town team, not notable outside local area. GlassCobra 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (not for the same reasons as Glass Cobra, it is a private high shcool team, and that school is not in a small town). What was there was not an encyclopedia article, and gave no indication that it is possible to write an encyclopedia article on the subject. If it gets coverage outside the sports section and regional editions of the local paper then there might be a case for an article. But it should be written strictly in accordance with this guidance when and if someone believes they have found independent and reliable sources. GRBerry 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per NawlinWiki and GRBerry's reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Secret History of Christianity – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

was deleted as copyright violation. I am the author the copyright to the book is mine. Please restore the page Mrmajinka (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fmt fix, no opinion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to thus release the material under the WP:GFDL? This includes allowing others to use the material for any purpose, including commercial purposes. That is what you are doing if you place your work up on the project. You would then need to provide proof that you do indeed own the copyright, and are thus able to license the work under the GFDL. And that does not touch on likely WP:COI and WP:OR issues that could still get your material removed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted article in question is actually at The Secret History of Christianity. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If it's your book, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote it -- see WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Also, you've given no indication that the book is notable (see WP:N). According to Amazon, the book won't even be published until April 17, so it's kind of hard to say that it's already notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion copyvio or not, the author of a book pasting official material about the book smacks of advertising. At any rate, the important question ultimately is whether the book is notable or not. According to the only media I could find on the book, it sounds like this might be a self-published book. Since that's the only media coverage anyway, and it's hardly a serious review, we'd just need more sources to be able to justify an article on this subject. --Rividian (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion - blatantly failed every test. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monsta – Deletion endorsed – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

My article should be created. Monsta is a real person and telling from my user name that is who I am. Why can't I create an article about myself. i am of important significance I'm an American rapper who has records in the Guinness Book of World records. I am of plenty significance. I deserve an article about myself.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Monsta (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed formatting. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as speedy deleter. Aside from the obvious WP:COI problems, "Monsta" has posted a biography that includes numerous made-up, unsourced claims (such as the "records in the Guinness Book of World Records" comment above; the article also claims that "Monsta" had a platinum album at age 12 and won an MTV Award for "best solo artist" (there's no such award). Funny how this famous "Monsta" doesn't show up on Google. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as speedy deleter. nonsense/vandalism/coi/nn bio etc Jimfbleak (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per the whole laundry list of reasons Jimfbleak offers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as yet another speedy deleter. Fails even a cursory Google check, non-notable and nonsense. Acroterion _(talk) 11:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 April 2008

User:21655/AFV – Deletion overturned. No prejudice to the MfD listing. – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

Now I realize this page totally fails WP:DENY, but if us Wikipedians want to give ourselves a laugh once in a while, I say we do it. After all, I know like 5 or 6 users that do the same thing. If you disagree, I can move it to somewhere a vandal wouldn't bother to look. Maybe link to it from my userpage instead of transclude it. But that's just my view. 21 655 ^τalk/_ʃign 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and MFD Speedies don't apply in the userspace Alexfusco⁵ 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~: Its a userspace page, which was not in violation of any policies. I fail to see the reason for deletion without discussion. WP:MFD would have been appropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: After thinking about this a bit more, and adopting a new term (courtesy of MrZ below), there really is no need for 'policy wonking' here. If it were MFD, I would support its deletion, so, why not cut out the extra step here? I do disagree with Nicks deletion without discussion, but, can understand why he did it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: per it being in the userspace, and not being against policy. Speedy deletion does not apply, and it should have gone to MFD if the admin thought it should be deleted. --Chetblong^Talk/_Sign 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a terrible and dangerous precedent to set here, if we permit such pages, we're encouraging vandalism "let's see if we can get on that list". There's also the very real problem about judging what should go on these pages, it'll get to the stage where OTRS are handling e-mails from disgruntled subjects of articles complaining about how we highlight some terrible comments that were made about them or their companies and so on. I deleted this page and I would strongly urge the deletion of every other such page on the grounds that we simply cannot control what goes on these lists and that such lists promote behaviour that is entirely against the mission of Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, was that it? I see. Well, if it makes you happy, I can make it less conspicuous. 21 655 ^τalk/_ʃign 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Would MFD have been appropriate? Yes. Would this be kept at an MFD? Probably not. Does it help the project in any way? No. No need for policy wonking here methinks. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So much for reading anything I say, but you're probably right. (No, that does not imply a request for speedy close). 21 655 ^{ωhαt do yoυ wαnt?} 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify something here: the lists are for STUPID VANDALS ONLY. Libellous material doesn't apply. I don't know about Steve, Kafziel, J.delanoy, and the rest, but my list is libel-free and it'll stay that way. As for the "oh, can I get into that" question, hey--it's just one more step to WP:AIV, since it'll get reverted anyway. 21 655 ^{ωhαt do yoυ wαnt?} 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per beans/deny, but also acknowledge that speedy is generally not appropriate for userspace. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Overturn deletion I am a process wonk, and the more I thought about this, the more it bothered me. Speedy deletion criteria simply does not apply, and must not be stretched, even one half of one angstrom. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and add to this MFD. There is no valid reason for speedy deletion - WP:DENY is not a policy, or even a guideline. Vandals are probably more aware of WP:LTA or WP:ABREP - the pages in userspace are a way for vandals to gain recognition without causing as much disruption. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deleting pages in userspace per an essay is obviously outside policy. This is the only way we can stop people making bad deletions. Hut 8.5 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No need for gratuitous process, this is nothing but BJAODN reincarnated. We have consensus for not retaining lists of vandalcruft, additional consensus is not required. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn needs discussion at MfD. Otherwise it becomes a matter of "delete anything an admin thinks is deletable and hope nobody appeals it. "DGG (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. This is material that immortalises vandalism, we have quite a lot of debates that suggest this is no longer what we do, including the BJAODN deletions and the deletion of long term abuse pages. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but, as you see, Guy, this is your personal view--and other people here feel differently, which warrants a discussion, and the place for that is MfD DGG (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Funny and harmless. Orderinchaos 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Small ripple in teacup hidden in distant cupboard (until now). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This at least needs an MfD. Captain panda 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Eh, I was going to offer some long, divagating !vote about why process is important in situations like this, but DGG and Hut, inter al., put it sufficiently and more cogently than would have I. It should further be observed, I think, that, even as overturning would be appropriate even were we relatively confident that MfD would counsel deletion, it is not entirely clear that the community will support deletion here (CCC, etc.), toward which one may see, e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Best Vandalism Lists, which, at the very least, suggests that there is some opposition to the deletion of pages not entirely dissimilar to the instant page. And so I managed an exorbitantly long !vote after all. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to undelete this just for formalities. I endorse the deletion because we should deny recognition to vandals and because having this page doesn't help the encyclopedia whatsoever. John Reaves 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should also deny recognition to people whose sole purpose here is to rack up edits and get barnstars (e.g. the disgusting message in the above commenter's signature). John Reaves 22:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, it's a joke, a play on I Can Has Cheezburger?, and I can't imagine that anyone would take it as solicitory of a barnstar or as otherwise inappropriately jocular (of course, your comment might well not mean to take it seriously; in fact, I assume that it doesn't, remembering AGF and all, and offer an explanation only in order to make the situation plain). For the first twenty-seven months of my time (during which time it happens that my purpose was other than to rack up edits and get barnstars) here I signed only as "Joe", and I recently undertook to expand my sig just a bit (if our most vigilant signature shortener can adopt a username that necessitates a long sig, one feels free to go wild); apologies if the humor was lost in my undertaking that rather trivial pursuit. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, if Nick wants to go around deleting pages in userspace, he'll have to take it to MFD unless the user requests it, the user doesn't exist, or it's a non-free gallery of images (or if WP:CSD is amended). Essays are not a criteria for speedy deletion for pages in userspace. --Pixelface (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, due to procedural irregularity. xenocidic (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per all above TheProf - T / C 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I find the argument that the BJAODN case established a clear consensus for these deletions unconvincing. BJAODN went through multiple MfDs, and the GFDL issue was crucial in tilting the balance. Besides which, "consensus" isn't a speedy deletion criterion; "consensus can change," but how can one tell if consensus has changed if there is no discussion? Groggy Dice T | C 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Whatever about the page being in the userspace, WP:DENY is not a CSD. It even specifically says so. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - purely on narrow procedural grounds; I'll cheerfully support its deletion in an MfD discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Station Jim – Deletion overturned due to misuse of CSD A7, with no prejudice to future AfD listing. Page history restored; unredirection/expansion is subject to editorial decision. – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

I created this article today but it seems to have been speedily deleted. I am not sure who did this and the reasons are mysterious since the article was already better sourced than Old Yeller and had potential to become as good as Greyfriars Bobby. Since I am not aware of a good reason to delete this, please can it be restored. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own deletion; the only thing I can see that might be out of process is whether CSD:A7 (Bio) applies to animals as well as humans. It certainly hits A7 - for non-admins, the entire text was

"Station Jim was a popular Canine Collector for the Great Western Railway

Widows' and Orphans' Fund who became the mascot of Slough railway station. He was

stuffed upon his death and can still be seen in a glass case there." Black Kite 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have articles for many such animals at List of famous dogs. The article was going to be fleshed out with photographs and more content which was not done right away since it appeared that there was already more than enough notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Black Kite fails to point out that there were two citations to books and an external reference. For a stub, this article was quite good in my experience of such things. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it didn't assert the notability of the animal. I obviously have no way of checking the book references (though I suspect they'd do little more than confirm the existence of said dog), but the external link was a blog and thus not WP:RS. Black Kite 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was placed in the category Famous dogs. This is an obvious assertion of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither WP:N or WP:BIO make any mention of categories. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are irrelevant to the article. Otherwise CSD could always be circumvented merely by placing the article in a "notable" category. Black Kite 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you, Colonel Warden, placing the category "Famous dogs" onto the article really doesn't make it notable. You need to write why the dog is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Having photographs, a blog site and a book reference does not assert notability. I hope this clears things up for you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, propose merger It seems this would be a good addition to the Slough railway station article - notability criteria only apply to articles, so if this is reliably sourced information there'd be no problem including it in the article, especially if a photograph and more content are forthcoming. However as an article in its own right, it failed A7, and I don't see its chances improving much. Orderinchaos 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not add it to the Slough railway station article, and add a redirect from Station Jim for now? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not indeed. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion endorsed While I'm not sure it was necessarily an A7, I don't see anything in the article that necessitated the dog having his own article. I'd support merging the content into another article as Orderinchaos suggested, and recreating the title under debate as a redirect. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be quite happy to go along with that. Black Kite 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:N guideline indicates that common-sense is to be used. Also, the body of the article indicates that the animal was popular and that it became a msacot. Its subsequent preservation also seems an obvious sign of notability. The matter does not belong in the article for the railway station since a railway station is not a famous dog and so the category would not work well. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category has absolutely nothing to do with it. As a stuffed animal in a glass case, he can broadly be regarded at least for the present as a subset of the station. Furthermore he has a historic association with the station as its mascot in somewhat happier times. So it would seem that the station article is a suitable location for those reasons. "Popular" is relative, many animals are preserved which are not notable, and the dog would not be notable beyond its context with the railway. Orderinchaos 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This line of argument is turning into an AFD discussion. We have a process for this and it is the AFD one. I request again that the article be reinstated. I will then improve it rapidly since there are more sources and interested parties can then tag it and take it further as needed. Speedy deletion seems quite inappropiate. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline applies regardless of whether AfD is entered into or not - it's not limited to a particular set of circumstances. Otherwise there'd be no point in having an A7 speedy criteria. Anyway, I am more interested in solutions than arguments, and I believe I have proposed a fair one that meets all comers and dodges the notability issue entirely. Orderinchaos 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I think enough notability was asserted to avoid A7, which after all was introduced to deal with "Joe Bloggs is a student at Smalltown High School" type articles, not obvious good faith efforts like this. But in any case note that this dog has had a whole film based on it. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a different fictional dog, and is set in Devon. Black Kite 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but seems to be at least loosely based on our dog in slough wouldn't you say? A dog called Station Jim, taken in by the local railway staff, helping orphans? I think that link sounds worth some further investigation. But anyway, here's at least one good non-blog source about the real dog. [68] Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn while I think the whole mess is an unfortunate consequence of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ealing_Broadway_Platform_9 and the hullaballo there, although I'm assuming good faith on both ends, it appears the dog is notable. It can be deleted at AfD if it turns out it isn't notable enough. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To save this going on ad infinitum, I have re-created the article as a redirect to Slough railway station, and added some info on Jim and a better reference into that article. Black Kite 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not entitled to pre-empt the result of this discussion, are you? I'm still asking for the speedy deletion to be undone so that I can continue to work on the article and so that my contribution is respected per the GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I've deleted it again. I'm not taking any further part in this discussion, because it's plainly ludicrous. I was under the impression that this was an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia, but it has become very clear in recent months that I was wrong. Black Kite 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn since I don't believe A7 applies to animals. I go with the interpretation that if it doesn't explicitly state that it does, it doesn't. Still, the deletion was done in good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; animal or not, the article made enough of an assertion for notablilty that A7 should not apply. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its own section in Slough railway station, change to redirect, put redirect into Category:Famous dogs. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, seriously... I am a process freak, but extending A7 to animals is definitely not stretching CSD far. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I can say exactly what started all this. It was a comment I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9. Let me lay out the timeline:
- 09:54, 6 April 2008 - I mention "Station Jim" as an example of interesting historical items (not trivia) that can be written into station articles.
- 10:31 - Colonel Warden creates Station Jim (content provided at start of discussion).
- 10:34 - Colonel Warden notes at the AfD that he has created this new stub on "Station Jim", and invites me to add my photo and help expand the article. I noted the creation of the article and thought it looked fine, though I did think it would eventually get merged into the station article.
- 10:58 - Colonel Warden leaves a note for another editor (this note would later upset Black Kite)
- 14:09 - Black Kite closes the Ealing Broadway Platform 9 debate as "redirect", though the process he describes is actually a merge, and then makes the pointed, if rather cryptic, comment "I have protected the redirect given some of the remarks made in this AfD."
- 15:06 - Black Kite leaves the following note for Colonel Warden, under the title "A stuffed dog": "I'm not sure if there is a method behind you creating less and less notable articles just to see what happens (per your talkpage comment to User:Kmweber), but I'd suggest that it's borderline disruptive. Stop it, please it is quite obvious that you are able to create notable content when you wish." To me, it seems that Black Kite was not aware of the exchange between me and Colonel Warden at the AfD that led to the article being created. If he was, then he was brushing aside me, as well as Colonel Warden, when he pressed the delete button. If he wasn't, then he is closing AfDs without fully reading them. I'd like to know which it is.
- 15:07 - Black Kite deleted Station Jim as "CSD:A7 (Bio): Real dog, doesn't indicate or assert any importance / significance" (I would dispute this).
- Discussion ensued at User talk:Black Kite, User talk:Colonel Warden, User talk:Carcharoth, and here at the DRV.
- Black Kite also tried to meet Colonel Warden halfway by carrying out a merge (though the actual content was different enough to not be a copy of what Colonel Warden has written), but Black Kite only re-created Station Jim as a redirect (this is in the deleted history). Colonel Warden, here at this DRV, correctly pointed out that he was entitled to have the deleted history restored per the GFDL, as his contribution could be seen as the first draft of what Black Kite put in the Slough railway station article. Unfortunately, Black Kite took affront at this, and deleted the redirect with the words: "Fine. I've deleted it again. I'm not taking any further part in this discussion, because it's plainly ludicrous. I was under the impression that this was an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia, but it has become very clear in recent months that I was wrong.". He also removed the content again from the Slough railway station article.
- Black Kite then went off in a huff, but has now returned and is busy closing AfDs.
What I think happened here is that Black Kite got a bit burnt out from too much AfD work, as he said to me here. Hopefully he will put things into perspective, and everyone will calm down a bit. I will (later on) go back to uploading that picture and writing something about Station Jim in the Slough railway station article. As I will be using the sources provided by Colonel Warden, it will be necessary to restore the history of the deleted content as a redirect to correctly attribute the source edits to Colonel Warden per the GFDL. Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to put a couple of things in perspective here. I still believe the A7 delete was correct, but that doesn't mean the content can't be covered somewhere in the encyclopedia, as I suggested when I re-created it as a redirect and put the content in the railway station article. I don't think it can really stand alone (because I think any notability rests on the fact that it's a historical stuffed dog, rather than a historical dog), but I've been known to be wrong before (really). I fully admit that I didn't read Carcaroth and Warden's exchange at the bottom of the AfD - it was after the last of the !votes and quite honestly by that time the exchanges were going round in circles. I believe that was a perfectly correct close, by the way. And yes, if I had read it, I probably wouldn't have speedied the stuffed dog given that Carcaroth said he had some material on it. But regardless of that, the actual A7 I believe was correct. And while my comment to Colonel Warden may have been inaccurate in retrospect, it is undoubtedly the case that AfDs have recently been liberally splattered with "it's notable" votes from the Colonel and other editors [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], which, whilst they should be ignored by closing admins, can be distracting and can lead to incorrect closures. Hence, as Carcaroth rightly says, my frustration. Anyway, back to the encyclopedia.... Black Kite 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per BK and OIC. Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I'm very tempted to agree that A7 is not stretched significantly when applied to the biographies of creatures, but I suspect it's a bad precedent somehow. WT:CSD can debate that. From a process standpoint, I feel kicking this to AFD is just a waste of time, as I'm willing to bet cash money that it will end up as a redirect to Slough railway station. The dog is not famous for having been a dog, but for being a stuffed dog, so far as I can tell, and thus an artifact essentially associated with the station. There just isn't that much you can ultimately say about a stuffed dog who wasn't famous in life (e.g. for rescuing someone). Nevertheless it should have been prodded (again, a waste of time in practical sense, as Colonel Warden would have disputed) or AFD'd. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, considering that he was a live working dog for only two years, and has been a stuffed dog for well over 100 years, it is hardly surprising that he is more famous now for being stuffed and still there at the station. Some people, too, are more notable for being dead and preserved, rather than for what they did while alive. Consider Tutankhamun, Ötzi the Iceman and Jeremy Bentham (see Jeremy Bentham#Auto-icon). Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with the redirect? Slough railway station#"Station_Jim" seems to cover it nicely, and in better context, so the redirect seems to me entirely reasonable. Incidentally, this is geographically local to me. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and let AfD decide what to do with it. We shouldn't be discussing that here. I mention that printed books are as good sources as the web, but it might be appropriate to ask for a quotation. DGG (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - new evidence is also emerging, suggesting that the topic of stuffed dogs on railway stations is not as esoteric (or maybe still) as some suggest. See Wimbledon station#Miscellaneous facts, which mentions the stuffed dog "Laddie" that used to be there until 1990. It is now at York Railway museum, see here. See also this (search for stuffed dogs), which says, among other things: "The scheme caught on in other places too and railway collecting dogs became a familiar sight. There was Nell at Bournemouth and Prince at Croydon, Gyp at Southampton and Bernie at Waterloo. ". There is also this, from the Railway Magazine, which says "Reid, J.A. Canine collectors in the cause of railway charity. 263-6. Dogs collected for railway charities, notably orphanages: muts mentioned included London Jack, Basingstoke Jack, Southamton Gyp, Help (which ended up stuffed and placed in a glass case at Brighton station), and Tim of Paddington who was prsented with two Royal sovereigns by Queen Victoria and another one by the Prince of Wales.". So there is lots that could be written about railway collection dogs, so I suggest someone write that article before I get round to it! And thanks to EdJogg for pointing out the Wimbledon stuffed dog. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those bits of esoterica that is quite properly covered in the station articles, and therefore makes the station articles into encyclopaedia articles instead of directory entries. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both! :-) You can have paragraphs and sections on the dogs at each station (where references survive), but in some cases only a few sentences will be possible. An umbrella/overview/topic article on railway collection dogs would be easily writeable. Or even an article on railway animals in general: there are other interesting stories about railway animals, including some cats - at least one of which also got stuffed, what was it with Victorians and stuffing things? Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, the article shouldn't have been speedily deleted per A7, which is "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The article isn't deleted now, and the content now appears to be in Slough railway station, re-added by Carcharoth who occasionally attributed Colonel Warden. I suppose the edit history could be merged into Slough railway station. So what are we doing here? --Pixelface (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the edit history by Colonel Warden could simply be restored to the redirect created by Guy, and dummy edits made to put edit summaries in the page histories cross-linking them and attributing the content merges. What we are doing here is debating all this while I expanded on and added a photo to the stub that was created by Colonel Warden and worked on by Black Kite. Ironically, the Station Jim section in Slough railway station is now better referenced than the railway station article it is a part of - the section on the stuffed dog has five references, and the rest of the article has two references (one is an external link for the quote in the 'History' section). Well, three if you count the source in the infobox for the passenger stats. Still, I hope people will consider putting as much work into sourcing and improving the rest of the station article as they did into this debate. It doesn't take that much effort to improve an article like this - to rustle up a few broad historical and present-day references and to tighten up a bit of text here and expand some there, and add some links, and look for a few free historical pictures, and ask someone to take a better picture of the station entrance. We could end up with a really nice article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Wasn't a candidate for speedy if there were available references. The "They were in a book so I couldn't check" laziness bit doesn't convince me. If you don't have the resources to verify a source, ask someone with academic database subscriptions or go to a library; things should be kept by default, not deleted. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm so lazy that I write articles and admin here out of pure altruism. The point, if you;d bothered to think about it, is that because the sources were books, there was no way of checking if they asserted any notability over what was asserted in the article, which at the time was none. Black Kite 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your own hard work, the first example of an article created by you which you list on your user page started as World Domination Enterprises. Please could you indicate your claims of notability here for comparison. Or do you later assert the notability when you add sources such as A posting by Keith Dobson. I have to ask since I see no trace of notability here while, when I put a claim that something is famous in an article and cite actual published books, it supposedly doesn't count. It is most perplexing. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - read WP:MUSIC - that particular band hit enough parts of it to pass our notability guidelines, and the original article contained evidence of that notability. To show an opposite, I have this article User:Black Kite/Fin in my userspace, which I hven't yet put into articlespace precisely because it doesn't show that notability, and I won't until I can do that. To answer your other question, just putting "famous" in an article doesn't in itself assert notability, otherwise anyone could start an "notable" article saying, for instance, "Fred Smith is a famous Wikipedia editor". Black Kite 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any notability here, so endorse deletion. But the redirect is fine. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, current outcome is fine, subject doesn't merit an independent article and does quite well at fleshing out a railway station article (which, as Guy mentions, tend to get a free pass on "not a directory" solely due to the power of those who lobby for them and most of which are in desperate need of fleshing out anyway). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 April 2008

Number One with a Bullet – Endorse deletion. AFD is not a vote and the closing admin was within his discretion to delete. – Stifle (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus was reached upon closing the discussion, but the vote was 5-4 to keep. Bensin (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (as closing administrator) AfD is not a vote. The strength of argument for the keeps was weak; all were either not based in policy at all, or were based on a single source constituting verifiable context for notability. That source does not provide context to establish notability of the subject of the article, but rather gives it an essentially trivial mention. As well, the requester has the count wrong anyway, it was 5-4 in favor of delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There were 5 keep votes and 4 deletes, JFire switched to weak keep. Did you read the discussion before you closed it? Catchpole (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you assume that administrators read discussions before they close them, or do you assume the opposite? Try having a quick a read over WP:AGF, it's mad good stuff! And please also go re-read the AFD... where do you count User:B. Wolterding? I think he meant to delete it, since he nominated it, what do you think? That would make the count 5:5. But, as I said, AFD is not a vote. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums says:

In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

Each and every one of the 15 performers on the album are notable songwriters and there are articles on Wikipedia for (if not all then very close to) every one of them. The songwriters perform their own songs, notable songs that also are covered on articles on Wikipedia. Notability is thus not a problem.

Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums:

Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

Where "significant" not necessarily refers to the amout of coverage. The album is mentioned in trustworthy media so it exists, but it is the notability of the performers merits the album an article.--Bensin (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an intersection has a stop sign, all cars approaching from that direction should stop. Therefore, since this pool has a no swimming sign, all people who walk on the street across the parking lot from it should walk slowly. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is that comment related to this discussion? --Bensin (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a friend or neighbor to explain it to you. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote it. Why don't you explain it? --Bensin (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't... I'm allergic. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Based on the arguements, the close is reasonable. The source provided in the AfD isn't strong enough to satisfy WP:N, and I'm pretty sure that compilations fall under the "mixtapes" mentioned in WP:MUSIC#Albums as not generally notable. If you can find better sources, feel free to recreate it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:N isn't generally a guideline worth following in my experience. The article met our core policies, let's retain it. Catchpole (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to have WP:N overturned, please take it up on Wikipedia Talk:Notability. DRV is not the place to change policy. -- Kesh (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Proper close as failing both WP:V (only one source) and WP:N. -- Kesh (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of sources has nothing to do with whether the information in the article is verifiable, for which primary sources are sufficient. It is trivial to verify this article. Catchpole (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse For the time being, as it just doesn't fit with notability. AfD seems to be alright as well. Jmlk 1 7 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with a bullet. Consensus that underpins policy is more reliable than the "consensus" represented by a few people voting at AfD. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closing admin made the correct decision. Captain panda 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, there was no consensus in that AFD and WP:N is not, and never will be, a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per jerry Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, about time albums started getting held to sourcing requirements instead of being allowed to "inherit" notability. Should've been that way all along. There isn't sufficient sourcing here for an article, so the article must go. Nothing else to that story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Compilation albums are so common that allowing them to inherit notability from the bands it contains is rather bad precedent to set. -Halo (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse - for the reasons laid out by Seraphimblade and Halo. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I see the closer as substituting his own standard for adequate sourcing, for the standards of the participants in the AfD. Furthermore, many people realize that sources for the pre-internet era, even 1988, can be hard to turn up on Google, and have a less demanding stance than they would had the album been released last year, say. If the closer didn't want to close the AfD as keep or no consensus, he should have added his opinion to the discussion, explaining why he wasn't impressed by the sourcing. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus. A random non-notable album doesn't get this kind of mention from the NYTimes. Closer asks for multiple sources, but is there anything else (in the article) to source? It was a decent stub already, with good reference from NYTimes, which is a supposedly reliable source. Wikipedia articles need enough, not ample source(s) in order to survive. Further, as Groggy Dice said, there was decidedly no consensus for deletion; if the closer didn't feel one source was enough, they should have weighed in the debate with their views, not close it as an outright deletion. It should also be noted that this article did not fail WP:V in any sense, WP:V only requires that "material challenged or likely to be challenged" be sourced; the page in question contained no unsourced controversial info, thus no policy violation. WP:N, on the other hand, is only a prescriptive guideline, and there are strong arguments from both side concerning whether the article met WP:N or not. This is a no consensus. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTimes article was not about this record. It was about the record industry, and it only gives a trivial, yet enthusiastic, mention to the record. The NYT article does not provide any verifiability for material that was actually in the our article. It could only be used as verification that one newspaper writer liked it and thinks others will as well. Not a valid source, and it was the only one. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the New York Times article Jon Pareles, the chief music critic, writes about the album in no less than three paragraphs. That hardly constitutes a trivial mention, but is a valid source if anything. --Bensin (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, as we discussed at great length on my talk page, the critic is making a point about the entire industry and states that a certain person is unique, and he goes into huge details about this person. He then obligatorily mentions that this album is another similar example of one aspect of what he said about the other guy. He does not offer any encyclopedic details about the album, like sales, airplay, why the album has the particular songs on it that it does, or anything of value to our article. He just says that it is sure to be a delight to listeners. He gives it a passing mention in an article dedicated to a completely different subject altogether. It is most definatly not> a review of this album, as you seem to suggest. "source" implies that it contains content that we use, not that its a really famous person who happens to mention it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three paragraphs is not a passing mention. Neither is it a review, and not in any way did I imply that it was. As for the rest of the "content that we use", I'm sure that the jacket of the record itself provides a detailed enough tracklisting. --Bensin (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the NYT piece didn't discuss sales or airplay, but many album reviews and articles don't, so that's not indispensable. And it actually does discuss "why the album has the particular songs on it that it does." Also, a "passing mention" is maybe a sentence or two, not a couple of paragraphs. What this case boils down to for me is this. Just as BIGNUMBER means that an article with tens of thousands of blog hits may be deleted because there's no "mainstream reliable source," there's also SMALLNUMBER. Lack of massive coverage does not prove something is insignificant; for instance, someone may be influential but choose to work behind the scenes. In this context, the position that the Pareles piece represents recognition by the New York Times is not a slam-dunk keep, but it is reasonable. The retort, that it's just one source and not even the main thrust of the article, also has merit. And if it had persuaded the majority of AFD participants, I couldn't argue with the close. But it didn't, so a debate with two reasonable positions has been settled by your dismissive attitude towards one of them. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The NYT article does not provide any verifiability for material that was actually in the our article." Sorry, I must disagree. The NYTimes article verifies a quote used in the article, which made it a valid source. The only other piece of info presented in that article is the "track listing" part, which is hardly "material likely to be challenged", thus doesn't need a source, IMHO. If anyone has different views then they can look it up easily at amazon or all music or whatnot. There is absolutely no verifiability issue with this article (it was short, yes, as all verified decent stubs can be. Could you point out something else so controversial that must be verified?), the only thing debatable is notability, in which case, there are a good number of AfD participants who deemed the three-paragraph mention from NYTimes to be notability evidence. I don't think their opinions should be disregarded just because the closer was on a different wavelength. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that this notion of notability you are putting forth here has any community consensus? If so, why would you be pushing this agenda here instead of at WT:N or WP:VP-proposals? Do you expect administrators to ignore guidelines such as WP:N because there is some better way to do things that is not documented anywhere, but well known to you? Administrators closing AFD's need to weigh the arguments posed against policy, guideline, and precedent. If it was about counting the number of participants who want something, then it would be a vote, and we would not need administrators at all... the fine folks upstairs in the development department could just put a vote-counting feature in the server to automatically handle AfD's. Delrev is not the place to try out radical new platforms. Notability is a very important part of what is done in AfD. If you don't like that... go change it first, then come back and enforce what you have changed. Doing it this backwards way is obtuse and not the wiki way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." From Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums. --Bensin (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a demo album, not an officially released album. This means that it is performed by the writers of the songs. Therefore the performers are not notable as performers. The clause you cite is for hit albums by charting groups. If Colin Powell sang happy birthday to his neighbor's dog and I recorded it on my walkman, it would be a recording of a work performed by a notable person, but it would not meet the spirit and intent of the clause you cited, as this article failed to do. And the word "may" is a very special word with a very significant meaning which is not there by accident. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You argue that the word "may" be interpreted literally (preferably to your definition), but that the word "album" be interpreted as "hit albums by charting groups" to meet some "spirit and intent" of the policy. You wrote in your post "reply to nonsense" that there are other arenas for debating changes of policies. --Bensin (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline, not policy. And since you quoted the first sentence of the guideline above, let me point out the one you cropped-off:

“

Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

”

Note the words "significant" and "sources" <---- plural. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more you've expounded the premises behind your close, the more it confirms for me that you did not judge this AFD with even scales. If you feel that Wikipedia should only have album articles for "hit albums," or that demos by professional songwriters are equivalent to a random celebrity singing to his dog, or that a published compilation of successful demos should not be considered an "officially released" album, those are big assumptions to bring to the table. All of these are propositions that should have been tested in the AFD discussion, not brought out in DRV. Your idea of what constitutes a "passing mention" differs from that of many editors. You oppose inflexible vote-counting, but favor inflexible source-counting. You like admin discretion in deciding AFDs, but dislike any discretion in evaluating guidelines, even though guideline pages specifically give leeway for exceptions. You base some of your arguments on the current "may" wording of the album guideline, even though this language was changed without any real consensus to do so. You interpret the guideline's comment on demos to apply to this album, though a logical inference would be that this clause was meant to prevent innumerable articles on individual demos, not a published album compilation of demos. And I'm not disturbed by the fact that there's only one source at present, because in the reams of dead-paper writing from 1988, there's surely something else that was written about it somewhere. That, combined with the fact that the one source currently is the New York Times, not the Boise Gazette, is enough to make me respect the opinions of those who chose to keep. Groggy Dice T | C 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you know more about me than my mother does, now, aparently. What a quick study! Scary. Did you peruse my other AFD closes and find that this is fairly consistent disruption on my part? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

African Australian – No consensus to overturn; default endorsement of keep closure. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two issues from the Afd after a brief discussion the closing Admin said to use DRV.
The first is the article African Australian which was closed as Keep the closing rationale said it was a term clearly in use. The issues raised was the article is a WP:SYNTH due it being an undefined term, this was not addressed by any editor during the discussion and no source was provided that defines the term. IMHO the closing admin counted the numbers rather than the content of the discussion.
The second article listed and kept though with a suggestion that it should again be listed at AfD, Afro-Australian was a POVFORK and a GFDL copyright violation due to copy paste from African Australian, consensus for this was clear that it be deleted/merged.
What I ask is that the copyvio(Afro-Australian) gets speedy deleted as such by an independent admin, the article African Australian be deleted without prejudice. Gnan garra 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes - Afro-Australian redirects to Afro Australians Of African Descent, and I just removed the AfD template and added the DRV template to it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn keep closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Australian and as per Gnangarra delete fork mentioned above (and any future fork).

The closing admin stated keep side of the discussion show that the term is in use, by the Autralian [sic] government and otherwise

There is no evidence that the term is in use by the Australian government: dot gov dot au websites cited were all referring to the names of non-government organisations - in no case was it a term used by a government body or politician outside that context.

The Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not allow derivation of this data at an appropriate (other than 4 digit) classification level.

The article thus breaches WP:SYNTH as it comprises original research: Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. In this case there are no sources cited that directly relate to the subject of this article - nor do any such sources appear available. In requesting deletion however, my view is that this should without prejudice to recreation should someone be interested in writing a valid stub based on appropriate and reliable sources --Matilda ^talk 23:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. Perfectly valid close based on reasonable grounds. The article demonstrates the term is in use. Lack of government sanction for the term is immaterial. Even though there is disagreement on what the term means, that should not preclude having an article on the topic that covers all meanings of the term. If articles require an unambiguous definition before creating then Riverina fits into the same boat as well. Regarding WP:SYNTH, discussing multiple uses of a term is not creating a synthesis and even less "demonstrat[ing] the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position". Problems with the article's content should be dealt with outside the deletion process. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to consider deletion without prejudice to recreation should an editor be willing to write a valid stub removing any elements of WP:SYNTH. While I fee the topic is notable and can be sourced, the content at this stage does need a major rewrite. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse keep the objections were considered at the Afd, but the consensus was otherwise. DGG (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - an Afd considers the arguments, not counts the votes - so a consensus has to form around the argument. The nominator is correct that the argument of WP:SYNTH was never adequately addressed, therefore article should be deleted. Article also fails to quote reliable references - not one reference uses the term, and the included official Australian statistics do not use the term. There is no basis of fact here, and therefore no basis for an encyclopediac article that even a clean-up would fix. Bardcom (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. The AfD was, in my opinion, closed according to the consensus there. The notability or validity of the term should be discussed elsewhere, perhaps further at AWNB, but I don't see an issue with the AfD close. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anal Sex with Sluts – WP:SNOW endorse of the deletion. – Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted in mid writing. I can understand the "prod" but not the speedy. Secondary sources were forthcoming and would have enhanced the value of the article. The deleting administrator suggested I take it up here. JeanLatore (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Deleted though politely termed original research, representative content included . " ... is a common pastime of attractive young men and woman in Miami-Dade Count and Broward County, etc etc. " . Fortunately, this is not typical of your edits. DGG (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a proper G3 deletion. Nothing salvageable and hard to believe that it was intended in good faith. If there are reliable sources on this topic they should be added to the anal sex article and this one should not be recreated even at the MOS compliant title Anal sex with sluts. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; what a strange undertaking. This can not have been a serious attempt at writing an encyclopedia article. April 1st was 4 days ago, if it was brought up then, I am certain that everyone would have assumed it was a joke. Agree with Eluchil404 as to what to do with any sourced information. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse Are you being serious? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Uh, obviously. Is this even still open right now? Jmlk 1 7 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse content was blatantly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 16:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The issue here is... what? Please, this can't possibly be a legitimate article. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Si.mobil-Vodafone – Article was recreated, hence no further need for the review. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Si.mobil is the second largest mobile operator in Slovenia. Its brand is called Si.mobil-Vodafone. My proposal is to restore the article and move it to Si.mobil.[74] Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A provider with a significant share of the market is certainly notable. Not sure which name is better, though. I think they always use Vodafone as a part of the name. --Tone 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the deleted article is about the company not the brand, it makes sense to use the name of the company which is Si.mobil.[75] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's the company. Si.mobil is fine. --Tone 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate the deleted article was an unsourced sub-stub that would today probably be speedy deleted under A7 and G11. However, a properly sourced version would be welcome at any time. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wow. That AfD is from '05. Recreate rather than go through DRV. I'm perfectly sure that good enough sources exist now, but I can garuntee that it's easier to recreate it than do anything here. History merge after recreation is also cool by me. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy; and allow recreation with proper sources. VFD was too long ago to simply overturn it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate Could easily become a better article, or worked into the project somehow. Jmlk 1 7 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recreated it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs a close, then. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slon in Sadež – Restored by closing administrator. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slon and Sadež are notable Slovenian musicians for the following reasons: a) They're recipients of the Viktor Award (nagrada Viktor),[76] which is one of the most important (probably the most important) media awards in Slovenia (aka the Slovene Oscar); b) In the year 2008 they have run the whole Viktor Award show [77]; c) Their satirical music is well known in Slovenia. Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore this article. The deletion was a bit too fast, the band is pretty much notable. However, I would ask you to put those references in the article. Regards. (how do you close a discussion here, what's the template?) --Tone 14:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Son of Stimpy – Overturn deletion. Further listings at AFD, changing back from a redirect, or other editorial actions are left open to editors' discretion. – Stifle (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistently deleted as recreation of deleted material - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas, a discussion about many Ren and Stimpy episodes. I reworked the article for this episode during the deletion discussion, which went unremarked on. I then recreated the article after deletion as I was confident that the new version was adequately sourced to address notability concerns. Unfortunately a number of different administrators have responded to speedy deletion tags that have been placed upon the article, some of them whilst an arbitration injunction against deleting episode articles was in place. I now submit my request to the community to gain input as to what is exactly wrong about the article as it stands. (As I do not have a copy of the deleted article to hand, it may be useful for non-admin participants in this discussion to be able to view a copy of this article to be placed in my userspace. Catchpole (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a substantial recreation of an article deleted at AfD; I agree that an administrator should temporarily userfy the article to demonstrate that. Nominator does not show fault with the closure of the AfD for this article. Consensus was clear the first time around, and the nominator (and perennial deleted-material re-creator) knows full well that an article so similar to one already deleted by process should have come to DRV before being created in the mainspace. With no injunction to hide behind, this article must stand on it's merits, or lack thereof. Keep deleted. ➪HiDrNick! 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not clear, the previous discussion was about over 40 articles, this is about a specific one. I didn't come to deletion review before in the belief that boldy by-passing such bureaucracy would be encouraged. It is disheartening that your continued efforts to delete this article are diverting my energies from other activities. Catchpole (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist if desired. The current version contains a third party reference from a published book dealing with this episode, and thus does meet the problems from the AfD. I do not think it would be currently deleted, but given my involvement in these discussions, I'd like another admin to review it before undeleting even for inspection. DGG (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist if desired. The current version is not a G4. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. I agree with User:HiDrNick. No indication that the AfD was out of process. If this particular episode merits an individual article, that point could be raised at the LOE talk page to establish consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, per above. One reference does not make independent significance, significance was adequately addressed at AfD. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misrepresent the deleted article, which has more than a single reference and more were provided at the AFD discussion. Catchpole (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, my meaning was it has one indisputably RS good book reference in addition to the probably acceptable web sites used in the original--the relevant paragraph is: "In An Introduction to Film Studies , ed. J Nelmes, Routledge, ISBN 0415262690, the episode is used as a case study and comments on the motifs in the episode. The 'Son of God' motif which underpins the cartoon, signalled in its title and its Christmas setting and soundtrack, allies the sacred and profane in a way that some might find provocative. Kricfalusi does not make this a coherent analogy, however, but self-evidently uses the 'openness' of the animated vocabulary for subversive purposes. -- DGG (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, if the changes address the reasons for which the material was deleted, WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply. And the earlier AFD seems to have been a bad faith nomination by a Simpsons fan who doesn't like Ren & Stimpy. --Pixelface (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete as episodes are verifiable and notable; no consensus to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:BowsersCastleSMB3Toon.jpg – Deletion of the images is endorsed, request was not valid. WP:Office ruling requires non-free media to conform to requirements or be deleted. No exceptions are allowed. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since those images were tagged for deletion, I put them on my current IP's talk page to stop them from being deleted. But they were removed from the page, and now they are deleted. Please bring them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Besuto (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion If they were non-free (ie copyrighted) images as the log says, they can't be used on user pages or user talk pages. They would have to be used in an article, have an important purpose within that article which couldn't be served by text or a free image, and have a proper fair-use rationale written for them. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 April 2008

A Walk Through Salem – Deletion endorsed – Daniel (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No discussion. On the last entry of this page I started a talk page. on that talk page I asked for corespondance before an editor did a swift deletion. Twice the article has been through a speedy deletion. I have read the guide lines and read those pertaining to blatant advertisements. What is the difference between the Rolling Stones and a local Salem Massachusetts Musician named Mamadou. They both have wiki pages. What gives them the ability for listing? Previous noatbility? I am not know as much as the Rolling Stones, but I know more people than my neighbor Mamadou in town and out of state. How are thier pages not blatant advertisement and A Walk Through salem is? How about Laurie Cabot, she has a page. Why should she be listed versus Margaret FitzGerald Teacher of Salem, Ma schools for fifty years? Or how about the entry for Peabody Essex Museum? I would not classify it as a world famous museum such as the lourve. I am at ends with understanding this blatant advertisement clause. Some suggestions for future editings would be appreciated instead of speedy deletion without rebutal. Thank You. Docspond (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Articles should be descriptive, not attempting to persuade the reader or entice them to see a show by the artist. They just need to show the facts, and do so by citing verifiable, reliable third-party sources. That means no citing the band's webpage/MySpace/fan sites/etc. but newspaper articles, magazine reviews and other editor-filtered content. If you read The Rolling Stones, the article isn't trying to sell you on the band, it just describes their achievements and cites sources to back up the facts. -- Kesh (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The article was blatant advertising. They even had on their website "Check out our new Wikipedia ad", which was removed when the article was put up for deletion. (See the cached version here and the current version here). If the subject really is notable, someone else will come along and recreate it from a more neutral point of view. —BradV 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and block nominator/creator. "Check out our new Wikipedia ad" speaks volumes about the nominator/creator's (lack of) intentions when it comes to contributing constructively to the encyclopedia - they're here for blatant vanispamcruftising instead. CSD G11 was designed in response to the email to stop this crap so this is a valid speedy deletion. There's no excuse for missing the bit in the top left corner of every page about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia - does Britannica contain vanity pages? MER-C 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block is not necessary. Don't bite him because he doesn't know the rules. —BradV 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion this is a clear example of spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not exist to promote your activities. In addition, I strongly recommend not writing Wikipedia articles about yourself, your work or any organisation you are involved in per our conflict of interest guidelines. Block is too extreme though. Hut 8.5 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, spam. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, spam, notability. If this thing takes off, we can easily and gladly put the info back in the page. Get it mentioned in The Boston Globe or something... To answer some of the questions, Laurie Cabot for example, has a well cited page linking to major new sources. MAMADOU ... well, I'm going to put a Notability and a No Backlinks tag on this one because I think you are correct. However, the Mamadou article didn't draw much attention I'm sure because it is somewhat more factual, links heavily into related articles about musical style, and didn't draw so much attention to itself by spamming the Salem page. CSZero (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Star Sonata – Relisted in light of new information; deletion back in Sept. 2007 was certainly valid (nine days with no objection), but the information presented here means that it should be rehashed. – Daniel (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this page is notable JeffL (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have loked at the Notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Star Sonata is listed in, and has its own forum section at, MMORPG.com, the premier MMOPRG site here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm?SETVIEW=overview&GAMEID=160&bhcp=1, is listed at IGN: http://pc.ign.com/objects/710/710931.html, has a full review at Game Zone magazine: http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r25030.htm, as well as being listed and reviewed at many other sites. Google for "Star Sonata" results in 67,400 hits. I apologize for not participating in the discussion about deletion earlier, but as I said, this is an Indy game and we don't have a full time marketing person or people to watch this sort of thing. I believe that Star Sonata does pass the notability guidelines as listed in Wikipedia. I am not the original author of the Wikipedia article on Star Sonata nor did I materially contribute to its many edits and revisions, but I am of course sad to see that it was deleted. Also, the game has over 100,000 active characters in the last 3 months, not 400 as the proponent for deletion suggested. JeffL (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. There were two Delete votes (one weak), including the nominator. IMO that is not really a very strong reason for a deletion. And then you have it brought here, showing a Keep desire on the part of an editor (granting that JeffL is apparently an interested party). Herostratus (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. I can't see the article as I'm not an admin, but that AfD discussion doesn't look like a consensus. I'd like to see it so I can vote. —BradV 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion occurred in September 2007 and the requirements of WP:WEB were significantly higher in that it required an article to have met 3 specific requirements, since then WP:WEB has been change to require an article to have only one. Under the circumstances recreating the article would not be an issue except that the person making the request represents(or at least makes a claim) to represent the subject in saying this is an Indy game and we don't have a full time marketing person or people to watch this sort of thing. I recommended the DRV because of this conflict of interest it should be a community decision as to whether we recreate articles when the subject requests it. Gnangarra 05:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to the history, WP:WEB stated that: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria" (after the list of 3 criteria) until the 22:59 17 Sep 2007 revision took out that paragraph in order to "remove the redundancy" about proof. This inadvertently removed the phrase "one of these criteria", making it look like all three criteria were needed. This was only noticed and fixed in the 28 Oct 2007 revision, which reinserted the phrase "any one of the following criteria" before the list of criteria. But, Star Sonata was put up for deletion on 11 Sep 2007 and was deleted on 00:58 17 September 2007, which is before the "one of" phrase was inadvertently removed from WP:WEB! Therefore, at the time of deletion, the requirements of WP:WEB were not higher than they are now. The reason to overturn and relist is not because the requirements have changed, but because Star Sonata has reliable sources and WP:WEB can be met. Thanar (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. The full review of Star Sonata mentioned by JeffL above was written by Matt Eberle. A quick Google search (restricted to pc.gamezone.com) reveals that Matt has written a wide variety of game reviews (40+) and freelance articles in the MMORPG genre (10+) at a notable, successful review site whose content is widely redistributed (see GameZone). I think this clearly makes the review a reliable source. This addresses the only reason given for the Weak Delete of Corpx: doubts about the reliability of sources. TheSeer's comment that Star Sonata is non-notable because it has only ~400 players is (1) outdated, as the apparent source is from December 2005, (2) incorrect/misleading, as that number did not include free-to-play players (who far outnumber pay-to-play), and (3) not necessarily relevant, as notability is distinct from popularity, according to WP:NOTE. Note: I've played Star Sonata in the past, but have no financial interest and no close relationship with anyone who works on the game, so I don't have conflict of interest. Thanar (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per those above. Seems changing guidelines brings this one back. Hobit (talk)
Overturn and relist whilst being listed on IGN and MMORPG.com doesn't help establish notability (or give anything to write about), GameZone's a reliable source. I also found a shared review on GameTunnel, the game's budget and development time are listed on the same site here. Here's an interview, also on GameZone. There's a chance. Someone another 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn', significant new information which would be useful to write the article has come to light since its deletion, and I don't think the AFD had enough discussion to determine consensus. I encourage JeffL to not edit the article however, due to potential conflicts of interest. --Pixelface (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of companies in Wausau – Endorsed – Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

i was basing this stub off of houston's page that is similiar in context. it has continually been deleted by user Jmlk 1 7 without discussion of resolution. there has been no explanation, voting or constructive feedback. IAH777 —Preceding comment was added at 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page was just a redirect, the actual deletions are at List of companies in Wausau, Wisconsin. Logs here.
I've also just notified User:Jmlk17 of this DRV. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Although on sight more than a couple of these are notable companies, we don't really have articles on them, and Wausau Insurance is now a division of Liberty Mutual. Fiskars is the most notable of the bunch but even its US division is headquartered in Madison. Removing such entities as county government leaves you with not much at all. The usual purpose of a list is for companies that are headquartered or otherwise significantly associated with a community, similar to the more obviously restricted categories. Information about a big factory owned by a company is suitable for the parent article, but misleading here. There's no reason, in other words, that this small, blue-link-less list shouldn't be in the Wausau, Wisconsin article (once you remove the inappropriate entries). --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I do believe its important to have a page talking more specifically about the economy in Wausau, Wisconsin. If not a list a, better expansion on companies, history, etc. I know it's a smaller town, but it has played an important part in the development of Wisconsin. So as an alernative, make it a 'further information' link. Talk Oh, and as a side note, I have gone back to my original user name, so this is not a sockpuppet thing going on. I resigned, but later came back as under a different user name after taking a couple of months off. However, people that I work with (mainly Houston) know me by that name. So I no longer post under IAH777. That account will be closed. Urban909

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

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam – Deletion endorsed – Daniel (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Challengers offered several reasons to challenge this article. And counter-arguments were offered, and ignored. The closing admin's concluding statement (1) did not address the counter-arguments, (2). In particular, several challengers asserted the kind of sources the article relied on weren't "independent", and did not comply with the wikipedia's guidelines that articles should use "secondary sources". This is a question I asked for guidiance about on WP:RS/Noticeboard a couple of months ago, here. I realize we entrust administrators with the authority to use their own judgment in interpreting policy, or in areas they think policy does not address. But, IMO, open, accountable, transparent decision-making places an obligation on administrators to explain those judgment calls. I am concerned because it seemed to me that the conclusory statement in this AFD did not address, or even acknowledge the existence of, the counter-arguments to the reasoning the closing admin offered for deletion.

Yes, I know AFD is not a vote. But for those who care about such things, the "keep" and "delete" opinions were evenly split.

Yes, I did try to contact the closing admin before bringing this to DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admins -- I would like to ask that this DRV not be closed early. It is, IMO, a very significant DRV, and I am drafting some additional relevant points I hope will be considered. Thank you. Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Your assumption that "counter-arguments were offered, and ignored" seems at odds with the actual closing statement. It's not reasonable to ask the closer to address each and every argument put forward. Any time I've seen a closer attempt to do so, they were then accused of bias or debating the AfD instead of remaining independent in closing the debate. Guy addressed the policy-based arguments in the AfD, and I see no problem with the close. -- Kesh (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have to differ from your suggestion that the closer addressed the counter arguments. Closing admin wrote: "The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources." Whether these memos are secondary sources was addressed, in detail, both in the {{afd}}, and in the previous discussion on WP:RS. Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there was no consensus that they fit WP:RS. I understand you disagree, but Guy did address this. -- Kesh (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I think JzG summed it up very well. And there's no need to post below saying you have to differ, because I know you do. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I explained this reasonably well. I looked at the detail of the arguments and weighed them carefully, in each case assessing whether they went to the primary subject or argued for the significance of some related subject. We have become a lot firmer about WP:BLP in recent times, for good and sufficient reasons, and this is just one of many articles that was not actually a biography of a notable individual, rather a page extensively documenting the wrong done to him, but without identifying how that wrong was distinct from the similar wrong done to others. In other words, the subject of Guantanamo detainees and their treatment is unquestionably notable but that notability is not inherited by the victims. Notability not being inherited goes back a long way, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have several concerns over this comment from Guy, the closing administrator. I am a wikipedian committed to complying with the wikipedia's policies, and to the firm consensus from the wikipedia's general membership. None of the article's challengers asserted that the article represented a BLP problem. Guy did not mention a BLP concern in their concluding statement. But he is asserting that the article represented some kind of BLP problem now. I am not a mindreader. If, for the sake of argument, Guy's assertion that articles like this one don't comply with "the current BLP climate" is a valid concern then I really think he should have made that assertion in his closing statement. I know how to comply with a policy. I know how to comply when I understand that the wikipedia's membership in general holds a firm consensus. I don't know how to comply with a "climate". And I don't know how to comply with a quicksand of shifting post-hoc justifications.
- Above the closing administrator mischaracterized the article as "...rather a page extensively documenting the wrong done to him, but without identifying how that wrong was distinct from the similar wrong done to others." Pardon me, but the article described the context of the administrative procedures that reviewed whether the Ajam should continue to be detained. And it listed the allegations he faced. Guy is free to conclude that Ajam had "wrong done to him". Need I point out that many people continue to feel that the conditions at Guantanamo are far too lenient, and they would strongly dispute that Ajam had "wrong done to him". Ajam's article should not assert Ajam had "wrong done to him" -- and it did not in fact make that assertion. To have done so would have been a gross violation of the wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. I am very surprised at Guy's continued suggestions of violations of WP:NPOV. Closing administrators should bring enough objectivity to their readings of articles nominated for deletion that they can distinguish between what the article actually said, and their interpretation of what the article said. They should be able to bring enough objectivity to bear that their ruling is based on what the article actually said. If they can't do that they should walk away and let someone else do the closing. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Guy did, in fact, present BLP concerns in his closing statement. Quote: No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources. I know you've been campaigning for articles on these individuals, but the fact remains that articles which lack biographical information outside their detention fail BLP. If you want to write an article on the conditions at Guantanamo… well, there already is one, I'm sure. But we can't write an article about a person without making sure we have actual, biographical information about them. Their detention at Guantanamo would be a small section in the overall article, lest it become an argument about Guantanamo rather than an article about the person.
  - Again, Guy did address this in his closing. I'm not sure how you've overlooked these facts twice. -- Kesh (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion As above. Does not meet WP:BIO. The incarcerations have gotten widely signficant coverage, this person has not. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Unfortunately, the close expressed the consensus. I think the consensus on this is altogether wrong, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and kudos to Guy for a good close. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus is... long, but Guy has a good reading of it. I'm not really sure if the consensus here is right or not, but that's really not a reason we can use to overturn. I'd say that, if you want the article around, try finding some more sources. There's a comment in the AfD about Arabic ones from Syria; those might work. Oughta' ask here again before putting it back in article space, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Fails WP:BIO, hence the deletion. Jmlk 1 7 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Guy's comments above. If there are any independent reliable sources about the subject to establish his notability (as opposed to primary source documents generated during legal proceedings he was involved with), they have not been identified yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse For the reasons summed by Guy. In short (and IMHO), the lack of multiple reliable sources kill the ability to meet WP:V. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prefix Magazine – Relisted. – Daniel (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apart from the AfD being inappropriately non-admin closed, the deletion issues weren't addressed at all. No reliable sources exist for this site and there's been much better referenced articles than this that ended up deleted. This wasn't speedied because the number of articles that links to this page could've suggested notability. But there's no sources out there suggesting this site meets WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, not at all inappropriate for a non-admin to close a unanimous AFD. DRV is a place to explain how the deletion procedure was not properly followed, not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the close was incorrect because none of the reasons for deletion were addressed and the keep arguments weren't supported by WP:WEB. I've yet to find one reliable source out there and that's likely because there isn't any yet. Although it's linked to a lot of pages, the article doesn't even pass WP:CSD#A7. Spellcast (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist to generate a more thorough consensus. Only the first !vote addressed policy issues, and the source mentioned is still a bit dubious. Not a strict overturn, though. -- Kesh (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Low participation, and "proof by assertion" of notability without the backing of actual sources. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist seems appropriate given the level of participation in the debate. Arkyan 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Boston Bruins-Montreal Canadiens playoff series – Userfied as requested – Stifle (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to be able to transwiki this page to wikia:IceHockey. Ditto for the similarly deleted List of Detroit Red Wings-Toronto Maple Leafs playoff series and List of Chicago Blackhawks-Montreal Canadiens playoff series. I guess emailing the wikitext to me (djvasi on gmail) is best. Apparently I'm supposed to include the history when transwiki-ing, but my understanding is that the history was lost when the articles were deleted. If I'm mixed up and that's not the case, then I guess I'll want the history too. vasi (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tangled Up Tour – Weakly move User:BambooBanga/Tangled Up Tour to the articlespace, AfD is possible at any stage (including immediately after the restoration) if there are still concerns. – Daniel (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangled Up Tour A few members have tried to recreate this page, but it has been deleted due to "recreation of deleted material". I would like to bring the debate here, because I feel that the page is Wikipedia-worthy. If the page had more references from various news sources, would it not be just as worthy as the pages on any other pop tour? I feel that this was the main issue, as well as some bias due to the fact that Girls Aloud are widely considered a "pre-fab pop group", as one Wiki user put it in the AfD. I would gladly find sources for the page. BambooBanga (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Recreated page did not address the arguments articulated at the AfD resulting in the deletion; if anything it was a step backwards. A new page can be created and if it does address the AfD arguments, it is not subject to WP:CSD#G4. That means that you, BambooBanga, are free to create this page in a better form, i.e, with citation to reliable sources and with material that is substantially more than a list of venues and dates. I strongly suggest working on it in a subpage until you are ready to "go live".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse close~~ - good advice above. A tour by Girls Aloud is self-evidently going to be notable so it is a matter of reliably sourcing. I suggest starting with this since the bit about the non-split adds some external context. BlueValour (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:BambooBanga/Tangled Up Tour - Would this article be okay do you think? BambooBanga (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of the version suggested above. Looks pretty good. That's quite a bit of coverage, though it seems like a little many of the cites are in the list of venues. Could probably do without that list completely, really. Also, just an editorial note, but the dates in the article are inconsistent; was the tour in 2007 or will it be in 2008? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - the user page version looks fine for a recreation. It also has to survive any AFD that might be brought so to help notability I have started an 'Implications' section (hope you don't mind my encroaching on your user page}. BlueValour (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions. My bad about the inconsistent dates, I used Girls Aloud's 2007 tour as a template for that section. I have proposed that the Tangled Up Tour page be unprotected and hopefully I can move my page there. Thanks for the implications section too. Hopefully, that will stop another AfD! BambooBanga (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to add this. Is there any way that the tour dates can be included without seeming superfluous? I just feel that they are an important part of a tour, but I realise it does look excessive with the multiple dates.BambooBanga (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, the request for unprotection has been correctly denied. The correct procedure is for this DRV to be disposed of first, and if the closing admin supports recreation then he/she will unprotect and move the page for you. BlueValour (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't get this at all. Wikipedia can be quite confusing. Do I just wait until this is disposed of then? Sorry to be a bother, I just never get involved with this aspect of Wikipedia. BambooBanga (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it is a matter of waiting until this DRV is closed. DRVs normally stay open for 5 days so this is due to be closed on 9 April. However, it can be closed earlier if an admin considers that the consensus is clear and unlikely to be changed. BlueValour (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Living dinosaurs – strong consensus to undelete and relist, WP:SNOW early closure – Pegasus «C¦T» 08:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was speedied as "patent nonsense". However, speculation about living dinosaurs is quite common among creationists and cryptozoologists [78], and I think it's possible to write a detached, objective article about this subject. Zagalejo^^^ 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin short-circuited the AfD process. See the AfD discussion and the messages on his talk page. Request restore of article so AfD discussion can continue. —BradV 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and reopen AfD. Not an all nonsense. The WP:CSD aren't mean to be used to delete anything that might remotely be good. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist AfD. Patently not within the ambit of G1; not even close. Poor form for this to have been deleted by an admin who participated in the AfD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen per Fuhgettaboutit- I also found it odd that someone who participated in the debate promptly deleted it. I can't find anything to know if anybody even posted a speedy template before it was deleted, but if they did, it wasn't mentioned in the deletion discussion. You can see what it looked like just a few days ago from the google cache- it's considerably referenced, more so than most articles that come through AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Reopen After reading up on this article I suggest the article be given its full course.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist Seems more like an implausible theory than nonsense. So not at all appropriate for G1. Taemyr (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Was not a G1. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist at AFD While the discussion was going that way, an early closure seemed premature at this point. There is no harm in leaving it open the full 5 days. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist at AfD as per above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist at AfD - a bad page notably lacking any inline references and combining several POVs. However, these are matters for the AfD not here. Patently not a G1 so there was no basis for an out of process closure. BlueValour (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comparison of church management software – Speedy deletion overturned and relisted. – Daniel (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not believe that this page qualifies under WP:CSD#G11, as from what I remember about this page it was not blatant enough to qualify. Furthmore most of the arguments in the "debate" seemed to center around Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF or easily correctable issues WP:OR. Furthermore, the article had seemed to have plenty of sources (not sure they were Reliable) NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Might be a good idea to rewrite your reasoning here, and explain it a bit better. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - unlike other software lists such as comparison of wiki software, none of the entries on this list had articles (link to nativity is a dud). This plus the massive amount of external links makes it deletable per the spirit of G11 and A3. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ Overturn and relist - This seemed to just be a pile of external links, with some original research tying things together. (For example, "Easy to use" -- as determined by whom exactly?). Seems unsalvageable. However, it's not blatant advertising, and doesn't seem to fit another CSD category. Relist or invoke the snow shovel to jump straight to the probable conclusion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - CSD#11 is for pages that exists solely to promote some entity. The fact that the page lists several competing products means that the criteria is beeing severly stretched in this case. It's extremely worrying that the admin took it upon himself to carry out a speedy deletion with no prior nomination. So relist or delete per WP:SNOW rather than G11. Taemyr (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "The fact that the page lists several competing products" could also mean that they are all being promoted. G11 does not demand exclusivity of a single product (as if promotional tone wasn't bad enough already!). Phrases like "Extremely easy to use and learn" and "[training:] Yes, Contact us for pricing." are typical phrases in a marketing brochure. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and it should be stated that we can only judge based on what is written, not on the intent of those that wrote it. If an article clearly has an advertising-like tone that is clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it is the purview of G11 and can be speedy deleted as advertising, even if the person who actually wrote the article has no affiliation with the company/product being advertised. We have no way to read the minds of people, so we cannot judge intent. We can only judge content... And has been noted, G11 is nto limited to advertising single products. An article that advertises multiple products is still adverstising. And deleting an article is not killing it in perpetuity... if someone were to come along and write a compliant article with the same title, then that would be fine. However, this article, as is noted in G11, is beyond rescue, which is why I endorse its deletion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, I read entity as different from entities. But my point is that the page lists several competing products. The problem with the page is poor sourcing, which leads to personal opinions such as "Extremely easy to use and learn", or copying what the vendors have to say for availability of training. Rescuing this list, that is turning it into a useful comparison, does not require a complete rewrite of the page. It requires secondary sources. Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The article should have gone through the proper AFD process, since the speedy deletion criteria didn't really apply. I don't know if WP:CSD G11 should really apply to articles that are advertising more than one product from more than one vendor. (And "advertising" is sort of a stretch here, too. It appears to be a subpage from Church management software.) At a regular AFD, arguments could be made that the material isn't encyclopedic and that Wikipedia is not a directory, but that really should be determined through AFD and not through speedy deletion. Having said that, I probably would have submitted a delete vote at AFD. I'm mainly concerned about the process of applying speedy deletion criteria. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can always be brought back (or merged) with sources if such a comparison is deemed notable by editors. Endorse deletionOverturn and relist Looking at the cache, this was not a narrative article, but a standard comparison chart of over a dozen software programs. This was not blatant advertising and I would think it a stretch to call it advertising at all. There may have been notability or PoV worries but this was not a G11. My mistake, I didn't see the "contact us for pricing." Stealthy G11. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Boderline advertising - it had text like "Yes, Contact us for pricing" and "Churches just getting started should phone for information" and clearly unencyclopedic - articles like this are commonly deleted. This should have been closed under WP:SNOW rather than been speedy deleted once there were more than two delete votes, but I don't see any point in re-opening the AfD so it can run for a few hours before being a clear WP:SNOW case. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. It wasn't blatant advertising; we shouldn't bite the newbies simply because they don't know how to properly contribute. If consensus is to delete, then it will be deleted, but a chance should be given for that to develop rather than having a sd tag inappropriately slapped on it like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - not a clear G11 so the AFD should have run its course. What has happened is that there has been a poorly judged content split from Church management software and the result is OR by synthesis. A merge back of those bits that are sourced may be a pragmatic solution. BlueValour (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Borderling advertising, as mentioned above. Contained many redlinks inviting the creation of articles about a subset of non-consumer business management software packages. There seems to be little purpose in holding a full-scale trial to excommunicate a corpse. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. This should be merged into Church management software. One spam-like sentence in an article doesn't make the whole article blatant advertising. —BradV 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorse". I don't think that a G11 was a very good way to go here, but there's no way it was gonna' make it through that AfD. A complete rewrite could've been done, yes, but it still can right now. No point sending it through a process it'll just fail at, right? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that speedy criteria is intended to be interpreted narrowly. G11 simply does not apply here, so the deletion is inapropriate. If it instead had been deleted pr WP:SNOW we would not be here. Taemyr (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm suggesting here. I'm aware that the CSD are narrow, and rightly so, but there really isn't any chance this is going to survive either way. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist G11 just plain did not apply to the article. What happens at AfD will be best determined by taking it there. Speedy deletion criteria are not to be interpreted as "anything which an admin thinks will be deleted at AfD"DGG (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. 6 months old page with many contributors and multiple independent products. There are versions in the history with less advertising, for example [79] which is the last version by the creator and doesn't make any claims about ease of use. G11 should not apply just because easy to use claims are added by new contributors to an existing page about different entities. Speedy deletion 73 minutes after AFD nomination was not appropriate. Maybe somebody (for example the creator who may be in good faith with no COI) would have cleaned it up during a real AFD. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist', it shouldn't have been speedily deleted per G11. If a comparison of various computer programs is "blatant advertising" then Category:Software comparisons is in alot of trouble. --Pixelface (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simon_Bruce – Between the concerns expressed here about conflict of interest and promotional tone, and the lack of consensus to overturn and restore, I'm going to say this deletion is endorsed with no prejudice to another review with a different version of the article which complies more closely (according to consensus) with WP:BIO and WP:COI. – Daniel (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

changed bio here Sarahmckem (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (link added by Pegasus «C¦T» 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: deleted by me twice as copyvio. New version does not satisfy WP:MUSIC as written presently - he does not appear to be signed to any notable record label. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We do not overturn deletion of copyvios unless shown it wasn't. There has been no deletion of this articles on "the merits", i.e., by consensus measuring whether the subject should have an article at all; just a speedy deletion that was profoundly within policy. Nothing in these past deletions stops you from creating the article in a form which does not violate anyone's copyright. Please note, however, that any new article that is not verified and does not show bases for establishing notability is likely to be deleted on separate grounds. Please review WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Userfied version still has a promotional tone, and no independent sources to verify the information presented. -- Kesh (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Userfied version has insufficient independent sources, too many non-free images, fails to be in a neutral point of view, and links violating the external link policy. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Fuhghettaboutit. You haven't shown us this isn't a copyvio, and you don't really need this to move that into article space. I don't suggest you do right now, either, since the guy doesn't appear that notable from where I stand (but that could just be me). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: As an afterthought the main contributor to the article, User:Sarahmckem identified themself as the manager of the subject on my talk page - strong conflict of interest here. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Conflicting identity claims by User:Sarahmckem indicate at least two people and maybe more are using the account which has only been used for edits regarding Simon Bruce. The following quotes are all by the account.

"I am Simon's manager, I wrote the bio on his webpage"[80]

"My son heard of this kid Simon Bruce in Nashville and there is a huge buzz around him getting signed. I know a bit about wiki and wanted to make him a page. Thats all. I have contacted all the copywrite owners of his webpage etc to get authorization to use it on wiki. I have had a wiki account (caponofrio) for over 2 years. I made this new account so that my son's friend could monitor it, and at the same time teach them how to use wiki." [81]

(note: User:Caponofrio was created 1 November 2006 [82] and has edited User:Sarahmckem/Simon Bruce‎)

"No, he is not my client ... I have no connection at all ... I contacted the girl who made his webpage and asked since she wrote the bio could she make the wikipage page account ... (i have had my own account for 3 years)"[83]

"given that these are 20 year old kids who work at Walmart trying to use Wiki to bring awareness of their talented friend You have really given them a hard time. I have instructed Sarah to close her account."[84]

"How do we delete our user account?"[85]

PrimeHunter (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a role account, I'd say, it's just plain old-fashioned astroturfing, but done in a spectacularly inept way. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account has now been blocked for admitting more than one user has been editing under it. -- Kesh (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move new version to article space. Despite the concerns about the editor, the article in the editor's User space seems to assert notability. Touring with Tommy Emmanuel, signed to EMI, those are assertions of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 April 2008

Template:Blunt – Overturn and delete; userfy upon explicit request, noting that the creator has meanwhile been blocked indefinitely. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not think that defaulting to keep after a “no consensus” close was appropriate in this situation. If the discussion does show no consensus then it is no consensus over whether to delete or userfy . Keeping the template as it is would seem to be the solution that the least number of people are happy with. Guest9999 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen if you like, but the properly solution is probably to overturn and userfy. To where I'm not sure, but you can always fall back on User:Lifebaka/Blunt if all else fails; it wouldn't bother me much to have this in my userspace. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, inappropriate for template namespace. Userfy if you must. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete. Template space is not really for jokes, and jokes about drug culture are a bit sensitive anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and userfy (deleting from template namespace) both past wikipedia practice and the consensus of the TfD support removing this from Template space. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and userfy, you could certainly argue that there was no consensus to delete in that TfD discussion, but only one person actually called for a keep, all the other non-delete votes were to userfy it, consensus is definitely there that it is inappropriate for the template namespace. --Stormie (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and userfy. I'd personally prefer outright deletion, but the TfD didn't produce a consensus for that... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tracy Price-Thompson – already restored – GRBerry 20:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page for a novelist, listing four of the books she has written, was speedy deleted even though I placed the hangon template in the page, without response to my contesting comment. As I noted in that comment, if books themselves aren't eligible for speedy deletion it doesn't make sense that the author of four books be speedy deleted.

This article needs to be undeleted and put through the normal deletion process. This individual was called upon by the U.S. Air Force as an authority to speak at a Black History Month event so I'm sure with a little research I can fulfill the criteria for notability in the article (if having written four novels and being considered an authority by the Air Force really isn't enough.)

Based upon WP:BIO I would have to prove that "significant libraries" have copies of at least one of these books, I guess? Is that something you'd really put in the article itself anyways? I had already put the actual ISBNs of the books in the article and I suspect that the administrator did not do his two clicks of homework and check WorldCat. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion do not have a section for non-notable books. The article was tagged with "This article lacks information on the notability of the subject matter." Since the article was deleted within one minute after the hangon tag was submitted, it is only fair to allow the author to be given the chance to provide the proper sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Tony but I must reiterate that per WP:BIO the book listings already in the article fulfill notability. I'll add more information if people want but this was a trip-up on Toddst1's part, not mine. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article. Please continue discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that having had four books published should be regarded as an assertion of notability, even if it's not immediately obvious that they were bestsellers, or in however many libraries WP:BK insists on. After all, to avoid A7 an article doesn't have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication that it might be notable. But anyway, in this case there seems to be more than ample press coverage to establish that this is a notable author, and to improve the article with. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Iain. I agree that there's lots of material around to improve the article. But I spent quite a while already tracking down the photos and bibliographic information. I think the issue of notability is already settled. Either the ISBN numbers and associated Wikipedia lookup mechanisms prove notability on account of the stated criterion of presences of works in libraries, or there's a bigger problem going on in that there's an unprovable criterion in WP:BIO. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leira (goddess) – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article appeared to have been speedily deleted by Deb in January. I'm concerned about how this deletion was handled, as the deletion log indicates it was an "Article about a web site that does not assert significance"; however, to the best of my recollection this article was not about a website. :) This may merit a restoration of the article. If not, I would like to seek a restoration of the edit history, with a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, I think I see how this happened. Deletion text reads "website" in one place and "web content" in another. I was under the impression that people played this Forgotten Realms thing on-line. If that's not the case, then I suppose speedy deletion was not valid. Deb (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem then - a simple misunderstanding. :) While there probably is some sort of online gaming content related to Leira and/or the Forgotten Realms, these concepts originated in print, have had far more exposure in print media, and continue to be featured in printed publications. So, if the speedy is to be overturned and the article restored, this is fine; however, if this is just likely to result in a different sort of deletion, I'd prefer a restore and redirect as detailed above. :) BOZ (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a very good article. If it was restored - which I will do - I'd still be tempted to nominate it for deletion. Redirect or merge would be better. I'll restore it now and leave it to you for a bit. Deb (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - if you ever give in to your temptations, just PROD it and I'll redirect it. :) I'll see what I want to do with it in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

GONG (online game) – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gong is an immensely popular game in China, Singapore, Philippines, and Malaysia. Just because the Western world hasn't heard of it before doesn't mean it is INSIGNIFICANT to the rest of the world. PLEASE consider restoring the wiki entry I created for GONG, an online game loved by hundreds of thousands of people in Asia. Thanks! Have a great day!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Extasiege (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion - Was mostly a lengthy and spammish description of gameplay without any indication of importance. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (as deleting admin). The deleted article whilst verbose contained no assertion of notability and I wholeheartedly stand by my original decision which I believe to have been within both the letter and the spirit of WP:CSD#A7. There may well be a place on Wikipedia for a properly sourced and referenced article on GONG (and I would have no problem with such an article being created) but that was not what I deleted. nancy ^(talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The deleted text was not an encyclopedia article, it was a mix of advertising and game guide. If the game is indeed popular, then there should be independent sources available to allow an actual encyclopedia article to be written. GRBerry 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though I can't see the deleted article, the easiest solution to these sorts of speedies is nearly always to recreate the article so that it no longer makes the WP:CSD used to previously delete it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one is in the cache. BlueValour (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - the problems with the page, game guide material etc, are not of course grounds for deletion. However, the lack of an indication of importance is. To be recreatable it needs a secondary source to back up the statement in the nomination "an immensely popular game in China, Singapore, Philippines, and Malaysia". BlueValour (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but permit userfication if anyone is interested in improving it userspace. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

mobiusgames – Userfied, improvement in userspace allowed in restricted time – --PeaceNT (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

mobiusgames is a popular games publisher in the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia. Check out their website at http://www.mobiusgames.net. I suspect their competitor deleted the wiki entry created to inform people about mobiusgames on purpose. The deletion is malicious, and uncalled for. Please look into this very important matter. Thank you! Have a great day!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Extasiege (talk • contribs)

Comment - Beyond bad faith accusations, the requester offers little substantial arguments for contesting the speedy deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is really needed is at least one outside reference to give us some evidence that the site is in fact notable. DGG (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The deleted text offers no indication that an encyclopedia article on the subject is possible. DGG has already indicated what is needed. GRBerry 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other issues aside I would question the stated deletion rationale of "A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance". Guest9999 (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a disadvantage of the default descriptions in the drop down list. A7 includes people, but is broader: "about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". A7 is correct, the rest of the default description is wrong for this case. GRBerry 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not really sure if it makes A7. They worked on EVE Online? Might be important. Still, easiest solution is to recreate it with more indications of notability and to always assume good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment - I agree with Lifebaka that the page could probably be rewritten as something that would not be an A7 candidate and that any user should be free to do so. I'm not sure if the sevice is notable - the only independent source (which isn't trivial, conflicted or an abvious obviously blog) that I can find seems a bit questionable ([86]) and more would be required to establish significant coverage. The parent company - Digital Media Exchange inc. - could be notable. Guest9999 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal - If so, then I'm appealing for a reinstatement of the article to provide us time to edit it to make it more suitable for the wiki project, and to comply with the necessary requirements. Allow us some time to correct the mistakes. Thank you. --Extasiege (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - there is clear advice above as to what is required so the way forward, in view of the sentiments in 'Appeal', is to userfy to allow the article to be sourced. BlueValour (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per BlueValour. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 April 2008

Image:Tu-134Cigarettes.jpg – Deletion endorsed but allow re-creation with an appropriate fair use rationale if it is provided. The image is clearly not free, but debate on its appropriateness as a non-free image is better suited for IfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image was templated as "possibly unfree" here with no explanation (other than to say it was "possibly unfree"). Closing admin deleted it as a derivative work, citing US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works trumps WP:IUP. I, for one, find this interpretation of what is or is not a "derivative work" to be extremely dangerous, since, by extrapolation, we can conclude that any image that contains copyrighted artwork, labels, logos and so forth is not free - this precedent would greatly reduce the amount of free content Wikipedia can offer. It would also be mechanically unsightly, since there are quite possibly thousands of images that would fall under this threshold, and I should perish if there were to be another Commons purge. At any rate, if this deletion was perfectly valid, the language in the IUP needs to be updated to make light of this dynamic. Finally, the original uploader included a provision for the image to be used under fair use if it should, for some reason, no longer qualify as free, so at the very least it should have been given a new tag and reduced in resolution rather than deleted. MalikCarr (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (by deleting admin) The image in review was a close up of a package of cigarettes with artwork prominently featured on the package. The artwork was not incidental to the image, and I believe this qualified the image as a derivative of the package artwork and could not be released under a free license because of that. Any work that contains solely copyrighted works (sculpture, recent paintings, advertisements, etc.) or is a collage of copyrighted works has been classified as a derivative and deleted in the past. The image was not significant to the articles it was in, so I believe it would fail WP:NFCC #8 for fair use. WP:IUP probably does need a line added in it about derivative works. -Nv8200p talk 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash - at the absolute minimum, it contributed significantly to the Tu-134 article as it provided verifiable and illustrative proof that the jetliner was so well-known in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact that it had a brand of cigarettes named after it. MalikCarr (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was merely used for decoration in TU-134. To be significant, the image needs to support the text in a way that not having the image would degrade the article. The only text about the cigarettes was the caption of the image "The Tu-134 inspired a brand of Bulgarian cigarettes, very popular in Soviet Union." This could be incorporated in the article and does not need the image. -Nv8200p talk 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. If the image is superfluous, as you claim, it should have been taken through the proper channels for removal of fair use images, e.g. a "disputed fair use" debate at the appropriate page. That said, since the Tu-134 article has zero fair use images currently, even the most draconian interpretation of the IUP would allow one per article. MalikCarr (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the image had been tagged as a fair use image, the process you mention would have been correct way to approach it. However, the image was tagged as a free image and was removed for not being free. -Nv8200p talk 13:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the explicit notation that, should it, for any reason, be no longer considered free, it should be considered fair use. MalikCarr (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the process work that way, but if DRV wants to endorse deletion as a free image, but restore as a fair use image, I guess that would be their prerogative. -Nv8200p talk 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) -Nv8200p talk 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I must agree with my colleague-- the image contributed significantly to the article and is valid under fair use law. The derivative clause applies only to artwork, whereas this is a photograph. Jtrainor (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The derivative clause applies to photographs and other mediums as well. See Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg. The image has to be tagged as fair use because it is considered a derivative of the sculpture, and then the photographer had to release the image under a free license as well for the non-derivative portion of the image. -Nv8200p talk 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose we'd best get to work on other images, if that's the criteria that's to be engaged in. How about starting with the article in question? Since the front image of the article shows, prominently, the logo of the airline Aviogenex, which is copyrighted artwork, I don't see how that wouldn't be invalid for free use as is currently tagged. Branching out from there, here's another image of an aircraft proudly displaying copyrighted artwork. Two instances, in fact - both the Pan Am crest and their livery text on the fuselage. Since that's technically two pieces of art, would that require two fair use claims? They're rather prominently featured in terms of position and overall content of the image, so they couldn't really be considered "inconsequential". Hell, while we're at it, the 737 Gallery on Wikimedia Commons is full of this type of image, and almost all of them contain, in no small amount, copyrighted artwork which, by WP:LOGO's own definition, are presumed to be nonfree by default. Is the actual livery of the aircraft considered "art" as well, by chance? Sure, the individual colors aren't, but having an exact combination of them and with specific placements and so forth sounds like it would be an artistic effort to me. In that case, I can't think of a single instance wherein a commercial airliner could be free content.

Perhaps I've strayed somewhat from the matter at hand, but I can't help but feel that this type of copyright hysteria, which was ostensibly intended to crack down on the demonstrably abusive levels of fair use images on Wikipedia, is rapidly spilling over into areas that are damaging the project. What have we lost from the removal of this image? Aside from verifiable and illustrative instances of the airliner's popularity, there was a whole host of information just contained in that picture alone: Aeroflot's logo (oh dear, now we have -two- copyrights in the same image! Eek!), Soviet tobacco purity stamps and licenses, unusual shrinkwrapping methods, and so forth. No, I'd deign that the image was -not- "decorative", as I've outlined above. MalikCarr (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line for deciding if the image is a derivative seems to hinge on whether the copyrighted portion of the image is substantial or incidental, which has to be decided on a case by case basis. In the image under review, it was substantial. -Nv8200p talk 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's much of a matter of opinion. MalikCarr (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion based on similar cases in the past and to get other opinions is why we have DRV. -Nv8200p talk 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as the uploading user did not have the rights to release it as public domain. However, restore image, tag as fair use and add a rationale. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
You'll have to forgive me if I still find this to be absolutely preposterous. Wikipedia is going to legislate itself out of existence before long... MalikCarr (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the way the image was used would meet WP:NFCC #8. -Nv8200p talk 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or as an alternative, don't restore as fair use if it doesn't meet the criteria. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if I am welcome here or not, but as someone who has a vast knowledge of Soviet aviation, these cigarettes were a copyright infringement, and whilst totally out of place on the Tupolev Tu-134 article, it would be appropriate for the CI article. These smokes were first produced in the 1970s in Bulgaria by Bulgartabac, by way of an agreement between the USSR and Bulgaria. The USSR is no longer in existence, and Aeroflot is an internationally registered trademark, and in 2002 Aeroflot took Bulgartabac to court to stop the Bulgarian company from using the Russian airlines' trademark. The result is this. The before court version is the one which was deleted (the top one on that page with the Aeroflot logo - which by the way was

never 'offered by Aeroflot' - it was a marketing phrase only) and the bottom (new) version is what the packaging was replaced with (minus the famous Aeroflot winged hammer and sickle trademarked logo). The TU-134 trademark (held by a Swiss company) was also under dispute in Russia because it is believed that a well known name such as Tu-134 can't be trademarked...I will have to dig into my archives to see what I can find on that issue. Further to MalikCarr, WP seems to be governed by laws of the US, so it is the US laws which are relevant here...some years ago American Airlines attempted to have all of its photos removed from a large aviation photography website claiming that all photos which show AA trademarks were breaching their copyright, they believe whether they were being sold or only for free view, it was still a copyright infringement. Copyright laws need to be checked in fine detail by a trademark lawyer in order to determine; if the photographer was on public land and the aircraft is in view, it's fine. If the photographer was on private land with permission of the 'owners' of that land and with permission to take photos, it's fine. If the photographer was on private property without permission or didn't have permission to take photos, it's not allowed (this is why AA has a policy of no photos, videos, etc on board their aircraft which are not 'personal related', meaning no photos of crew, safety demonstrations, etc). So it's not entirely relevant to this particular issue. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was going to close this DRV, but I just wasted time digging through the archives at PUI to find Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 1#Image:Tu-134Cigarettes.jpg. Could the people doing image DRV's please remember to link to the previous discussion, and could the deleting admins link to something a bit more helpful in the deletion log summary? What links here helps for non-admins, and the date the tag was added to the article helps for admins, but really, the AfD redlink at the top of the DRV should have been fixed when opening the DRV or soon after. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a court battle over copyright infringement between the manufacturers and Aeroflot, then that in and of itself would definitely warrant a mention somewhere on Wikipedia - if not the Tu-134 article, then maybe one for the brand itself. That ought to be a notable occurrence in its own right. MalikCarr (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mikri Arktos – Continued deletion endorsed. The current userspace version needs more work and especially reliable third-party sources. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON I have re-written the aricle (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Eva_Evangelakou) and I wish that you review its deletion. The article is by no means a promotional one - no more than any other article from similar record companies. Thanks for your time. Eva Evangelakou —the preceding comment was added at 11:48, April 2, 2008.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to say don't allow recreation for now. You need sources on that in order to prove notability. Also, I've corrected the title above out of all caps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - You'll need to cite sources before anything else. Then, clean out the weasel words and self-promotional tone from some sections. Seriously, "innovative titles and on the carefully designed and packaged end product"? Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your company or product. -- Kesh (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete due to efforts to revise the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- … the userfied article has no sources'. Zero. Effort is laudable, but we can't ignore one of our core policies. -- Kesh (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, we can. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh lord, here we go… Now I'm convinced this is a WP:POINT. -- Kesh (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, whatever point you're trying to make, it is not productive or convincing. We do have a Heyman Standard when articles are improved and I just cited a policy that we can ignore certain rules when we're trying to improve the project. Also, there does seem to be some (I don't believe this one is linked to yet in the userfied article) sources on the web. By the way, if you would like to work on article to improve one let me know as I'm always happy to help find sources and fix grammar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, you're wrong. The policy you cited does not state that you can "ignore certain rules." It does, however, state you can "ignore all rules." In any case, consensus trumps IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now. I appreciate the work which has gone into this but there are still significant problems. Firstly it still lacks sources and secondly there are far too many peacock terms. BlueValour (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, poorly sourced, user needs perhaps to go out and work on some other articles to get a better handle on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. User probably also needs to look at WP:BAI. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, besides the clear COI problems, this is spam. Rewrite the article to make it neutral, get rid of the peacockery, and source it with reliable sources, then we can review it gain. Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Draft article is not satisfactory due to lack of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/temp – Userfied – Stifle (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request this be userfied so it can be tagged with {{humor}} and preserved at Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2008. Redfarmer (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose userfication.--WaltCip (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it help improve the encyclopedia?--WaltCip (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow. I'm all for it; that stuff was hilarious. No reason not to, far as I can see. Where do you suggest it be userfied to? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can userfy it to me if you'd like...User:Redfarmer/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/temp maybe? Redfarmer (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phyton – History restored by original AfD closer. That was the actual request here, and the discussion below does not really imply a problem with the closure that would warrant further scrutiny. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Late last year, this article was nominated for deletion. After a short discussion, it was ruled that the article should be deleted (4 delete/3 keep). Based on the consensus, Secret deleted the article. I had suggested a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Greyhawk deities, hoping to preserve the edit history. After the fact, I decided to create a redirect anyway. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? If you agree, you can either obliterate the current edit history, or just add it to the original edit history. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore article. Clearly no consensus (i.e. no agreement among the participants one way or the other) and the AfD was started by an account that was blocked for "disruptive nominations", while apparently also using socks at the time. Moreover, the subject is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on fantasy and given the large number of published books on Greyhawk, I would think sources can be found. Finally, the appropriate wikiproject was only notified just before the AfD was closed, so had that occurred earlier in the discussion, the results might have been more decisively clear. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what? As the AfD closer pointed out, the keep arguments had no reasoning given, so were throw-away !votes. Once that's eliminated, a clear consensus was to delete. As to the remainder… I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Are you suggesting to transwiki the article content? -- Kesh (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus means agreement. There was no agreement to delete the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstand how AfD works. Consensus must be based on policy, or else we have mob rule. Any !votes which are not based on policy are rightly ignored when determining consensus. -- Kesh (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were no policy based reasons for deletion, though. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "non-notable" and "cannot be cited with secondary reliable sources independent of the subject" is not a policy-based reason? Are you even reading these articles & debates? -- Kesh (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"non-notable" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. And I have already provided a link to hundreds of Greyhawk books which can be used as sources. Thus, there is no valid policy-based reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While simply saying "non-notable" may be something to avoid, it's true. Regardless, your second point is flatly contradicted by policy. Those are primary sources, nowhere near being independent of the original source. And you're not likely to find any secondary sources on this subject. Given your determination to ignore policy, I have to wonder if you're simply trying to make a point here on DRV. -- Kesh (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not likely" does not equal "not." I hope that your determination to ignore policy is not trying to make a point here on DRV, but I'll Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore, besides all the problems Roi mentioned, the only user other than the nom who gave a reason either way was Gavin Collins. Everyone else either voted per nom or per Boz. I see no consensus here. Once the article is restored, a discussion would be appropriate on the article talk page to determine whether to bring this to AfD again, merge, or leave it be. Redfarmer (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say just perform the history merge, and don't restore. I also read the consensus in the AfD as delete, since no one could give a good reason not to (User:BOZ included, but his suggestion makes sense). Chances are it'd AfD again and be redirected anyways. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An overturn would be lovely, but I'd be totally satisfied with this, which is all I'm asking for. :) BOZ (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Though I'm a D&D fan, we don't need an article on every god/monster/city/etc. in the game. They're not notable outside of D&D itself. Those asking for a merge should note that the merge target is just a list, so there's really nowhere to merge it to. The AfD had a solid, policy-based nom, several users who agreed with that reasoning, and several users who !voted to Keep with no policy reasoning. As there was no problem with the AfD closing, and I don't see anywhere valid to merge to, I don't see anything else for DRV to do here. -- Kesh (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about not merging then and just restoring the edit history, so that people could take something out of it if they wanted to - which is all I'm asking for? :) I don't really want the article to be fully restored either (I'd like it though), because if it gets restored fully, it will probably just be re-nominated at some point, if not immediately, or even speedily deleted. With the edit history in place, as a redirect, if someone wanted to access that info, they can see it. BOZ (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the purpose of restoring articles, though. If information is being restored, it should be to integrate it into an article, not to avoid the decision of an AfD on the hope someone "might" want it and be willing to dig through the history to find it. -- Kesh (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a good enough purpose. There's no benefit to the contrary. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We do need an article on it. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Plus, there were no compelling policy based reasons for deletion. The topic is notable to a real-world audience and there are plenty of published books on Greyhawks from which to compile an article. As a sub-article of a main series, secondary sources are not as needed, but even so, go through all 200+ Greyhawk books (not to mention doing a search of reviews of those books), and I'm sure you'll find something. If nothing else, there is no reason for not at least restoring the article and keeping the redirect that many called for in the AfD, which while in effect not having the article proper would at least still allow the editors who worked on it to keep their edit history. Only hoaxes, personal attacks, and copy vios need be "deleted" which is an extreme measure. When a redirect location exists and there is no libel or copy vio concern, we do not prevent editors' contribs from remaining public histories. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Diderot is a nice quotation, and very relevant to many inclusion and content problems in WP, but this is not the sort of application of it he had in mind, and I am sure GRC knows this as well as I do. DGG (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take "All things" and "without exception" literally. What Boz is asking for is entirely reasonable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has changed significantly since its inception. And even Jimbo has admitted that some things are not valid to have on Wikipedia. The community as a whole agrees, so I'm afraid your literal interpretation is not going to fly. -- Kesh (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community as a whole does not agree, otherwise there would not be a disagreement here and so my interepretation flies high. And for the record, I agree that some things do not belong on Wikipedia, I just don't see a problem with the particular subject in question or the specific request concerning it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, he's requesting a history merge with the redirect. No reason to make this a big deal. Seriously. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - I didn't think it needed this much debate. ;) It's either a yes or no. I'm not going to restore the pre-AFD article for reasons I've already stated. I've seen plenty of "delete" rulings where the edit history remains and the article winds up as a redirect - it seems to almost be at the whim of the closing admin. BOZ (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it looks like the edit history actually already is intact. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must have agreed with me then - thanks to whomever fixed that. :) Case closed?

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

Michael Bounds – Reopening and relisting inappropriately non-admin closed AfD. No extended discussion required. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion was closed via a non-admin. The rationale was that the nominator was a likely sockpuppet, but his userpage did not list him as such. Also, there was a vote for deletion (my own), which suggests that the AfD should have continued until a consensus could develop. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was a continuation of User:Boomgaylove's large-scale sockpuppet attack, which has involved dozens of improper AfD nominations among other things, and wasted a vast amount of Wikipedian's time in contentious and pointless AfD debates. When deletion is proposed by a sockpuppet for disruptive purposes it normally ends up in a keep. The occasional delete result is suspect, and subject to reversal with or without drv. That makes any AfD discussion moot. The rare instance where the sockpuppet has picked a truly debatable article to nominate is a successful gaming of the system to waste people's time. I properly closed this latest one as a bad-faith nomination rather than allowing the disruption to continue. Let's table this rather than letting the sockpuppets play us. Once the issue is resolved on AN/I or via the outstanding checkuser request, any legitimate editor is then free to make a new good faith nomination. Wikidemo (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD nominations were contentious, then they weren't pointless. Pointless would be nominating United States for deletion, where everyone votes for speedy keeping. Contentious are exactly what AfDs should be, and usually are; you make the logical fallacy that ALL articles nominations by sockpuppets deserve to be kept. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A snowball delete could be deleted in any event, nothing stops that. But where notability is debatable it shouldn't be debated on the sockpuppet's terms for their amusement. That only rewards the sockpuppet for misbehavior and encourages more of it. That's not an abstract point - it's specific to this particular troll, who has now nominated at least 45 articles for deletion using different accounts, often rigging the debate in various ways. We're not some fire department that has to roll out the engine every time some delinquent pulls the fire alarm or sets off a firecracker. AfD is a place for legitimate editors to raise real concerns. We can't have banned editors nominating ten articles for deletion per day. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We can have legitimate editors nominating ten articles for deletion per day, and I don't see anyone going on a crusade against them. Is the issue that they are sockpuppets, or that they are nominating ten articles a day for deletion? I guess I just don't understand how this is disruptive; if I were to nominate it, no one would complain. If you were to nominate it, no one would complain; whether it's a bad faith nomination or not, discussion of it's notability benefits the project and either improves the article enough to keep it or show that it can't be improved or delete it, regardless of whether the sockpuppet is doing it for their amusement or not. That is why our guidelines say that even in bad faith nominations, AfDs with delete votes shouldn't be speedy kept solely on the basis of the nominator's actions elsewhere. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of like asking what's the harm in allowing a disbarred doctor from performing surgery. Banned means you're not supposed to be editing here period, not that you can edit as long as you follow policy, or sneak in and do whatever you want until you get caught. This person's AfD nominations have been a tool of disruption. In the last round it was a systematic campaign to get rid of certain rap artists, subsidized housing projects, and poor African-American neighborhoods the troll was calling "trash" or something like that. This time it's a sour grapes tit-for-tat retribution because two articles the troll wrote are up for deletion. The pattern with past AfD nominations has included canvassing, lying about what sources say, deleting references before claiming an article is unreferenced, filing administrative reports to accuse people of wikistalking and harassment, and posting "delete" votes from multiple accounts in the same discussion. Sometimes people, assuming good faith in the nomination, get duped into siding with the troll and supporting deletion. These are not good faith nominations that happen to come from someone who isn't supposed to be here, these are calculated attempts to game the system and cause trouble. Every AfD nomination, taken to its conclusion, takes a few minutes of the troll's time and sometimes hours of work for everyone else. Trying to watch over each of these nominations as if they were legitimate just throws concerned editors off the path of dealing with the sockpuppetry. Wikidemo (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, see the ANI, RFCU still pending but its quacking. No comment on the subject's notability since professors seem to go 50/50, but he's published a lot TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I wasn't looking there, I was looking at the suspected sockpuppets list. In any case, I guess I'll just go renominate this myself. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen/relist, non-admins should only close uncontentious AFDs and speedy keep guidelines say that even vandalistic AFDs should not be speedy closed if another person has expressed a delete opinion. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way, in the case of abusive sockpuppets. Either it's IAR or change the guidelines, but I will close sockpuppet AfDs and generally undo sockpuppet disruption on sight. Please don't relist until we've got that issue under control, which at most takes a few days. There's nothing so urgent about debating the notability of a professor that it can't wait to be done the right way. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was potentially a sockpuppet doesn't mean "oh noes, a sockpuppet nominated something for deletion, therefore we have to wait to continue the debate on the matter." Our policies on speedy keeps actually go right against what you did (emphasis mine): "The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with {{db-ban}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." In fact, they actually go against non-admins speedy keeping anything: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead." There's nothing wrong with going through this debate if non-banned, non-sockpuppet editors wish to go through the process. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does mean that, and please don't mock me. I disagree and, as I said, will close these nominations. Wikidemo (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why you feel that simply because a sockpuppet may be involved, it has to bring the rest of Wikipedia to a grinding halt. Effectively, that means they have won, as they have gamed the system into doing nothing and having debates about freezing everything they've been involved in, as has been the case here. I'm even prevented from doing it myself simply because he did it; this is a very, very, very bad way to go about things, as it bogs down Wikipedia's proceedings simply because "a sock nominated it for deletion earlier, thus the normal process of Wikipedia is ruined for everyone else." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look into what is actually happening instead of getting on a soap box here with the straw man arguments. Closing these bad faith AfD nominations is clearly the right thing to do, and overwhelmingly in the interest of avoiding disruption. Last time this sockpuppet appeared he / she nominated 20 or more articles for deletion. Some were speedily closed, others were allowed to run their course which, because of the sockpuppet involvement, became messy, contentious, and time consuming. As far as I know they were all kept in the end. The puppeteer has come back time and again to do the same thing. This time it's 22 new nominations in two days after being warned to stop. One of the AfDs I closed is his/her fifth nomination of the same article in six weeks. There's no productive work on the encyclopedia that's furthered by this. The most efficient thing to do here is summarily close the nominations without prejudice to renomination by a legitimate editor sometime in the future. Wikidemo (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no problem with the article being relisted, and the only thing that matters is this person who put the four tildes at the end, rather than the content of the AfD itself? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the article being relisted after we deal with the sockpuppet(s). The main thing that matters here is that we deal effectively with a disruptive troll who has cost experienced editors and administrators many dozens of hours of time and rancor, including three or four AN/I cases, several AN and BLP cases, two RfCs, two checkusers, who knows what other administrative remedies, and the attention of arbitration committee members. That's a lot more important than reviewing a nearly two-year-old article about a possibly non-notable professor this week instead of next week simply because the troll wants us to do it this week. Wikidemo (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen the AfD or relist, whichever works faster (sounds like the relist will). WP:SK says that it doesn't apply to XfDs where other !votes have been cast, even ones by banned users and vandals. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 April 2008

Spishak – Non-controversial request granted. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary Review: I request that this article be sent to my e-mail, as found in my Talk page. I have no intentions to restart the article. I am requesting this action, per the suggestion made to me in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 18 UrPQ31 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Er, could someone close this and the one below for me? I can't find the templates. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Lillian Verner Game Show – Non-controversial request granted. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request that this article be sent to my e-mail, as found in my Talk page. I have no intentions to restart the article. I am requesting this action, per the suggestion made to me in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 18 UrPQ31 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. May be closed. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Personality rights – Deletion endorsed. WP:CON and WP:NDA were both sufficient for deleting the template. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original nominator completely misunderstood the reasoning behind this template. Its purpose is to inform downloaders that they may not necessarily use this image in certain circumstances. The nomination states, "WP:BLP policy extends to all material involving living persons, including images, thus making the disclaimer redundant," but BLP is an internal policy that applies to articles written about living persons, not how people are to reuse the content. The nominator's second point is that personality rights vary across jurisdictions, but that's precisely why this is needed; the downloader is responsible for determining those rights. The third point is the only one that has any validity, that WP:NDA might open us up to lawsuits if the disclaimers are not applied consistently. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Why are we responsible for how someone might reuse an image? Besides, doesn't this duplicate information found on our general disclaimer, which is linked to from every page? Finally, to address the TFD itself, the close was proper, there was no opposition. --Kbdank71 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no complaints about the close; I'm just saying that the reasons for nomination (except the 3rd) were completely inapplicable to the template's intended usage. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I see no problem with the nom or the closing of the TfD. -- Kesh (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I do not think we should be responsible for, nor attempt to advise, the use of images by others. Thus, while I agree that my nomination statement is largely inapplicable to the downloading of images and their off-wiki use, I do not think we should have a template to address such use. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:General disclaimer (and other disclaimers linked from there) says nothing anywhere about the re-use of images and how personality rights may apply to images of people. I will happily withdraw this request if it can be added there. Can I do it myself, or do I need Mike Godwin or another Foundation representative to do it? howcheng {chat} 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you could do it yourself (see, for instance, this addition), though a talk page note might be in order... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein. That pretty much says we're not liable if you break any law by reusing anything you got from us. No changes needed. --Kbdank71 00:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's too obscure, especially since the licensing of images is already so confusing. Think about it -- the image page says (to paraphrase) "you can use this for any purpose" but you can't really. It's really misleading. I think we have the responsibility of saying, "Hey, that's not always the case." It's not that much more text to add to the disclaimer, isn't it? howcheng {chat} 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You might want to check with the foundation on that. I'm not a lawyer, but from an editor's perspective, it's fine. Besides, if we get sued, what is the charge going to be? "But Wikipedia said I could do whatever I wanted with the image!" Again, not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that would get tossed out before that sentence could be finished. --Kbdank71 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator statement. Simple close, I have no recollection of it though, that's really long ago. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, obviously we're not responsible for people's use of images but there's nothing wrong with giving them a little warning anyway. -- Naerii 15:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

CubeDesktop – Deletion endorsed. Please create a userfied version and request a review by original AFD admin (or here). – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

New article, has nothing to do with previous one. Was deleted before I could, at least, finish it. Halfelf2000xp (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist A little more information--I doubt it is enough, but it's not an substantially identical re-creation.DGG (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest you create a userspace version of the page so we can see the finished version first. VegaDark (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

* Three April Fools Day joke discussions.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion – Keep deleted. Density of this page title has caused it to collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius. I should note that quantum singularities are not permitted on Wikipedia per WP:V and general good sense. High levels of X-Ray radiation are also bad for the developers, and could mutate Jimbo into Gamera. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn then speedy delete under G6 in half an hour. Let's face it, WP:APRIL's over in half an hour, and there's no point keeping this around after that. And of course, until then, it's hot. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invulnerable? Ta-da! Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, no. I meant not 'til tomorrow. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops..) Can I invokve Wikipedia:Ignore all time? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Human – By the vigilante powers vested in me, I must quash all cabal resistance. – bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer totally disregarded the consensus to speedy delete... and I'm saying this as a keep voter Sceptre ^(talk) 02:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC) -— Scepter (talk • contribs) is a human and has made few or no other edits outside this topic for the past two minutes. [reply]

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review – Okay, kids, break-time's over, back to class :) – Stifle (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely out of process that it was never nominated for deletion! The nonexistent closer obtained no consensus for doing nothing. Abusive and out of process! I say overturn per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion... Salt and ketchup! IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per consensus. --JayHenry (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn based on clear evidence here! -- Kesh (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Monkey~~. This nomination is not hot enough, I'm afraid. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! according to this AfD, this page should be deleted right now! Check out the logs! I'm going to have to change my !vote to Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least if this one gets deleted, there can be no process warring over it. "Take it to DR... oh." Orderinchaos 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse overturn of overturned endorse, for reasons which should be obvious. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send in turn to MfD, CfD, RfD, ANI, ANB and WPA. One of them might think of something to do about it. consider again this time next year. DGG (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore no consensus per consensual nonsense. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feature, fails WP:BOLLOCKS-- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shock the Monkey per all the above Beeblbrox (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html

[2] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html

[3] ttp://history.nasa.gov/SP-4217/ch7.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]