Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September

< August 2008 Deletion review archives October 2008 >


30 September 2008

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

Kevjumba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (21 July 2007 AfD) Kevin Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (3 January 2008 AfD) <-- Deletion review of this one. KevJumba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (22 July 2008 AfD)

I have found sources for this article, which was deleted for lacking notability. The article currently exists at Kevjumba, but our naming conventions say it should be at Kevin Wu. Kevin Wu was protected after the last deletion because of repeated recreation. There are two relevant AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Wu. The first says it can be recreated if sources are found, the second is a normal delete. I don't really want Kevin Wu undeleted, I want it inprotected so I can move Kevjumba over to it. I asked the admin who did it, and he said to come here.[1] Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per most recent AfD in January, which was pretty decisive. It's also generally considered bad form to re-create something under another title which is deleted by consus and protected under the normal title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A userspace draft would have been nice. Also, the most significant difference between the current article and the old one is a claimed appareance on a CW show whose article says it was the network's lowest-rated show ever and only 3 episodes ever aired. Not enough to overturn January's AfD, methinks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also see User:Tlogmer/Kevjumba. -- Suntag ☼ 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the sourcing since the last AfD, I'd say that new deletions should head there again. So, my official stance is don't G4 the current article. I've moved it the proper title and left Kevjumba as a redirect. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - The article now has sources that overcome the 3 January 2008 AfD and there is at least one editor (Peregrine Fisher) interested in a viable article on the topic. The other items are annoying (recreation w/o DRV review, multiple deletions, vandalism history, etc.), but Peregrine Fisher's involvement seems enough to help keep the matter under control for the time being. Another AfD couldn't hurt. -- Suntag ☼ 19:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure what the goal of this is. The AfD I closed in January was obviously supported by policy and consensus. The most recent AfD was closed properly, too (if a little suddenly). If the subject now merits an article, that's fine, but that doesn't mean the other deletions should be overturned. The article is there now, and already properly titled as far as I can see, and it's not going to be speedied as a re-creation, so what exactly is being discussed? Kafziel Complaint Department 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally asked the admin who had deleted Kevin Wu to unprotect it so that I could move Kevjumba to that article name. He told me to come here, so I did. One of the admins above performed the move, so I got what I wanted. i don't know if it should be marked as resolved or what. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 30 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Roly Poly (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

It was marked for deletion due to "this is an album for a band that isn't even in WP". Fine, I will add an article for the band if this article can be restored. They are certainly notable, and I've had to fight for this article in the past! They are easily more notable than many bands/albums I've seen here on WP (mostly california indie bands I've never heard of) so please give my article a chance. I can even provide more detailed information on them and their albums, ISBN and such, as I have their album. I really do NOT look forward to another "notability battle" to defend this band. They are notable, they do exist, and they did release one or more albums, and Amazon even sells "Roly Poly". Please consider the restoration of this article. Also, I logged in too late to contest it, so it got auto-erased. I had intentionally stubbed the article so I could find out as much information about this band as possible, since I live in Austin TX which is where they're from.

There is plenty of notability information on the band's previous incarnation, "Schatzi", which was formed in Oklahoma before the members moved to Austin. I believe that there is plenty enough stuff on Google (band history, member bios, etc) to create an article on both Schatzi (an article of the same name did exist at one time, although maybe unrelated-- deleted due to being an advert) and Blunderwheel. Most of what I'm talking about can be found at Mammoth Records' website, at http://mammoth.go.com/schatzi/index.html. Neat, I just also determined that I could add the band and album to the Mammoth Records article, thus giving them more WP-credibility.

Regards, Weasel5i2 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Betterstream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Betterstream.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This is posted on behalf of an OTRS respondent (ticket #2008093010003436), who wishes to appeal the deletion but (for reasons withheld from public view due to the confidential nature of OTRS) cannot. The reason provided as a DRV nomination statement is as follows:

It seems all major video sharing sites are listed here, which is all the more reason BetterStream.com should be. It is a revolutionary new site that hosts higher quality video than the most video sites (youtube) and higher quality audio than most audio sites (including myspace). It also shares revenue and ad space with ALL users from day one. That's some of the notability and nobility"
Also, the deleter, Versageek, said to try back when I have mainstream approval. I wrote, "Dear Versageek, BetterStream doesn't intend on associating itself with the mainstream and intends to be listed on Wikipedia for that very reason, as a company that is defying the mainstream." and disassociating itself with the mainstream.
That's news worthy, and I've personally been covered in many articles by major newspaper and internet blogs. This content on BetterStream has more internet views than Focus Features, an international production firm listed on Wikipedia.

No opinion. Deleting administrator has been notified via other mediums. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The concept of what make it notable listed above isn't what wikipedia considers notability the general standard being non-trivial coverage in multiple indepedendant reliable sources. The guides make no mention of revenue sharing, high quality video etc. with good reason. If Betterstream isn't going to let itself get coverage by the mainstream (and if it is notable I don't see how it can avoid it, you can't stop people writing about you) then it's unlikely to meet the guidelines for notability and more importantly wikipedia can't write a verifiable article, if we can't do that we can't have an article. What's more for all this attempt to avoid the mainstream, why are you interested in having an article on wikipedia? "That's news worthy.." - that's a matter of opinion, by wikipedia isn't here to report the news, it's an encyclopedia. As to personal notability without knowing who raises this, I can't look into that, but it doesn't matter for this article, it might be a reason to have an article on the person, but their business ventures don't instantly become notable as a result. As I can't see the article I can't tell if it should have been an A7 (but I note it's deleted as G11 under another guise as well.) --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted unless the nominator or someone else presents independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it's an admittedly new site with no evidence of rs coverage or assertion that it has received any. Valid G11 and also would have been A7, non-notable web content. Just because its "newsworthy" doesn't mean it was discussed in reliable sources. Also, legal threats don't help. Just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean it isn't spam. Endorse and salt if creator does not respect consensus if it forms here. TravellingCari 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of advertorial with no evidence of meeting our inclusion criteria. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I can't help notice that this has a current Alexa ranking of over 2 million and falling--Compare Youtube (rank 3) and Hulu (rank 590)--so claims that this somehow deserves an article by default because other video sites have them are faulty at best. I'd say that any startup trying to wedge itself into the video-sharing fray at this point is coming late to the table and will have a very tough time making a name for itself among the giants in the field... but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Bottom line: no notability, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just sorta' thinking here, but this appears to be about Betterstream.com and not Betterstream, based on timing and the mention of the deleting admin from the former in the nomination statement. It's also far less interesting to look at.
    So, down to business. I'm afraid I'm going to have to endorse the deletion as a valid A7/G11 speedy. I suggest getting some mainstream news coverage before recreating the article, as required by the general notability guideline. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - No information in Google news, Google books, or Google scholar. I couldn't even find a press release and there website contains no links to press coverage. I found Better StreamGenie Live Webcaster, but that is not Betterstream. Without reliable source material, there really isn't anything from which a Wikipedia article could be created. On a related note, I looked for information about founder Ben Ligeri (Benjamin Ligeri), which resulted in Internet provides plenty of forums to discuss Cho. identifying a Benjamin Ligeri of Rehoboth, Massachusetts posting a video to a MySpace page. -- Suntag ☼ 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original G11 deletion, could also have been speedy deleted under A7. If there actually are major newspapers which have covered this website then you need to list citations to the articles in question to prove it. Hut 8.5 06:47, 1 October 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Hi, i'm trying to get the article titled "Tangle Creations" undeleted. I am wanting to write an article with the History, background, and different uses for the various Tangles. I'm trying not to make it sound like i'm "advertising", as I'm guessing that is why my article has been deleted. Please provide suggestions on how I can edit to keep the article up. Thanks! Tanglecreations (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


29 September 2008

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

I was looking through old links on my former User page (User:Husnock) and came across this unresolved issue. Rudolf Hoess’s appointment order as Auschwitz commander was deleted about a year ago by an admin User:Butseriouslyfolks as part of a major purge of images uploaded under my previous account. At the time, there was some very bad blood on Wikipedia between myself and a lot of people and an ArbCom had recently been filed regarding a threat made against another user. I was also deployed to the Middle East and under a tremendous amount of stress and was acting like a jerk. Needless to say, I think a lot of this clouded people’s judgment about this particular image and this was fueled even further by a rash of accusations that I had knowingly stolen hundreds of images from the federal government (a page that gave most of this evidence, User:Durin/Husnock images, was later deleted for being an attack page.) Now, for the complete truth about this image: The image is a scan which I made myself when I was doing intern work at the National Archives in College Park around 1997. The scan was from the SS record of Hoess on file with NARA. According to several archivists that I have spoken to, plus my own knowledge as a historian with the National Archives myself, the scan is totally clear for any kind of publication and the only credit that should need to be given is that it was scanned from the microfiche in the SS record cabinets at college park. In fact, I scanned it at the same time as Image:EichmannSSdoc.jpg which has had no problems being on this site. Now, I don’t blame BSF or others for the initial reaction; like I said, there was a lot of bad blood and people were very upset about a lot of things most of which I caused. There were some strong words used including some implications that I was lying about even doing research at the Archives, much less being an employee of that agency. There was also a very bad situation about most of the military badge and medal images I had uploaded to this site being taken from a CD from Randolph Air Force Base which was, itself, comprosed mostly of stolen images. With all that aisde, though, in the past year I’ve cleaned up and obeyed all the rules of this site and have had absolutely no problem with anyone. So I say now that this image was not stolen, it is not a copyright violation, and I ask that we undelete it so it can be placed back into the Hoess article for others to see and study. I will be happy to answer further questions about or respond to an administrator using my nara.gove e-mail account to verify my identidy. Thank you and good night. OberRanks (talk) 04:29, 30 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Area 58 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) yes virgina there is an area 58:

"The first SDS satellites were placed into highly elliptical "Molniya" orbits to send images from KH-11 electro-optical reconnaissance satellites back to the DCEETA/Area 58 ground station at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia (38d44m10s N, 77d09m30s W). It is possible that some later SDS satellites were placed in geosynchronous orbits and may serve as relays for other NRO satellites, such as Lacrosse." 1

or the google books The US Intelligence Community: "large windowless two-story building officially know as the Defence Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity DCEETA, and also known as Area 58. While initially Fort Belvoir site was the only downlink.." 2

NYTimes: "Orbiting the earth every 92 minutes at an altitude of between 170 and 320 miles, the satellite's signals are first transmitted to another satellite. The pictures are then retransmitted down to analysts at the Mission Ground Site, a large, windowless, two- story concrete building at Fort Belvoir, near Washington, with the cover name of Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity." http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30D10F73D5F0C708DDDA80894DD484D81 logon required

The book Deep Black also confirm the history about President Carter and operations at DCEETA.

Apparantly the link to Mr Hamre remarks was suppressed September 2008 after being active for 8 years. "www.insidedefense.com/public/award1new.asp" -- could not be found which confirmed the link between DCEETA and Area 58.

therefore, we have 3 independant sources that confirm the existance of Area 58 and its equivalence with DCEETA.

how unoriginal could i get?

As to notability, is Menwith Hill notable? is Area 51 notable? are the means and methods used to transmit Satellite Intelligence to the ground notable? Or is the question really don't spread open source secrets around?

The concept of Area 58 is falsifiable. is there any source that denies the existance of area 58? Is the explanation reasonable? Dogue (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion The afd identified other aspects of the article that needed improvement in addition to its questionable notability. Also, dragging Area 51 into this is not a bright idea: Area 51 is a blackops site with fame, photographs, and a few verifiable truths, not to mention a popular culture rap sheet longer than most Baytoven simphonies. I can not find a good reason to undelete, thus I am of the opinion that the article should stay red. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since it could not go any other way. I think using "Area 58" as the article name is throwing everyone because the location is more widely known as "Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity center" (Defense CEETA). Wikipedia is not the place to make neogolisms popular and any article on the topic should be titled Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity center. There is info on Defense CEETA, so please feel free to develop an article in user space (minus the web site/blog sources) and request that the draft be moved into article space. (On a different note, check out this Area 58) -- Suntag ☼ 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse apparently is primarily original research, notability is far from clear, no issues with the AfD as it stood. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to indicate how the deletion procedure was not properly followed. It is not a venue to ask the other parent in the hope of a more favourable outcome. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok, I was addressing the two main issues: hoax and notability. I take it you agree now it is not a hoax. What is your 'google test'? I googled Area 58 and DCEETA, and got 16 independant references that supported 16 sentences in the article. Do you object to the Government Postion Section? "John Pike, who directs space policy for the Federation of American Scientists, believes the problem affected the ground link for the Lacrosse, not the KH-11. The primary ground link is at "Area 58," an intelligence community designation for the Defense Communication Electronics Evaluation and Test Activity at Fort Belvoir, Va., a few miles down the Potomac from Washington."[[2]] now the Hamre statement is censored, if i scanned the hardcopy of the InsideDefense article, would that be original? what is the Wiki policy for net censored material and references?
    • As far as the name, I didn't pick it, and DCEETA is the 'cover name', how about "The Mission Ground Site". btw, it is a blackops site. The NRO has clasified the location, not the name.(note 15 in the article) [[3]]
    • if area 51 is britney spears, then area 58 is that other spears girl. Does Wiki want a cogent explanation of how and where satellite intelligence is transmitted? because all the KH11, NGA, and NRO articles have a missing link in DCEETA.
    • Suntag, if i were to write a DCEETA article with all the same facts, what assurance is there that it won't get speedily deleted for 'non-notablity'? These military types are following their orders to close Pandora's box, and they will use any euphemism. otoh, the NRO taj mahal is in Wiki. (but i'm sure they'll argue it's not 'mission critical') Dogue (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you were to write a DCEETA article just like the one that was deleted, it would get speedy deleted under CSD G4. I don't care what the article is called, but the name of the Wikipedia article should be the most common name used by the reliable sources and I can tell you that it is not Area 58. There is reliable source info on Defense CEETA, so please feel free to develop a draft article in a user subpage using reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you want the article to stay on Wikipedia, do not use web site/blog sources. Once you are done with your draft article, return to DRV and request that the draft be moved into article space. -- Suntag ☼ 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV is not AfD round two, procedure appears to have been correctly followed here. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 4 October 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD 6)

The closing admin noted that "nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues." Actually several folks, including myself, mention that sourcing each entry would address those very concerns. This was the sixth AfD for the article including one that was overturned at DRV. Any OR and BLP concerns are WP:Problems that should be fixed. Also this seems to be a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia so a well-written article would actually serve our readers better than simply deleting something based on what seems to be cultural bias. WP:BLP should not be a delete hammer to rid ourselves of articles, in this case it should instead be used to move contentious entries to the talkpage until BLP concerns are addressed by better writing and sourcing to address such concerns. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following. -- Suntag ☼ 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion as a valid interpretation of the debate. Please remember that this is not round 2 of AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse The link above points to an earlier AfD, by the way. There was a lot of crowing about the nomination and about how the article is periodically nominated, but not much substantive argument for keeping it. The line between "fix problems and don't delete" and "these problems make the article innapropriate for wikipedia" is a very fuzzy one. There are articles where clearly no amount of improvement will result in an appropriate entry. there are articles where cleanup is obviously the best solution. But in the middle we can't just argue that cleanup can happen so therefore the article should be kept. A number of people noted that the inclusion criteria and the only real response was that these were solvable problems. That's not a compelling response to me. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself, as stifle said, this isn't AfD2. It was borderline, but it seems like deletion was proper. Protonk (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to relevant AfD added. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I'm seeing nothing wrong here with the way this deletion progressed, and with the final decision (regardless of which way it went) - Alison ❤ 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I actually attempted to address the nom's points in turn, I was quite surprised to find that "failure to address the nom's points" was the reason given for the closure. Whether they are addressed successfully is surely a subjective decision, not really a closure criteria? Not sure if I'm entitled to have a position here, since I participated in the AfD discussion, but I'd have been a lot happier if the closure had cited apparent consensus (though I doubt there really was any) rather than claiming the nom's position was not challenged. MadScot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As was stated in the AfD one of the main contributors, who had shown a great willingness to collaborate and address problems was frustrated by the regular efforts to delete content and the article. This AfD was my first introduction to it and I see the list as certainly fixable and stated such in the discussion. The AfD, IMHO, was rather split so was surprised it wasn't called as "no consensus". If the community demands clarity for inclusion and sourcing to address BLP concerns then make that clear and assume good faith that editors will do so, I've done that on a much larger list so I know it's possible. A 3-6 month stay of execution would be reasonable to address concerns. -- Banjeboi 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but feel free to develop a user space article. After AfD#6, promises to fix may receive less weight than after AfD#1. We have Category:Big-bust models and performers, so we're not losing too much material. For list intersections, Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists indicates a need for a reliable source that addresses the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested. I think that a list such as List of adult entertainers having a reputation for large sized breasts could be a viable intersection list if the adult entertainment industry or some reliable source sets out criteria for being a large sized breasts adult entertainer and reliable sources utilize that criteria. As consensus sets out in AfD#6, the present list never came together to meet V and RS. The title of the article did not assist in this at all and the membership criteria "the consensus among many independent web sites is that a DD cup size and larger qualifies as "large" " may have poisoned the well. In response to using Juggs Magazine as a reliable source (yes, please use), Scott MacDonald posted in AfD6, "I've no doubt a well-referenced article can be written on the subject (with attributed examples of popular views)."[4] MadScott additionally pointed out that "There's an AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust"."[5] GlassCobra also adds, "These actresses are indeed famous precisely because of their large busts."[6]. There clearly can be a Wikipedia article on this topic. The fact that this topic is a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia means we really need to ensure that this article meets Wikipedia article standards. A good way to go about this is to create a user space article and get DRVs thumbs up on it to move it into user space. -- Suntag ☼ 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but I agree with Suntag. There is the potential for a similar, but less subjective article to be created. Epbr123 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, article survived six AFDs by "keep" voters arguing that references could be obtained, yet references still never appeared. fish&karate 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Issues of subjectivity and BLP were clearly handled in the AfD with a large set of various sources listed. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close my nomination listed inherent issues of POV, OR and unverifiability in ANY selection criteria for this. The closer rightly identified that the keep arguments did not answer the policy based reasons for the deletion nomination. DRV is not round 9 of afd.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess my post of 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) was invisible to yourself and the closer then? I'm rather frustrated that having restricted my own comments largely to addressing the issues raised by the nom, they were in effect ignored and apparently the large number of !votes based on "oh how demeaning" apparently swayed the closing. It's extremely frustrating to find an AfD debate closed on such thin grounds when there was no apparent consensus. MadScot (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to be rude, but maybe people are not finding your arguments convincing. You've noted a few times that people have ignored or otherwise marginalized your views on the issue. It may be possible that they considered them and then rejected them for some reason. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's OK, I don't find that rude. In fact I'd rather be told my input is valueless than have it ignored altogether. At least you're acknowledging there was an attempt to address the nom's issue. MadScot (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is valueless. And even if people don't find it persuasive it isn't valueless (people often don't find opposing arguments persuasive, unfortunately). I agree that some mention of your comments should have been made and I understand your frustration. Alternately, someone may have dismissed (fairly or unfairly) your first argument as basically WP:OSE and not noticed your second comment (which was stronger, IMO). Protonk (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion after several years, six(!) AFDs, and considerable editor attention, promises that the article can somehow be fixed are less than convincing. I also note that, as I noted in the AfD, a bulk of the keep votes simply said it should be kept because it's been through AfD before, while apparently ignoring that all but one of the previous debates were "delete" or "no consensus". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A request for a history undeletion was denied due the massive number of revisions involved, so I've created User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/For DRV with the content from the most recent version (less the AfD tag and categories) for the benefit of non-admins. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I was not aware there was any time constraints for anything to be done. This plainly boils down to "I dont like it, so it should go through as many AFD's as it takes to get rid of it" rather than edit to correct the problems. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Inclusion criteria for the list were not well-defined. The proposed solution (sourcing every entry) might be an improvement, but it would create a hodgepodge of links to sources of a more tabloid and sensationalist, rather than reliable, nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a pile of bad faith assumptions. This list - like so many others - is in need of tighter definitions that are clear in the lede and reliable sourcing which demonstrates the entry adheres to the list requirements. These are all fixable problems as laid out in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been alleged that because sourcing hasn't fully enveloped each entry over the course of each AfD that it won't happen or it's evidence that editors are adverse to this. I find this troubling as we all know that articles, generally, improve over time and the issue doesn't seem to be that sources don't exist but that they're not yet on the article. Each entry is for an existing article which evidently asserts the notability there and a quick look shows that redlinked entries were non-existent. We discourage ownership issues so why hold some "other" editors to adding sources and cleaning up WP:Problems? Even adding a few would help set a good example. Finally I will point out that I had never known the article existed until this AfD - there are likely many willing editors much more interested in teh subject who given some sound structure and good examples to follow would be willing to do the actual clean-up work. Unclear why we wouldn't encourage this. This article is arguably one of the top gateway articles to the rest of the project - instead of pointing at its faults and lamenting generalized concerns - it seems the project would benefit by turning into a good article that treats a contemporary subject encyclopedicly where others could or would not. Exactly what Wikipedia can do best. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that this is my first AfD with this article and current editors shouldn't be judged by what previous editors failed to accomplish. And the time needed isn't to come up with sources but to come up with consensus on how to fix the criteria and then format the list to address concerns which likely entail ensuring every item is sourced. -- Banjeboi 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How to fix the criteria. (1) Make sure that "adult entertainers" appears in the name of the article. (2) Don't use a website to source the inclusion criteria. (3) Source the inclusion criteria to (a) Juggs Magazine and/or to (b) the AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust". (4) Create a table that has a column for footnotes. -- Suntag ☼ 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, these are actually constructive ways to address fixing the problems. That previous editors walked away from keep or delete AfD discussions and did not fix the article problems is not a reason to delete. This was stressed in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If not one cares enough to completely overhaul an article that is currently outside our inclusion guidelines to one inside our inclusion guidelines, then eventually we have to ask whether on not we want to keep it. If after 5 years and 6 AfD's no one has stepped up to the plate, how long to we wait with an article that fails WP:NPOV and WP:SYN? I know the standard responses of AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline but those are rallying cries and not a reasonable way to treat an article which doesn't meet the guidelines. At what point do we take responsibility for this and say: this either gets improved to the point where we can say "revision X meets guidelines and policies" or it gets deleted? And don't say never because we do it all the time. A3 and A7 deletions are basically extreme versions of the statement "there is too much between this and an acceptable article". What happens if we have a set of clear possible criteria (like above) but Suntag doesn't want to order 100 back issues of Juggs to make the list? I certainly don't want to. Right now we have intertia in play. If this article remains, the only thing that will save it is a complete rewrite. The motivation to make that rewrite gets smaller the larger the article gets, because we have a natural inclination to make small adjustments (esp. on a wiki) or append items rather than revamp the basic idea. Maintaining this list makes it more likely that its current format is perpetuated. So do we restore it, stub it and enforce the inclusion criteria? Who is going to do that? Who will stop someone from just reverting to the old version and making and article that doesn't meet our guidelines? I'm not saying that everything which doesn't arouse instant interest should be deleted. Most articles see very little interest. I'm just suggesting that we can't keep saying that some unwieldy list like this will be magically turned into an article that meets community expectations and then call that constructive (versus deletion, which is evidently always destructive). Some time along the line we have to say "If wikipedia should have an article on this, it shouldn't be this one." Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your thoughts are valid - again these are all reasns to clean-up an article - not to delete it. If editors feel their work is continually targeted and vandalized that it's unsurprising that inertia would wane. It's not fixed yet ergo never will be so let's delete it is a terrible policy position. Our standards of what a featured article is have greatly improved even over the past few years yet we work to re-evaluate and improve striving to make articles better. There's no reason this article can't be improved to even a GA level, unless, of course, WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes are now seen as justifiable concerns. OR, NPOV and RS issues are all WP:Problems. We fix problems not give up all hope. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article content and deletion policies and guidelines do not require that editors continue to assume that an article will be fixed in the presence of contrary evidence. Also, arguing weakness in a delete reasoning does not mean strength in keep reasoning, particularly one not supported by sufficient factual evidence. -- Suntag ☼ 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, selection criteria always were subjective and subjectively based on notoriously unreliable sources at that. This article was both listcruft and porncruft and its departure improves the project. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously! Guy, perhaps you had a very sheltered childhood? It is in fact one of the most socially structured forms of autoerotic activity there is.[1] Again, what is the problem with lists pertaining to breast fetishism? This is the entertainment industry, and it takes years to write objective articles. Ottre 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Laumann, Edward O. (1994). "Sexual Networks". The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press. pp. pp. 225-268. ISBN 0-226-46957-3. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Endorse close. The close may have been against the consensus of the deletion debate but it is always legitimate to look behind the votes at the competing arguments. In this case, the nominator and closer both correctly point to the fact that the list was based on subjective and arbitrary admission criteria. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No clear consensus for deletion, and the admin intervention here disregards the consensus of the previous AfDs. Doubtless that we will see continued AfDs and a seventh (and eighth, and ninth....) AfD will be initiated until the result is acceptable to those who want this article deleted. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Come on guys are arguing to undelete on the idea that the article will be improved but its had years and no-one has. The consensus is clear. I suggest you work up a sweat on an article in your userspace and bring it here for review after its been improved. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to really be assuming bad faith that I won't improve the article if this is overturned. I do intend to as I feel this is a case of Gaming the system as mentioned above of sending an article to AfD until the editors are repelled and you can get it deleted. If even a half the energy was put into rewriting the lede to address the stated concerns that has been put into deleting the article we'd have a good article already. The article is fixable and there are editors willing to fix it so this comes down to we don't like it so we're deleting it. That seems quite counter to the stated mission of the project. In addition this perpetually has been one of the top 100 articles out of two million so apparently its a sought after subject that our readers - who we are apparently volunteering our energy for - also want. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not assuming bad faith at all. He didn't say you won't try your hardest to improve the article. HE is just saying after 5 years and 6 deletion debates no one has improved the article despite constant promises. His suggestion that a userspace draft can be made and improved would seem to make everyone happy. About the gaming the system idea...I don't know what to say. We are either going to agree that deletion is a legitimate and fundamental part of wiki process or we are going to disagree. In the case that we agree, we would have to come to the conclusion that taking an article to AfD which doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion (in the nominator's mind) is legitimate. Otherwise (should we disagree) we can never reach that conclusion. Protonk (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, to me there's a great benefit to working with other editors to encourage them to fix problems and what I sensed was something other than that in regrads to the articles editing. I was refering to that in conjunction with recurring AfDing. AfD is certainly a valid process but it often occurs instead of regular editing and clean-up. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Being mindful that the proper subject of review is the close, I have to conclude that the closure of this AfD was within the range of what I consider to be closer's discretion to weigh conflicting arguments. I personally would have gone with no consensus, but I think that of the arguments actually advanced in the Afd, the deletes had slightly the better of it. I would allow userfication to Benjiboi or another interested experienced editor, and frankly, I think it would be reasonable to extend him the good faith to recreate the article without the need to return here. The policy violations of the prior list are obvious, and there has been specific guidance given here as to how they might be ameliorated. I trust he will do so before returning the article to main space. It's not as if the article won't be watched closely in any event. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure -- nothing improper about the close or delete. The arguments were spurious, not based on policy, and it's clear that after six AfD's, the reason it doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:OR is because sourcing does not and cannot exist for such a list. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are simply mistaken. Once an agreed upon criteria for inclusion is determined items are either sourced or not. Sources certainly can be sussed out but they are directly tied to the criteria set forth in the lede. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no greater consensus for deletion of this article than in previous precedents. Claims that policy was better argued by one side or another are simply spurious: policy arises out of consensus. It is not a law given to set boundaries to possible consensus. There was no consensus to delete this, and if someone invokes policy to claim otherwise, that policy must yield. Moreover, the closer's "weighing of conflicting arguments" must always break in favor of keeping, and this did not. To claim otherwise essentially randomizes results by making them contingent on who decides to close it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn And that it hasn't been improved over the last 6 AfDs isn't a reason to delete, and the AfD discussion seemed like no consensus to me. At the very very least, userfy and hand it to Benjiboi. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Alansohn. After six AfDs, this seems less like evaluating consensus and more like gaming the system for desired results. GlassCobra 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no procedural error in the close. While acknowledge the project has no deadline, there comes a time, as others have said, that "keep it, I promise to work on it" ceases to be justification. That time has come and gone for this article. As for the notion that eventually there will be created by Wikipedia a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion, a) that's not our job and b) is impossible without resorting to WP:OR and W:NPOV. Otto4711 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly, procedurally it was in the middling area which defaults to no consensus (keep), that the closer linked here was likely also seems telling but what's done is done. I can't speak for any past discussions or editors but current editors have expressed a willingness and interest in creating a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion. Hardly impossible. -- Banjeboi 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I think if it genuinely were possible it would have been done by now, because it's been identified as a problem so often and for so long. I'd go so faras to say that if it were possible then it would have been done here and now in order to reverse a deleton largely based on the lack of any objective and verifiable seelction criterion. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goal isn't to create a lengthy list - with every possible item included - but to turn this into a good list article. Just like many lists on Wikipedia this one is plagued by vagueness. That can certainly be addressed as has been mentioned numerous times. Then all items on the list are subject to that criteria. Renaming may also help. Deleting an article simply because it hasn't be fixed yet is a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I understand that things change around here and generally, banning further discussion isn't generally done. But. People. 6 AfDs? I agree with Guy in that I think if we could make this article encyclopedic, we would've done it by now (and I believe I've edited the page at least once over my time here). It's not as if the 6 deletion debates were in a one year span. We're talking over 3 years. It's actually a longer gap than I bet most editors in this discussion have been on Wikipedia. Lists based on "big", "small" and other such terms in regards to body parts are just too difficult to judge. What's big bust to one person isn't to someone else. Enough is enough. I know! We need a Del--WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:35, 4 October 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Article was deleted under A7, but I remember editing it and adding several news articles to it to assert notability. Whether or not the school is notable is irrelevant as it did not qualify for A7 by asserting its notability IIRC. This should be recreated (version prior to first deletion) and sent to AFD so that a proper discussion on the school's notability can be had. Chris Picone! 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A restore of this would necessitate an undelete of Image:Conservelogoflag.png as well. Chris Picone! 05:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I've restored and the prior version is now viewable in the page history. A lot of advertising and a bit of copyvio was inserted in this diff. I doubt we'll hear any copyright complaints, since the IP traces back to the school! Despite this, A7 deletion doesn't apply to high schools, about which there's been significant controversy in Wikipedia's history. This high school, though small, has a unique mission and there's at least this news coverage about one of its internal programs. It would stand a decent chance at AFD.--chaser - t 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for the history undelete. Anyway, I used to attend the school and worked with the staff to remove copyright violations and POV sections when I was there. If the school continues to add POV if restored, I'm sure I can call a teacher who will talk to the staff (they were the ones editing, IIRC). Also worth noting: the user Stefan.Anderson is the school's headmaster. Chris Picone! 04:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above, schools explicitly do not qualify for A7. Overturn on that basis. lifebaka++ 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, schools aren't an A7. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn in view of the deletion history for this article and above assertions of controversial A7 deletion, it may be better to have an AfD discussion on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A7 reads "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." In other words, schools do qualify for A7, but if the particular A7 school deletion is controversial, then list the article at Articles for deletion instead. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that all school articles contain a reasonable indication of why the school might be important or significant. As now worded, A7 does not provide an exception for all schools. If there was consensus that all schools (or, more precisely, primary and secondary schools but not Joe's school of auto repair) should an A7 exception, then that should be explicitly provided in A7. -- Suntag ☼ 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text means that schools, as well as a bunch of other things, do not qualify for speedy deletion under A7. Actual text can be worked on at WT:CSD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Yep. Deleting school articles is very controversial around these parts. :) I've been here since December 2004 and even then it was controversial. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Schools do not come under the A7 speedy criteria. The wording of the A7 criteria was geared to say that controversial topics should not be speedied under that criteria, with schools used as an example of a topic that is always controversial. There is a good reason for this in that most high schools get kept at AFD while most primary/elementary schools get merged/redirected. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Schools are not within A7 speedy and that disposes of it under the present rules. They can of course be changed. Even without that rule, this would not conceivably be an A7 lack of notability. It's a secondary boarding school of substantial size and distinctive nature. Through all the fluctuations on schools, it would have probably been kept at AfD. The present Del Rev is an illustration of our wisdom in keeping these out of A7. There's a discussion at WT:CSD, & I think this rule will stay. (but it is fair to note that the version actually deleted was an attack page replaced by a minimal stub--school pages are however frequently subject to such vandalism.) DGG (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion we're actually contesting isn't the attack page one, but the one before that. I didn't restore the attack page revision.--chaser - t 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as has been said above, schools do not qualify for A7. Whether the school is notable or not is a seperate issue that should be addressed through another deletion process (PROD, AFD). The current version certainly could be cleaned up. Hut 8.5 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I usually don't like high school articles much and I don't like to trump another administrator. But in this case, the process followed was clearly incorrect. I think this should go over to AfD for further discussion. I'm always leery of speedies for articles that have been relatively heavily edited and are also 2 years old. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:29, 4 October 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 September 2008

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

Matt Lee (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AFD 2 | DRV 1 | DRV 2)

  • Endorse (the deletion but could be saved): Overall I have been seeing many articles and names on lists being removed because someone has never heard of the person/band being talked about. Alone that is not a reason for deletion. Likewise the simple fact that there might be a Wiki page about the subject is not the only reason for inclusion either. Original author aside for a moment, if one is to follow the guidelines set at WP:N you have to ask "Did this person receive Significant coverage, enough to warrant a separate article?" But we also must look at WP:PEOPLE and WP:MUSIC to fully decide as this article is about an individual, and a musician.
Under the subsection Additional criteria you will find the following: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards and you could either look at WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER to decide. However as the subject in question is a musician you will note that it does say See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc. And this is where I feel the most important criteria comes in as it relates to this article. Under the 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' header it clearly says: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. So based on the article we are discussing I see only one real band of note - The Divine Horsemen, however their Wiki article is sadly lacking and needs to be worked on but that is another topic/issue. So I would have to say, based on the guidelines as currently written, Matt Lee should not have his own article but a re-direct to the The Divine Horsemen band page.
To address the actual article. I did not see it prior to today so I can not comment on how it looked in the past. As it reads today much of it seems like personal stories about people that the subject came in contact with rather than achievements of the subject themselves. I want to point out that being a musician while working and living in Hollywood,California will allow a person to come in contact with, and even work/collaborate with many "notable" people but does this alone mean that you are also notable? And if so to what degree? As an example contained in this article we see the subsection named Life After Punk and the section starting off with The next band was the The Mighty Hornets(1988). What follows is several lines about how the drummer was good friend with Billy Idol and goes into a story about how fans rushed the stage at one of his concerts. This, to me, does not belong in the article and does not add any notability to the subject. There are several instances of "Notability by association" in this article and one needs to step back and start to separate the more notable names being dropped and look at only the subject in the article. I find the fact he studied with Ted Greene to be notable as well as the fact he was in a high school cover band with Richard Elliot. But keep in mind the criteria, as currently laid out, for being a musician and having a separate article would not truly accept a high school cover band as being notable, nor would who you took music lessons from. I think, other than being a hard working LA based musician (Of which there are many who do not have their own Wiki article such as Kyle C Kyle, David Provost {the musician, not the mayor of New York City}, Bruce Duff while others only have a small stub that is far from complete - Nickey "Beat" Alexander and Janet Robin for example) I feel the thing that could allow Matt Lee to have his own page is this comment: Today,he does sessions on guitar, bass, and or keyboards for records,commercial and private products and projects. If the article could focus more on this and lay out notable session gigs I think the article would be a keeper. Check out Waddy Wachtel for a good example.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Could you please spell it out for me? Thanks. lifebaka++ 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who restored (copy paste from somewhere) and added the DRV tag to the page is not the same as the editor above. That person edited the earlier DRV with a keep comment. The edit above looks like they are just giving advice on how the article could be improved to avoid future deletion, whilst endorsing the deletion of the article as it stands. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figure something like that too. If that's the case, and no issues with the deletions are being raised, this can be closed. I do suggest putting the above on the creator's talk page, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got some reliable sources showing that he meets either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for musicians then I suggest you create a userspace version of the article (at a title that's nice and easy, such as User:Joeyboyee/Matt Lee) and work on it there. Then, when you believe it meets all the relevant guidelines, bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it. If consensus is that it no longer has the issues laid out in the 2nd AfD above, it'll get moved back into the mainspace. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Lifebaka. That helps. I want to point out that the address 82.7.39.174 that said wiki is not a crystal ball is the kind of person that makes this process so annoying. Those kind of comments are not courteous or constructive. I move to put 82.7.39.174's page up for AfD, or at least that last comment. The fact is I have seen that stupid movie and the credit for the song Shot Down is in the film. If they don't have a website for the movie or credits to your guidelines and liking, my question is, can I submit a hard copy of the credit? I can scan a page of the the film's last frames showing the credit. (Joeyboyee (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

By the way 82.7.39.174, does'nt your comment remind you of the fact that wiki is set up the same way as IMDB? You can edit BOTH to your heart,if you have one's content.(Joeyboyee (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You should be able to reference the film itself, actually. Or at least the credits. A reliable website would also be ideal, but not required. Also, rather ironically, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, since it has user-generated content. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you follow the link I provided? It's a core policy on the matter and is entitled "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", sorry you think pointing you to the core policy and title to it is not courteous or constructive. I cannot see how directing you to see the core policy on the matter is neither, if you are going to avoid the issues faced you need to be pointed to the approriate policies, perhaps you'd be less frustrated by the process if you didn't try and take offense by the policies or people pointing you to the appropriate places. As for wikipedia suffering the same issue as being user edited, yes I'm quite aware of that, it's why we don't accept other wikipedia projects as reliable sources and why we have such things as Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia which caution against using us as a source or Wikipedia:Academic use which goes further still. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering how many times we're going to deal with this. It was brought up last night at AN, where two more versions posted concurrently were removed and some socks blocked. Look, the article has been recreated many, many times at Matt Lee, Matt Lee (musician), [[Matt Lee {guitarist}]], and various other places. It exists right now at User:Spartaz/Musician in the condition that it has been in through most of the most recent deletions - basically, the article's been identical through the last I don't know how many recreations (and, essentially, the same since the last AFD). So, if you want to sift through those references and actually find something that indicates it's Plus, we've got obvious sockpuppet problems with this. It looks like a concerted effort to get Matt Lee a Wiki page, when really he hasn't built up the reliable references that are needed to meet notability. Mention him in the band articles, that's fine (if they're notable). But solo, I - and many others - don't feel the notability is there. Endorse multiple deletions. If someone can turn up some actual, real, good references to back up the notability, I'd reconsider. I haven't seen them yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, the second AfD seems to have come to a pretty clear consensus to delete once the SPAs and WP:ILIKEIT arguments have been filtered out. If Lee ever becomes notable, then he can and should have an article, but not before. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Close this DRV The last DRV was 18 September 2008 and there has not been any material changes over the past eleven days. -- Suntag ☼ 21:03, 29 September 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 September 2008

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

Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

I feel the basis of consensus needed in wikipedia is being overridden JJJ999 (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC) It has been a while since I used this, so I hope somebodymore versed in formatting can clean this up for me. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Talk:List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters[reply]

  • This is a slightly unusual review request, because it's not really relating to any one thing that has happened. Basically, the purpose of wikipedia is consensus. The Admin in question, who I will notify in a sec, has so far replied in a way that is entirely unsatisfactory to my queries, and keeps saying "wikipedia is not a democracy". Well, yes, that is true. But that means this isn't a vote, not that wikipedia mods can disregard totally the consensus build on this site. I personally think that without exception neither side in most of these merge discussions has made much in the way of argument.
  • As near as I can tell, this mass merge page is being used to circumvent previous consensus, because most people are less familiar with merge tags than with AfD ones, so very few people are participating in the discussion. This has led to several problems. Firstly, some of the decisions like the one on Cell seem to be completely against the actual consensus on the basis that "there were no good reasons with their keeps". Well, yeh, but neither side provided any reasons really. There was barely any time before it got closed anyway. Secondly, it thwarts the will of pages like Roshi, Krillin, Bulma, etc, who keep getting brought up as merger candidates "we'll relist in a month", but who survived multiple AfDs which were widely participated in. I'm not saying this is a vote, but if we've moved away from a situation that is based on consensus in wikipedia, let's move back to it. A second AfD to an article like Bulma made within 6 months would be closed instantly because of the clear consensus in previous AfDs, yet this page is effectively deleting the content and proposes to review decisions "every month".
  • I really think the mods here have taken too much power in the decision making process for articles which, if they were put to an AfD like Cell would easily be defended en masse with mounds of evidence presented. They should be relisted for consensus when only 5 or so people split the vote with no reasons. The Mod shouldn't just make the decision for people.

JJJ999 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He already knows these were not deleted. There was consensus for all of these merges after plenty of discussion. JJJ999 seems to have an extremely poor understanding of the entire process of merges. This merge discussion was conducted in the same manner as many many other character to list merges, and I can't help noticing that he is not complaining about any of the keep closes. He also did some extreme canvassing of 10 different editors falsely claiming that the merges are "stealth deletions" and begging them to come help him stop the "mass merging." JJJ999's actions are becoming very disruptive in this issue. All editors on the list were aware of the merge discussions as were both the Anime and manga project and the Dragon Ball taskforce. There was nothing "stealth" about it. Someone please educate him about the WP:MERGE process as he is refusing to listen to me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as canvassing in a deletion review, because the Mods decide. I merely feel it would be helpful to have some of the people involved in previous AfDs, many of whom complained last time this was tried, comment on this here so it can be seen how absurd your claim of consensus is. You've closed some votes with 5 people offering 1 line remarks 3-2! You should have relisted them until real consensus was reached, not just inserted your own point of view. Lastly, why should I oppose keeps for characters like Goku? They clearly deserve a page.JJJ999 (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is such a thing, you can canvas in any discussion, including DR. You are asking people to come here and attempt to sway opinion to your personal point of view. That is WP:CANVAS. You are the one who is claiming that consensus is only reached if it is YOUR personal point of view. You are not opposing any other keeps or even other merges, except where YOU disagree. That discussions closed after eight days of discussion (plenty of time). These are NOT deletions, they were a merge discussion and it was all done properly per WP:MERGE, WP:CONSENSUS, and many other similar merge discussions conducted by the anime and manga project over the last few months. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10 people who you believe will support your point of view is mass canvassing. Anyway, I'll let some admins deal with you as I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence I canvassed anyone. I have not talked with Tintor, and I neutrally asked Sephiroth to review the merge discussion closings because of your continually questioning of them (as opposed to your messages which all basically said "come help stop the merging." Sephiroth is well known for being an admin who is fair and neutral in such issues, and he would not simply agree with me just to agree with me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One also has to really wonder why it is that some of them like Cell are closed so quickly on a 3-2 vote with no discussion, but others (who I suspect he wants to delete) are still going way later despite clear consensus to keep it.JJJ999 (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely procedural oppose. This is not the correct venue, and that is what my oppose is based on. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:13, 28 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Lawyers' Council on Social Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

We request that the article regarding the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice be undeleted. The deletion reasons do not comport with Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Additionally, there are errors in the stated reasons for the deletion.According to the deletion discussion, there were 1. no references or additional claims of support for the notability of the organization, 2. the article failed to demonstrate that it is anything more than a student organization at a single university, 3. the Lawyers' Council is a very small organization with no reliable coverage outside their school's website and 4. it does not demonstrate that the organization is notable.

In regards to the referenced reasons: 1. The Lawyers' Council addressed the speedy deletion by stating the reasons for notability and supplying additional references at the bottom of the article. Said references included all outside sources since the Lawyers' Council is an independent organization with student and attorney chapters. The three references at the end of the article were all from third party sources - St. Thomas University School of Law, an organization that is distinct and separate from the Lawyers' Council; CBS News (WCCO); and the Minnesota Historical Society. 2. As stated in the article, the Lawyers' Council is not a student organization. It is an independent, non-profit organization which is registered as such with the Secretary of State of Minnesota. Administrators can go to the Secretary of State's website - http://da.sos.state.mn.us/minnesota/corp_inquiry-find.asp?:Norder_item_type_id=10&sm=7 and type in the name of the organization under name search and the organization's applicable business ID will appear as yet another verifiable third-party source of the organization as an independent, registered company - not a student organization. 3. The comment about the size of the Lawyers' Council is without merit or foundation and we are unclear how that assessment was made. 4. We believe the Lawyers' Council meets the notability standards and the article should be undeleted.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, notable means "attracting notice." When demonstrating notability, "material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed" The size of the organization should not be a deterent since by Wikipedia standards,"smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Organizations whose activities are local in scope can be notable if "verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found".

Attached is a link to the CBS interview regarding both the Lawyers' Council and our work on mortgage fraud. Also attached is a link to our rehearing of the Supreme Court case, Dred Scott, which was covered by the Minnesota Historical Society. Please note that a commerical usually airs prior to the CBS interview beginning.The interview begins after the commerical.

http://www.mnhs.org/newsletters/localhistory/2008/February13.htm

http://wcco.com/video/[email protected]

We understand that administrators must be vigilant in ensuring that organizations meet Wikipedia's notability standards but we agree with Wikipedia's policy that the standards should not be "arbitrary." Deletion should also be based on reasons that are factual. We believe that errors in the assessment of our notability occurred and request that the article be undeleted. Thank you. Lawyerscouncil (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I was involved as closer of the AfD, deferring to other admins on that part of the issue and reported to WP:UAA. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. DRV is for raising process issues (mostly) with deletions, where there aren't any of here. You can see how that AfD could not, under any reasonable determination of consensus, have resulted in anything other than deletion. So, there's nothing to do here besides endorse that outcome.
    However, there are other ways to deal with this than just straight undeletion. What I suggest you do is create another article about the Council in your userspace (probably at User:Lawyerscouncil/Lawyers' Council on Social Justice) which does clearly meet the general notability guideline and/or the notability guideline for organizations, and make sure that reliable sources are provided to verify all the information in that article. Then, you can bring that article back here and, if no longer would meet the issues laid out at the AfD, it can be moved back into the mainspace.
    I also share Cirt's concern that the account above may be a role account, meaning that it is used by multiple persons. These types of accounts are not allowed, as it disguises which contributions should be attributed to each individual, so please have each person who would like to contribute here create his or her own account (if you're having issues with creating a lot of accounts, just let me know and I can help). Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the deletion as procedurally correct. That said, I think Lifebaka has the correct remedy suggested above: create a new account, then create a new article in userspace. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for the conversation but it still leaves matters unclear. First, the account name can be change to reflect that it is an individual account not an account used by more than one person. That is not a problem. However, it is unclear how the "process" was followed correctly if it does not comport with Wikipedia's stated guidelines for notability. One administrator said this is not the correct place for this issue, yet Cirt, the administrator who deleted the article, said to place the issue in this forum. It is also unclear how the process was followed correctly when unsupported statements like "it's a very small organization," "it's only coverage is on the school's website" and other such errors were used as reasons for the article's deletion. In the multiple comments regarding the matter, not one administrator commented on any errors in reasoning or facts made by other administrators regarding the deletion. The concept of Wikipedia, a public source with public editors and administrators, is good but only as good as those who are making the decisions are holding themselves accountable for both the stated guidelines and the understandable errors that are made. This reads like, "we can't be wrong, so we must be right." If that's the "process" that was followed, it is not one to which anyone should proudly attach their identity. Also notable, was that Cirt's issue regarding role accounts only surfaced when the deletion was contested. Yet, another part of the "process?" In this reply, the article isn't the issue as another article can be submitted as suggested. However, if the Wikipedia's guidelines are arbitrary and challenges yield other complaints from administrators who can't admit their errors, the entire premise of public accountability fails by those who are not accountable to the very guidelines they are suppose to be administering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerscouncil (talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issues with the possibility of this being a role account only surfaced due to the use of "we" in the nomination statement. It, quite clearly, implies that a group is behind the account, even if just a single individual actually uses it.
I don't believe you understand the position administrators are supposed to hold. Ideally, we shouldn't be anything more than janitors who do what the community tells us. And the community, in this case, fairly obviously stated it would like the article deleted. This is why I've suggested the above, creating a new version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I don't perceive any flaws in the deletion process, and the sources that were in the article weren't enough to show notability in my opinion. No objection to userfying the article if the account is renamed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The AfD closer interpreted the debate correctly. Wikipedia only is an encyclopedia and it only produces text. That's it. Text. As a result, the only thing essentially that matters is whether there is sufficient source material from third parties to maintain an article on Wikipedia. Rather than get distracted by raising other issues at DRV, sufficient source material is the area you should focus on. You mentioned three references in the article. mnhs.org newsletter says the Lawyers’ Council on Social Justice will present a mock rehearing of arguments presented in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case. That one sentence is not enough to maintain a Wikipedia article on a topic. stthomas.edu/LCSJ.html is not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is not a source that is independent of the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice since LCSJ is an organization at StThomas.edu. StThomas.edu/Inthenews.html does not appear to make any mention of Lawyers' Council on Social Justice. Google news shows no information that can be used in the article, Google books shows no information that can be used in the article, and Google scholar shows no information that can be used in the article. If you think that you can put together enough material about Lawyers' Council on Social Justice from wcco.com, please feel free to prepare a draft article in user space and present it to DRV for review. -- Suntag ☼ 06:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that sort of mention is pretty much the definition of trivial coverage.DGG (talk) 17:32, 28 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

On 25 September 2008 I closed this nomination as Keep (non admin closure). I feel that my close was the correct one but today while reviewing my contributions, I noticed that I had earlier removed a speedy deletion tag (A7) from the same article and I had forgotten that I had done so. Therefore, I should not have closed this AFD. Since there was one Delete !vote I think it's only fair to him and the nominator that I request a deletion review of my own close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Ron, I have to say, I admire your thoroughness and fairness here. This article has been expanded by a couple of people, including me, since the original deletion tag. I believe it's now in good shape and belongs in wikipedia. --Lockley (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Was the right closure regardless of who did it and I agree with the other two comments above. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Arbiteroftruth listed the article for A7 speedy deletion two minutes after a new user created it and eleven hours after the block of Arbiteroftruth expired. When listed for A7 (Article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant), the article's first sentence was "Julius Pitzman was best known for his work as a designer of private, gated neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO." The "hangon" explaination essentially repeated what already was in the article. The new user has not made any more edits to Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you are here ... Ron, you declined the speedy delete request saying "Speedy declined, notability asserted." A7 is about importantce/significants, not notability. Give the only delete position (besides the nom) was a clarity issue, your close of the AfD could not have gone any other way. However, you did not indicate above why you close an AfD debate for an article where you also declined to speedy delete the article. -- Suntag ☼ 13:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for responding here. In summary of your post (and so that it appears in this discussion), "WP:CSD says to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. Therefore, I was using "notability asserted" as a convenient shorthand for edit summaries. ... I had completely forgotten that I had earlier removed a speedy tag from the article and didn't realize it until last night when I was reviewing my past edits." And thanks for heading off the Pitzman/Ritzman connection. -- Suntag ☼ 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next time this happens, hopefully never, what I'll do is simply inform the nominator and anybody arguing for deletion of my screwup and let them file a DRV if they wish. When doing NPP you end up doing something to a lot of articles, speedy noms, maintenance tags, etc., and it's hard to remember them all. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 28 September 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 September 2008

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

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

Blatant promotion of product/Entry is not notable

I am trying to get an article on an IT company called Aqua Connect up on Wikipedia. My original post was deleted because it was deemed as a promotional tool and blatant advertising. Editor Pegasus deleted the article. The original post included information about their product and why the product was so important. For example, it explained how it lowers IT costs, is affective in reducing energy costs for businesses going green, increases security of files and computing in the work place. These are all important thing that show why the technology is significant to people and businesses today. I listened to Pegasus' request and took that section out. Following that Pegasus asked me for my references. In my original build I did not add a reference section because I did not know how to. I just included links. Now that I know how to make a proper reference section I told Pegasus that I think my article would meet Wiki's criteria. I sent Pegasus a few of my links for my sources, and he told me that they did not show why the company was notable or worthy of an article. I highly doubt that Pegasus is knowledgeable about IT companies and terminals server technology, because if he was he would not say that. This company is the FIRST company to create a terminal server for the Mac. The technology has been available for the Windows platform for quite some time now. A company called Citrix developed the technology. Aqua Connect was the company to figure it out for the Mac. How this can be deemed not notable is beyond me. In the IT world and the world of terminal servers and access virtualization, this is huge! Pegasus also commented that my references were not reliable stating that they were only blogs. Well, one of the article was a blog from ZDNet! The blog is a web page by two of the most trusted names and experts in Access Virtualization! That has to be credible. Other sources included a Computer World article, a Macsimum article, and an Ars Technica article. These are trusted names in computer technology, and they are full articles that talk about the company. How they can be dismissed is a unfair and doesn't make sense. Your articles on terminal server and access virtualization are incomplete on Wikipedia without Aqua Connect. The company deserves a page as they were the pioneers of technology that now has been adopted by many companies and institutions. I know two companies who personally use the technology. I can add even more references. This was just an initial build to get the page started so that other people could edit and add to it. I think I have done away with anything that can be seen as advertising, and have also made a valid point as to the notability of the company. Thank you for your review. I am dedicated to getting an acceptable article up on Wiki.

I think it is also important to note that the editor Pegasus has been very rude, unprofessional, and sarcastic to my responses in the talk page. Every time he offers help, he finds it necessary to add a sarcastic remark and be rude. He does not represent Wikipedia our its editors in a professional manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.162.202 (talk) 16:39, September 26, 2008

  • Overturn the last speedy deletion. In order to meet the speedy criteria the article must 'exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'. I personally cannot see how the last version of the article does this. (It also makes an assertion of importance so would not fall under A7 criteria). Davewild (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the overturn vote. I have added these two links to show that I have more credible sources and that the company is very notable. One if from Yahoo Finance who picked up on the company's new product, and one is a web session for Macenterprise.org, an organization dedicated to how the Mac is being used in the enterprise:

    biz.yahoo.com, macenterprise.org

    There are so many more new and credible blogs by experts in the field, but I wanted to focus on non blog references. It should be noted though that these blog entries by devoted bloggers and experts show that the company has a great deal of significance in the IT community and deserves a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis (talk • contribs) 18:04, September 26, 2008
  • Overturn the most recent speedy deletion per Davewild (endorse all previous ones). Stifle (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and let it be discussed at afd. This is not the place. The intrinsic merits of the product however, are not really that relevant--just the degree to which it is regardedas notable by third parties, in material that is independent, and not based upon press releases. DGG (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I move it somewhere? Thank you for your support editors. I would say that the merits of the product are pretty relevant. Schools and businesses are moving their IT infrastructure to something called "Access Virtualization" (I am studying this in college right now). Access virtualization allows users to virtualize a desktop experience while the actual computing takes place at a central server. Many companies (VM Ware, Parallels) use access virtualization, but Aqua Connect doe s something different...they use a terminal server while the other companies use virtualization. We will see this technology implemented more and more as the push to "go green" increase in business. I know this source is a blog, but it is from ZDNet and by Dan Kusnetzky who is regarded as an expert in the virtualization field, he explains why the company and their technology is of merit: http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=525. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis (talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would be wrong to say that the merits are relevant, however. Wikipedia depends on using reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. You may have the best foobritzen in the world, but we can't just take your word on it, and we don't take the word of any Wikipedia editor on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me see now, re-created several times, always by WP:SPAs, all versions speedied, gradually adding things to try and avoid the spedy criteria without fixing the fact that it's obvious advertorial. I say endorse and be done with it, we are being spammed and our good faith is being abused. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting admin. My decision that it meets the definition of blatant advertisement is a sound one: it's been recreated and speedied multiple times by various admins under this criteria, and it's clearly being written by some with a single purpose (to promote an non-notable IT firm) on Wikipedia. Not one person has given any significant evidence to suggest that this is not a mere advertisement, and it thus clearly meets the speedy criterion for which it was deleted. Steven Walling (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to look this up, but my account is not a single purpose account. I'm just new to Wiki. My first article was on a Social Distortion logo. This was my second. Reason for the article is because it came up in my studies in my thesis. I've been studying IT uses in virtualization. Almost everything that I have studied, (VM Ware, Citrix, terminal servers, Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol) have come up in Wikipedia. I've always used Wiki as the beginning of my research throughout school. It offers a great place to start and to begin to understand terms or entities that you may not be familiar with. I thought it was interesting that this company and their pioneering software didn't come up in Wiki, and therefore thought it necessary to add them. I've been mirroring other wiki sites for companies that do similar thing such as VM Ware and Citrix, and based my original build off of those entries. My original build was much less "advertising" then those entries. I think the VM Ware one is great, it tells what the company does, why they are important, and why the software is good for business. My entry was far less of an "advertisement" then that...i even disregarded links to the company's own website to make it even less biased. Take the time to really look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and discuss at AfD. There appears to be a legitimate, yet-unsuccessful effort to create an article that meets Wikipedia's article standards. I think discussing the matter at AfD will help move this from a problem topic to one that can be improved on. -- Suntag ☼ 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An uninvolved admin will do this after a minimum of five days from the nomination date. Don't forget to sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mean time, you should try to put together a list of reliable sources that are independent of (have no connection to) Aqua Connect. Websites and blogs won't help at AfD. Also, Aqua Connect's important actions are not so relevant. What matters is whether there is enought reliable source material to develop an article. Wikipedia calls this "Wikipedia notability" and it means "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In other words, it is the text significant coverage that makes them Wikipedia notable, not Aqua Connect actions. Independent, significant coverage is your ticket into Wikipedia and that is what you should focus on. Also, please read over WP:AGF. If taken to heart, it may help you avoid posting assumed negative observations about others. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:23, 1 October 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Baba Sehgal is very popular in India and I was quite shocked to see his page deleted despite the article having a 100 edits ranging over more than 2 years. I went through the history of the deleted edits and the article looks good until 15 June 2008, when user Navytas overwrote the article following a copyvio tag added by Mspraveen, which again was unfair as the article had been evolving the last 2 years. Plese undelete, and any anonymous edits which put the article into disrepute can be cleaned. Jay (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted three times this year, due to copyvio, and the latest as lacking notability under WP:MUSIC. Looking back to the state of the article at different points, I see there were changes made that damaged/detracted from it to get it to the state it was at time of last deletion. I'd be willing to restore it to some past point, when it was a decent-enough article. It would require somebody with knowledge of the subject to salvage it. I'll wait for consensus here but if any other admin wants to act on it now, please be my guest. -- Alexf42 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can correct any mistakes. Jay (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'll follow policy next time. I'm nominating an article for undeletion after a long time, and as it is, the process looked very complicated to me. In this particular case, there were more than one administrators who deleted the article, so it's better that the discussion is in a common place like this rather than an admin's talk page. Jay (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The nominator did not discuss it with the admin (me) but created this DR and left me a courtesy note about it. I commented above. I do not see the point of the DR, but as we have it open, let people discuss it. -- Alexf42 17:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the last deletion. There are several assertions of importance made in the latest version of the article thus making it not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. The standard for avoiding speedy deletion is making a, credible, assertion of importance. It is not that the article must meet the notability guidelines - that is a decision that AFD (or PROD if it is uncontroversial) should make. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The latest version of the article is not a CSD A7. The assertions of importance or significance are believable and a Google search hints that sources are to be had on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No comment on whether actually notable, but quite sufficient assertion of it to warrant a discussion at Afd. Not an A7 speedy. DGG (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 does not appear to apply. Google news and Google books has some useful info, so an AfD might be better path, if needed. -- Suntag ☼ 21:17, 30 September 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 September 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Stpauli2003dergan.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Oxymoron83 first orphaned this pic from 2 articles, second he vandalized the fair use rationale (see [7]) and third this admin from Germany locked the disc of User:MutterErde. Later Oxymoron83 was invited to a meeting in Berlin, but didn't come. Btw: He seems to be unknown there - not only to me. Please undelete the vandalized pic, because it was deleted by another admin without proving the image's history 78.51.238.122 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ehm, what the hell? East718 isn't from Germany, and the uploader of the image was the one to "invite" Oxymoron to the meetup in Berlin. I'd also like to note that the IP which Oxymoron reverted (and called a sock of the uploader, who is a banned user) is in the same range as yours and has the exact same WHOIS profile, so... I'm rather certain we're dealing with a bad faith nom here. Beyond which, there's no valid reason given for undeletion. lifebaka++ 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Pathoschild isn't German either. Blocking IP for a while for ban evasion, someone can feel free to clean this up now. lifebaka++ 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should work a bit more careful. These are severe problems. I have described the case (as a German) as careful as I could.
  1. The case: That pic was deleted without proofing its history by East718, but it was vandalized before by Oxymoron.
  2. I wrote about locking the disc of User:MutterErde, nothing else. No Jimbo, no Pathochild, just Oxymoron
  3. This is an undeletion request with a good reason, which you have avoided in your answer. Regards 78.49.56.219 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Has importance as a filmmaker forum website Indy424242 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WEB and point to how this site meets those requirements. Corvus cornixtalk 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will never blame an inexperienced editor for not understanding our rules. Once it is brought here, we should discuss the issue. DGG (talk) 22:57, 26 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Fábio Pereira da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Procedural nom after the request for unsalting came to my talk. What the article draft asserts and what the source provided to me says differ, and I'm not entirely comfortable with WP:ATHLETE to make the call on my own. Will be notifying all parties in a moment, as this is a procedural nom, I have no !vote. TravellingCari 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Absolutely nothing has changed since the AfD - he still fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a match. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted The common standard, as was agreed at the AFD for this article, is that until the player actually plays for the senior team they are not notable, and I see no evidence provided in the draft to contradict this and neither has a large amount of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability standard been provided. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with both of the above right now, but since he's actually on the team it seems likely he'll play. Perhaps we should unsalt preemptively, before it's necessary? Either way that one goes, users can feel free to ping me with a ref as soon as he's played a game and I'll unsalt it (if it hasn't been already). Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (as the last deleter and salter) until he appears in a first-team match. Once he does, let me know and I'll also be glad to unsalt. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow restoration. The "keep deleted" !votes may be technically correct per policy, but policy is a means to an end. I submit that we spend far too much collective time policing the borderlines of notability in this manner, for the purpose of ensuring that an article does not appear a couple of weeks before it is nominally supposed to (and risking biting both newbies and experienced editors in the process), all while there are many far more significant tasks that remain underperformed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this has been deleted four times over six months. I don't think we're talking a couple of weeks here. While I have little interest in the notability of athletes (or lack thereof) if one gets overturned does it turn into "well you let X, you have to let Y?" I'm thinking there may also have been deletion in another name since I haven't yet found why someone requested de-salt from me since I don't appear to have a connection with the article. This was repeated re-creation, do we reward it? OK, we give, we give. TravellingCari 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you suggest we ignore consensus reached at AFD within consensus for the guidlines born of wider community consensus and just restore anything when asked to save us spending too much time on it? Do we extend that to crappy bands with a major tour in just a few weeks now (honest) or that imminent record deal, how about the adverts from companies who will be covered by the Times any day now etc. Many of these would end up straight back at AFD again, a nice wash rinse and repeat cycle. If this truly is a problem the solution is to fix the notability guidelines to move the border, not for DRV to declare the border isn't really there. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until the subject meets WP:ATHLETE. Subject fails WP:N, these entries come with no commentary and to accept them is to create a living sportsperson directory. WP:ATHLETE provides a simple rule that we should stick to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • WTFPL – No consensus here to overturn the consensus there (can't agree about strength of rationale), so I'd suggest the best thing to do is send it back to AfD in the coming month(s) and try and get more opinions by linking to it at the relevant Wikiprojects' talk pages. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

WTFPL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD 2)

(copied from Talk:WTFPL) I believe the second AfD was conducted in bad faith. Of the four keeps, the first was WP:GOOGLEHITS and failed to establish WP:N as pointed out by User:Thumperward; the second WP:PERNOM; the third suggested using WP:N was WP:GAME while failing to establish notability; and the fourth was a WP:VAGUEWAVE. None of these keeps went so far as to point to a reliable secondary source to establish notability. I understand that the editors in favor of keeping the article intend to establish notability, and I encourage them to do so as quickly as possible, but if this notability cannot be established soon then the article should be deleted beacuse articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. WP:NOTAGAIN suggests an article can be renominated for deletion as many times as necessary, given that we allow enough time for editors to improve the quality of the article after the first AfD. However, this article was first nominated for deletion over 20 months ago. In that time, the editors have not improved the quality of the article to sufficiently establish notability. Beefyt (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. no evidence of meeting WP:V/WP:N was provided... the sources in the article that appear to be vaguely reliable don't even mention this license, let alone provide non-trivial coverage. The sources that do mention it seem to be directory listings or provide no prose information about the license. The closer really should have taken strength of policy-based argument into account here. --Rividian (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no consensus for deletion in the AFD, nor did any of the arguments for deletion quote an overiding policy which would justify overuling the consensus of the discussion - notability is not policy and at least one of the delete supporters in the AFD said that the article was verified. This does not stop the article from being renominated after a reasonable period if more reliable sources are not added to satisfy yourself of its notability. (Note I have added a foreign language source to the external links which provides a small amount of verifiability) Davewild (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure. I can't take anything other than a consensus into account here. There are reasonable sources cited in the article, and it seems clearly verifiable. (Note that the standard is verifiable, not verified.) Stifle (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The standard is reliable when discussing notability. The sources consist of a handful of blog posts and some primary sources where it's listed amongst other licenses, together with about ten minor (i.e. non-Wikipedia-worthy) applications. Reliable secondary sources which discuss the license itself seemingly don't exist. The sheer ridiculousness of the argument to keep is obvious where the license's own logo is used as a reference to prove notability. AfD had too little participation to really judge consensus and the keeps are weak as discussed above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). Has, but is weak on, secondary sources. Should be merged somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus) at WTFPL (2nd nomination). Some of the references seem legit. However, some of the references seem more like links to support original research. Before this is sent to AfD again, those desiring to see it deleted should make the references sources clearer (such as by using Template:Cite web and the other cite templates) so that a more thorough discussion specifically directed to the references can take place. Since it was closed as "no consensus. Leaning towards keep", I think about 30 days should pass before this is listed at AfD again (rather than immediately relisting it). -- Suntag ☼ 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was perhaps too hasty in characterizing the actions of some of the editors as "bad faith". I only intended to suggest that they were intentionally and knowingly acting outside of the realm of establish WP policy. That itself may be an act of good faith, I don't know. It's all very subjective, and I apologize. --Beefyt (talk) 23:04, 27 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Pemberton is a renowned anthropologist and scholar whose page was seemingly deleted without any process and very little time for discussion. This seems more like a situation that calls for careful consideration of his notability as an academic rather than speedy deletion in a matter of hours. Shakeer (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few things here. First off, it's usually a lot more helpful if you first talk to the administrator who deleted the article, and only come here if you can't come to an agreement with them. Second, it's generally good manners to notify the deleting administrator of DRVs, so that they have an opportunity to respond. Third and finally, overturn the deletion itself. It is too difficulty to properly judge how important a professor is for me to be comfortable with speedy-ing articles on them. I cannot tell whether or not this particular guy is notable, but I'd much rather see an AfD sort it out than a quick judgment call by a single user (which I hope this was, too; if you've gotta' think much about a speedy it probably could use an AfD instead). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, we don't have a page on Wikipedia for every single professor at every single university.... --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but it is very difficult to tell via speedy deletion whether or not a given professor should have an article. I see enough claims to send it to AFD and overturn the speedy, including the book and being a journal editor. GRBerry 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, it probably could be sent to AFD. The article needs a lot of help though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Feel free to do it yourself, in which case we can be done here and close this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how notable he is as an anthropologist, but he has had several books published [8]. AFD would probably be the best course of action.— Ѕandahl ♥ 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't assert much notability, but I could go for an overturn and send to AFD. The nominator is reminded to read all the instructions, including either of the two parts where it says that you're supposed to discuss these issues with the deleting admin before coming here, as that tends to be faster. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 25 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

I'd like to see if anything in the article is salvageable. Justice America (talk) 04:43, 25 September 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 September 2008

[edit]

Category:National parks of New South Wales – Firstly, before I begin explaining my rationale, I wish to say that although I am indeed Australian, that has absolutely no relevance to me closing this debate. I have not been influenced by the mere fact that some editors share my homeland; as you will see from the following explanation of my decision, all determinations are based on the strength of arguments rather than the user who made them.

In this DRV there were two issues:-

  • Whether consensus exists to leave the status quo, or whether further discussion is needed on the rename to satisfy consensus requirements.
  • Whether the decision should be overturned with prejudice, whether it should be relisted, or simply reversed and left to editorial discretion for renomination.

Firstly, there is no doubt the closing administrator did not err in judging that there was consensus of participants in the discussion to rename the category. Given many of these CfD's go through with similar support or opposition, I can't see how anyone can place any fault on the closing administrator. To that end, the original closure based on the situation at the closing time is endorsed.

However, it is readily apparent from this discussion that, on a site-wide basis, there is a contention that said consensus is no longer in extistance, or at least not as clear-cut as before. Due to a lack of notifications in this instance, a true consensus of Wikipedians was not represented; silence only constitutues consensus where those empowered to speak choose not to. Wikipedia decisions on consensus are not binding upon themselves; we acknowledge that consensus can change, for whatever reasons, and a fluid community such as ours should never find itself shackled by previous decisions where they no longer reflect current opinion.

It's clear from below that, however meritous the original close was based on the situation, said situation has changed. There is sufficient doubt as to the current consensus on the subject matter to merit a new discussion on the issue; a unanimous support for a rename is definitely not reflective of the current community opinion on the matter. Therefore, the rename is overturned based on the change in community sentiment from a wider audience than what existed initially. Because Wikipedia tries to represent a sitewide consensus in everything it does (hence why policy exists, and is descriptive), we must honour a shift where more people (as opposed to less; I would be disinclined to overturn should there be a smaller group of people with a different opinion of the larger group, but the opposite is the case here) show a different, or at least ambiguous, opinion on the subject matter.

From the consensus below, it's clear that this decision is definitely not without prejudice; anyone is free to list the category back at CfD, where it could be discussed in full. However, the issue remains whether it should be sent directly back to CfD, or should simply be left to editors to renominate it should they choose to. There seems to be no consensus as to whether to directly relist it or simply "let it float" and wait for editor-based action, so I choose not to relist at this point direct from DRV; rather, any user who so believes the category should be renamed is free to nominate it at CfD on their own volition.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:National parks of New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

Very, very weak consensus - another mass nom, only three supporters this time, and in contradiction of a much wider consensus established in May - see this link for the May one, which specifically references all of the involved articles. The line of reasoning put forward for the change is false, as has been asserted here and here, and noone at the Australian project was asked whether this change would be appropriate. (Added 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) for closer's benefit, my opinion should be read as "overturn and do not relist".) Orderinchaos 08:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I cannot see how one Australian editors opinion for or against can be seen to be adequate for such a move - and it simply reinforces the problem as noted by Orderinchaos above - in relation to the issues referred to SatuSuro 09:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and preferably do not relist Agree totally - that this is a extraordinarily weak consensus at best. Indeed it should be asked if the closer understands that a relisting to allow for further time to seek input is possible? However when the nominators facts regarding a similar request in May are taken into account - this closure goes directly against the wider consensus and should be relisted (but only if necessary) for appropriate feedback from the editors at the relevant project.--VS talk 11:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist the changes affect 584 articles, three people cant be considered a change in consensus from the May discussion, which wasnt noted in the nomination. Gnangarra 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The consensus in May was against changing "National parks" to "National Parks". There was consensus to change "of" to "in", which you even agreed with: national parks should be at 'in state' ie 'National parks in Western Australia' rather than 'of state' [9] So seeing as you appear to agree with the change made here, why the overturn? --Kbdank71 18:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment is a question of the process and the way in which proceeded, while I may agree with the change DRV is about the process. This process failed due to the lack of notification and lack of identification of previous discussions, obviously there are sufficient editors who feel they werent able to participate in the discussion, hence overturn relist. Gnangarra 23:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this had been the consensus, a rename would have occurred to "in" at that point. However, it was rejected, and the latest attempt was snuck in by the back door - there was no effort made at all to notify anyone that the debate was occurring. A similar effort to evade process this week using the "speedy" process, which explicitly contravened the May CfD, has since been overturned. One wonders why users who believe in changes and their defensibility would fear robust debate. Orderinchaos 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, no. It was rejected because "There's too much opposition to this excessively complicated and confusing nomination." If you actually read the discussion, there is consensus for in over of. Just because the closer didn't act on that doesn't mean consensus wasn't there. As for robust debate, I have no problem at all with it. One wonders why you insist on putting words in my mouth. How about we stick to the merits of the CFD? --Kbdank71 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, per the above, a very weak consensus for such a wide-ranging change, especially given the prior consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse as closer, no opinion on relisting if desired. "Weak" or "strong" consensus is not based upon the number of people in the discussion, it's how many people agree with the outcome. And based upon the discussion, there was not only consensus, it was unanimous. --Kbdank71 16:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - CFD was open for the full five days and everyone who cared to comment agreed with the rename. There is no minimum number of participants required to achieve consensus and the consensus here was unanimous in favor of the rename. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing at your link that appears to relate to this discussion. Are you suggesting that Vegaswikian did not appropriately tag the categories for discussion? Having interacted with him/her for several years, I find that difficult to believe. If no one who was interested in the categories was actually monitoring the categories, how is that the fault of either the nominator or the process? Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of other questions Otto - Firstly (as has been complained of elsewhere) there seems to be a tag-team approach here by nominator and closer, which secondly, (if I am incorrect and there is no tag-team approach) would not have us all here beating our gums, if the nominator (and perhaps the closer) had courteously (much like we do at AfD) informed the appropriate people in the affected project of the proposed change, so that the matter could have been discussed by persons who are interested. Courtesy seems to have been misplaced here by that editor on this occasion and in at least one other similar all encompassing change involving these two editors. With respect to you then, making assumptive comments that no-one was interested because no one was watching is a cop-out statement - we are damn well interested and our time is being wasted now because those two editors/administrators who should have known better, could have acted much more courteously. --VS talk 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normal practice is, and has always been, to notify (a) the creator or major contributor of content to be deleted, and (b) if the page is part of a project, the project's talk page or noticeboard. While ignoring these conventions is within policy, it shows a tremendous lack of good faith and an unwillingness to work with local projects to determine genuine consensus outcomes. This is particularly the case when a proposal is raised which only affects one project, and even more so when members of that project have, on notification, been willing to contribute to a previous debate on the same issue (which I suspect was in fact the reason they were not notified this time, as they did not support the nominator's position.) Orderinchaos 09:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that anyone be notified of any XfD debate. If a category is so important to one either personally or as a member of a particular Wikiproject, then the category can be watchlisted to see if an XfD tag goes on it. Crying after the fact that a category that no one within the project bothered to watch was deleted without notifying the project is bogus. Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:AfD "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page." You can talk about sticking to process all you like, no-one is arguing that the strict letter-of the-law process wasn't followed. However basic courtesy was not followed here, as would be customary at AfD for example. This lack of courtesy has directly lead to a poor and very unpopular decision. Given that we are all here now, we can address this problem, restore the previous category names and try and remember this is supposed to be collaborative project not a game of one-upmanship along the lines of the "You should have been watching, so boo-sucks to you, cry-babies" attitude that seems to be in vogue. If this and the related "settlements" debacle has any upside, it may be that it will lead to some reform of what appears to be a deeply flawed process for renaming categories. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Comment1 This is over the question of whether to use in or of . Toss a coin. DGG (talk)
  • comment2 However, if it is actually important, it shows how CfD is unsuitable for anything but trivial limited questions. The process is too obscure to function properly. DGG (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The process seems to function quite well, until someone decides they want to bitch about a result they don't like (and I include myself amongst those who have bitched about a result I don't like so spare me any AGF or CIVIL admonishments). Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite obviously the process hasn't functioned well in this case; the decision was made based on incorrect reasoning about the nature of the category members (i.e. National Parks in Aust. belong to the states, not the nation, despite the name) and the decision is extremely unpopular with those editors who actually deal with the categories in question. Note that the editors complaining about the decision are not newcomers; in most cases they are experienced editors with a knowledge of process and include some administrators. When such a poor, unpopular decision is made on such a flimsy basis as the "consensus" of three editors with limited understanding of the topic, surely it brings into question the functionality of the process that lead to such a decision? -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more we look, the more badly concluded CfDs we are finding and the more evidence that the process is broken and being, if not abused, then misused. It's not merely one or two, and of course I have not the specific knowledge of some of the other affected categories apart from geography and Australian topics to know whether others are similarly affected, but I would not be surprised. Orderinchaos 09:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, boo-freaking-hoo, a category that involves Australians didn't get a special extra-procedural notification of the discussion. So what? If the Aussie project people are so concerned about it, then watchlist every category of interest to the project so that any tagging to any category shows up on the watchlist. There is no requirement that interested Wikiprojects be notified of XfD discussions and if those interested can't be bothered to keep an eye on the categories then they have no business bitching about it after the fact if there's a result that they don't like. Take some goddamn responsibility and don't expect anyone else to be your watchguard. Otto4711 (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tut tut my ass. How many times has someone associated with WP;AUS bitched that something they're interested in has been discussed without their being notified? All you need to do is click one box and then you'll be aware of what's happening with your categories of interest. Otto4711 (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a rather rude and arrogant comment to make which is also rather offensive. Read what has been said, We shouldn't be forced to watch every single Category in fear of it getting deleted since already my watchlist along with many others are already long and adding categories into the mix would clog up the watchlists. Also the way you make "a category that involves Australians didn't get a special extra-procedural notification of the discussion" sound as if that any one other then Australians should be given special extra-procedural notifications. Some need to realise that this is not an American Wiki, not a UK wiki its a world wide wiki since it seems that only some of us on Wikipedia seem to realise that it's a Wiki for everyone. Bidgee (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - Australia is but one of many projects. It has absolutely nothing to do with us, and everything to do with a lack of courtesy and respect by nominators, who seem to think they own the category structure and act in a manner inconsistent with a wish to develop true consensus on proposals. If a nomination significantly affects Military History, then Milhist should be notified. If a nomination significantly affects Canada, then Cantalk should be notified. If Australia, then AWNB. If the film project... and so on. Rudeness and incivility on the part of CfD regulars really does not help the situation, and really reinforces the notion which is held not just by Australians but by a number of others (including US and UK users) who have spoken to me by IRC and email who believe that some small corners of the encyclopaedia (with potentially big impacts) operate in ways contrary to its expected norms of behaviour. I am, however, grateful to the above user for giving us some really good material to put on the pending RfC on this topic. Orderinchaos 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh give me a break. You can't watchlist categories because it would clog up your watchlist? That's about the silliest thing I've ever read, and I've read some doozies. Otto4711 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. What happened to WP:AGF? Nothing was 'snuck' in. The affected categories were in fact tagged. Discussing here is unnecessary and a waste of time. This should be listed directly at CfD where it could have already been under discussion. Bringing the discussion here is simply not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CfD, unfortunately, cannot be used to undo a botched CfD. That's actually what this forum is for. AGF applies in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Orderinchaos 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are wrong. Simply relist to rename in the other direction at CfD to change it. This has been done several times in the past and produced speedy changes in decisions when valid new information is presented. This forum is not a place to contest decisions that were correctly made based on the discussions in the proper place. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we are here now, the "valid new information" has been presented and it is quite clear that the "consensus" for the change was iillusory, isn't it much simpler to address the issue here rather than indulge in process-wonkery by insisting on a return to CfD. Further, as discussed below, the decision here is so wrong as to call into question the process used in this renaming. DRV is absolutely a valid spot for this discussion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist - It is quite clear this change was in error, an error caused by making grand assumptions about appropriate naming on a global basis from a "consensus" of three people without any thought of consulting the affected project. The endorsement of this decision is inexplicable other than as a ultra-defensive wiki-lawyering approach to a flawed decision made through a flawed process. I can't understand the eagerness to relist either. There is clear evidence provided that the original category names were correct and appropriate, this DRV can fix this problem by restoring these names. If this close is overturned (as it quite clearly should be), why should we all be forced back to CfD to repeat the same arguments for process' sake? The moral of this tale is that taking the 5 minutes (at most) to leave a message on a project page about the CfD would have prevented a poor decision, saved a lot a valuable on-wiki time allowing all parties to work on actual content creation and avoided a lot of wiki-drama and back and forth accusations. I appreciate the work that CfD participants make to the encyclopedia in a less than glamourous area, however the decision to rename and the subsequent defence of the decision (and process) in the face of the evidence and common sense is just plain wrong. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist Agree with what Orderinchaos and Matt has said. There was no comments made by anyone to the Australian project page and we shouldn't be forced into adding Categories to our watchlists (Which would clog up our watchlist and slow it down) in fear of them getting deleted without any knowledge of a CfD. Bidgee (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist - Wikipedia:Manual of Style issues are not resolved by renaming part of the other sides pages at CfD. National parks of does seem more popular, but National parks in has its own supporters. Before making any more National parks in/of category name changes via CFD, a discussion that covers all National parks in/of categories should take place at Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) to resolve the general issue. -- Suntag ☼ 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A discussion elsewhere would be welcome (and indeed more appropriate), however I would be wary of mandating global solutions to what are often local peculiarities. I guess that is a point to be raised at the appropriate forum. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist per the comments made by Mattinbgn and Virtual Steve. It boggles my mind that three people, all of whom appear to be residents of North America and clearly have no knowledge of local Australian language usage, terminology and customs should be trying to force such a change through in the face of such strong objections from the local editors and administrators who are actually the ones working with these categories. I also don't support making global rules and I think these sorts of issues with categories should be treated in the usual way we deal with language usage and peculiarities, i.e. consistency, national ties, etc. It is also rather disappointing to see an administrator cracking snarky gags in unrelated discussions at the expense of a very prolific and hard working project. [11]. An apparently "humourless" Australian... Sarah 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The opposition to the change that has been implemented seems to be more about being offended that the change was made, not that the change is inaccurate. The national parks in question are indubitably "in" the states of Australia mentioned. For example, from the Daintree National Park article, I learn that "Daintree is a national park in Far North Queensland (Australia)" (emphasis added), and all the others i sampled read the same way. Also, the Aussies argue that the Australian states get to designate new national parks, so they are "of" the states, but that is a technicality that the nation has delegated that authority to use the national park term to states. It is not very different than the United States' administration of its National Register of Historic Places, in which applications for new National Register listings are processed by the states; I think the national agency involved usually goes along with the states' staff recommendations. Also Suntag's opposition seems misinformed: Suntag cites that "National parks of does seem more popular" without noticing that, yes, that is now the usage for 100 percent of the nations, and Suntag states "National parks in has its own supporters", without noticing that group is 100% states not nations. Reading Suntag's own evidence, it is now unanimous that national parks are in states and of nations. Other previous opposition to a change in the May 14 debate was that no one should care so it shouldn't be changed. Mostly the opposition reads as kneejerk and it looks best to me to leave it as it is, changed, and be done with it. doncram (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given different circumstances in different countries, it may well be that one country uses "in" for theirs and another uses "of" for theirs, and there's no problem with that from Wikipedia's point of view (most failed proposals come from a mistaken notion that Wikipedia must be uniformly and globally standard). Because national parks in Australia are, paradoxically, established and managed by State governments (the name only reflects a level of funding priority) then they are actually "in Australia" but "of (state)". There's no issue of "delegated national authority" - all national parks start off being declared as Crown reserves by the State Governor (I can provide evidence if required, it's fairly abundant in nature), and do not require either a vote of the Federal Parliament or designation by the Federal Environment Minister or the Executive Council to become national parks. I'm not sure why the naming persists - there may well be a historical reason. Additionally, the distinction he makes above ignores the fact Far North Queensland is not a state, and that "in" is perfectly correct for the lead sentence of an article - we use it for suburbs as well, but suburbs are, from a category perspective, most definitely "of" their city. I note doncram was the initiator of the failed 13 May proposal. Orderinchaos 10:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, but allow relisting without prejudice. It is hard for me to understand what the fuss is all about. It looks like the closer -- someone I have found to be hard-working, fair and level-headed -- made a perfectly good close. However, it also seems clear that many Australians find this change to be very objectionable. As a North American, I find the objections hard to understand, but it won't be the first time I am baffled by how English is used in other countries. There are many precedents for adapting category names for local usage (sport(s), transport(ation), etc...) so unless an Australian can make a good argument for using "in", I say do it the way they want. I'd also suggest a comment on the pages of the categories that explains why the category is worded in a way that seems strange to us non-Australians. That will help keep the categories from being renominated. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A near arbitrary decision was agreed to. A better reason should be required to turn it back again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It was only agreed to by 3 people who live in the USA who have little or no knowledge of Australia and no one from the Australian project was informed to give there view. Bidgee (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the fact the same move was rejected at the 13 May CfD with a significantly more representative consensus cannot really be ignored. There is no provision for "arbitrary" measures on content (other than BLP) under Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Orderinchaos 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Now that it's clear that the overwhelming majority of those with an interest in the subject were omitted from the discussion, the consensus of three people at CfD -- and the disruption it has caused -- cannot be considered in process. If those supporting the original consensus at CfD believe that this still reflects the will of the community, then relisting will allow greater participation of all involved. Not only can consensus change, it appears that it already has. Alansohn (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is an example of why wide notification is "a good thing". It is only now appearing on the talk page of the Wikiproject Protected Areas for example. Rmhermen (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist - no consensus to change and from the debate consensus is clearly in favour of what was the status quo. JRG (talk) 00:10, 29 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Her death was big news in Hong Kong, as the tree that killed her was goverment property and was one of hundreds of historical trees. Now are you trying to say that anything that happens there is not big news at all by deleting that article Banana Jim (talk) 04:38, 24 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

I'm requesting a temporary restoration of this article I created to my sand box, for now. It was speedied under A7 about 10 days ago, and I wasn't informed. I'd like to be able to look it over and assess whether or not I agree with the deleting administrators opinion or see if I can improve the article before taking this to a full deletion review. AniMate 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Works for me. I'm putting the most recently deleted version in there under a level one header, so it'll be formatted all ugly-like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do improve it so the claim of importance (preferably some clear cut notability) you probably don't need to do a full deletion review, just get an admin to review your version and restore. The worst that will happen is it'll get deleted again and you'll be back here, or at best it'll save 5 days of pointlessness here. 82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reviewing the article, I don't think this is a clear cut A7 by any means. His relationship with the Smithsonian, Pseudo.com, CNN, and being an internet blogging pioneer along with references from the NY Times and the Associated Press show that this at least should have gone through an AfD. Had I been informed, I would have added the "hang on" template, but the decision seems to have been made unilaterally without any attempt to contact the creator of the article.
Are there any particular steps that need to be taken to move this from a temporary restoration to user space to a full on deletion review? AniMate 07:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are interested, here's a link to the article that was speedied in my sandbox. AniMate 08:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned we can discuss here the actual deletion as well as how to proceed. I'd overturn and restore as there was sufficient assertion of importance. Here is a working link to the mentioned Associated Press note in IHT [12].--Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion no real notability presented, and what is there is deliberately vague to the point of bordering on outright falsehood. For example, the claimed "relationship with the Smithsonian" mentioned above consisted of his donating his webcam and keyboard. Anyone can donate anything at all to the Smithsonian, and there's no evidence they even accepted it, much less put it on display (it certainly doesn't appear in their database). While not a factor in deletion, I must point out the article's abhorrant speculation that he committed suicide, "sourced" to (drumroll, please...) a blog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore . Clearly not an A7--definite and unmistakable assertions of notability. I think it will even hold at Afd, given the sources for notability from the NYT and the AP,. DGG (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than respond to the accusations that I am being "deliberately vague to the point of bordering on outright falsehood," I'll remember to assume good faith and simply state that my opinion is obviously to overturn. AniMate 05:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVERTURN and restore. The NY Times seems to think he's notable enough. Perhaps someone's heard of them?--Feddx (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OVERTURN AND RESTORE Significant coverage in the New York Times and the Associated Press details a pioneering career in Net-based journalism and production. Deleting this was a mistake. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Plenty good enough sources for a non-living person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Credible assertions of notability accompanied by multiple reliable and verifiable sources available make the speedy deletion out of process. Alansohn (talk) 12:52, 26 September 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 September 2008

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

Essjay controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)(AfD 2 March 2007)(DRV 5 March 2007)(AfD 7 March 2007)(AfD 12 March 2007)(AfD 1 May 2007)(AfD 24 September 2008)

I don't know how to do this, but if you click the afd button, it takes you to the first, the AFD i'm talking about is this one Essjay controversy (5th nomination). Closing administrator did not allow me to respond to discussion, expand on rationale, and called me a troll. -- Segragate account (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer; notwithstanding the lack of credibility of a single-purpose account created for the admitted sole purpose of nominating an article to deletion, there is not a single shred of policy that would support deleting this article. It is properly verified, supported by numerous independent reliable sources, and of undisputed notability. I stand by my original closing rationale that the nomination itself is either an attempt to make a point or outright trolling. — Coren (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument you should have presented at the AFD. Your not neutral. Since when did anonymous users not get to discuss these things? Just go ahead and semi protect the entire AFD area if that is the case. I had to create the account cause the software would not allow an IP to to a AFD. Segragate account (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, makes you under the impression that I am not neutral? I have never been involved in the Essjay mess (at that time, I was only doing the occasional edit here and there and was completely unaware of what was going on behind the scenes), I have never interacted with Essjay, I have never been involved in the prior AfDs and I have never edited that article. — Coren (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you stated //your// opinion. You stated why you thought the article should be kept - instead of only procedural close grounds. Segragate account (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I accept this. Segragate account (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist 2 hours and 4 minutes and 3 participants is not sufficient for speedy close, particularly when one participant opined to that effect, and it was pointed-out that for a good portion of that time it was not even on the log yet. The closing summary seems to indicate that the speedy close was used to suppress the voice of a requester of questionable suffrage in the venue. No attempt was made to voir dire the requester as to their interest in the article or process. The statement that the article causes harm and has no global (eg: outside of wikipedia) notability was not adequately discussed to provide an understanding of the context in which the requester made the request. If we do not understand the request, we can't really answer to it very well. This should have been allowed to run for 24 hours and at least 5 participants. Since consensus can change, and new information can become available, we need to be careful not to misuse the speedy close option. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, consensus cannot override policy— that includes the deletion policy. — Coren (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the deletion policy says we can not discuss deletion of articles? I missed that bit. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Synergy 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD, which should always be what we do with these when people object. A speedy close assumes it's either uncontroversial (which it isn't if people complain, like here) or a nomination made in bad faith (which isn't obvious in this case). So, while I cannot fault the closing admin anywhere, an objection after the fact should result in reopening the AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:SNOW applies. Does anyone here think that the article will be deleted? Ever? Hell no. IF not, then why would we bother opening an AfD again and letting it run 5 days. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy close. Reopening it so that another two dozen people can vote keep is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nominator can't even spell segregate, let alone policy... Guy (Help!) 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but start new AFD. Periodic AFDs (i.e. once every year or two) are reasonable. Telling people "consensus has already been determined in the past, go away" is, to me, an anti-consensus thing to do. If we're so sure what consensus is, what's the risk in validating that claim every once in a while, if others aren't convinced? Nobody has to participate in the AFD if they think it's a waste of time headed for an inevitable keep. --Rividian (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/list new AfD per Rividian. We lose nothing by having a new AfD. It will almost certainly be a strong keep and then we won't need to think about this hopefully forever, mmkay? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) endorse close Thinking about this more, the result is clear. It is very clear that this meets our notability criteria and it is very clear that the consensus is just that. We shouldn't have to go over this again. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How much stronger than AfD 4 (50 keeps, 3 merges to 5 delete) do you feel this needs to get before we stop bothering trying repeatedly to delete the article against unsupported by policy, exactly?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)

Possibly the user was not saying that we should repeatedly attempt to delete against policy, but rather we should put in a good faith review upon request to determine if deletion per policy is warranted. Circumstances can change, articles can change, new information can become available and consensus as to whether it is per policy or not can chabge. Oh, and policies can change, too. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question here. How would policy change to delete an article with 50 footnotes (most of which to secondary sources that cover the subject) that has been promoted to a good article? Protonk (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There has to be closure eventually. DGG (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Lifebaka is right that generally SNOW/IAR closures should be overturned if challenged since their rationale is that they are effectively unchalengable. However, we also shouldn't give vexatious SPA's a veto over debates. If someone wants to make a calm and fully reasoned argument for deletion they can, but this is not the way to go about it. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow status quo for now, but in future, assuming a reasonable argument for nomination is made, we should allow it. We don't declare ever that an article is above AfD after multiple keeps, even after 17 of them, and it's a good thing, too. If someone could make a reasonable argument that deleting a long-established article would be supported by policy, we ought to let an AfD run (at least for a day or two). AfDs that are clearly trolling should be closed at once (I'm not saying the one in question is an example), but if they are filed in good faith they should run for a while. Chick Bowen 02:13, 25 September 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:Coastal and port cities and towns – Consensus is that neither the status quo nor the status before the CfD is ideal. Those arguing against the close also argue that CfD is not the best place to discuss these issues, so I see little point to simply reopening the previous CfD. Here's my directive: all parties are requested to conduct a (civil and respectful) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization (or a subpage if necessary) in which they arrive at a consensus about the best names for these categories, keeping in mind the issues dicussed in this debate, including consistency between categories and proper subcategorization. If some of those names turn out to be the same as some of the old ones, that will not be considered a G4 recreation. If actual category-page content is needed, it can be undeleted by any admin by request. But the original close is still considered valid in that "cities" should not be used for places that aren't cities. Might I also humbly suggest that the word "municipality" is a pleasantly international term. Good luck. – Chick Bowen 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Coastal and port cities and towns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

(Can't figure out how to link it - CfD was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14#Coastal_and_port_cities_and_towns

Decision should be set aside as invalid and a community discussion initiated. There is no evidence of anybody having been consulted or this CfD having been notified to any of the projects affected, and its implications have caused severe disruption on the Australian project and doubtless on others. The push for standardisation to the extent that nonsensical categories (eg "Port settlements in ___") are created because some country somewhere on earth doesn't use the term "city" or "town" while another does, is not so important that we cannot move forward in a more sensible and considered way with these things and not make a mockery of ourselves to our readers, or be chained by the opinions of five individuals. (As an aside, this discussion suggests the outcome would have been very different had it been notified - already six users have indicated they disagree with the opinions raised.) Orderinchaos 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to clarify I'm happy to see it relisted and go through proper process, although I would prefer an overturn and a discussion at some visible place such as Village Pump.) Orderinchaos 03:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question: Are you proposing a change to how XFD works? I think with the sheer number of discussions in a given day, the Pump would get unreadable quickly. --Kbdank71 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am proposing that major changes that affect multiple projects should go to some sort of consultation first, where a compromise that works for all or most is hammered out. CfD is not meant to be an exercise in social engineering, it is meant to be a place where categories are discussed. Mass noms such as the one we are reviewing here are an abuse of the process. Orderinchaos 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that the existing routines for carrying out a renaming discussion for an entire hierachy is deficient. I do not object to a relisting, however, you are commingling disparate issues. As Kbdank71 points out you are arguing with a systemic deficiency. That is an issue for which the present forum is not primarily intended, however, you are by now probably experiencing what I have already realized, that Wikipedia lacks certain forums or maybe better, it lacks a culture among its editors for using forums efficiently for discussing certain types of issues. I have addressed some of the problems of the present complex in a post at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. You state that umbrella nominations such as the one at issue constitute "an abuse of the process". That makes me the abuser since I made these nominations. Do you think it is appropriate to define the issue in this way? From my perspective, I have simply availed myself of the procedures that are in place. I find it unreasonable that I should be blamed for Wikipedia lacking adequate routines for this sort of process. __meco (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little disconcerting to read that you blame me or whomever for not having brought the issue in front of a larger forum, and you exemplify this by naming the Village Pump, when this issue was in fact brought up at the Village Pump where neither yourself nor anybody else have payed any attention to it. __meco (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of us have Village Pump in our watch list and only go to that page when we need some help. Bidgee (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When listing an article at AfD, it is common practise to notify the creator of the article. This does not appear to have happened in this case. With such a mass listing with consequences that a reasonable person could have foreseen (and indeed you did have enough foresight to see this; hence your raising of the point at the Village Pump), it seems to be extremely negligent to have made no attempt to notify interested parties. The mass listing and lack of notification seem to me to fit clearly within "abuse of process"; wiki-lawyering defences such as "I have simply availed myself of the procedures that are in place" notwithstanding. The hyper-defensiveness of some editors involved in this entire mess is astounding. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Overturn deletion (as per Hesperian and The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist) - neither a city nor a town is the same as a settlement nor are they the same as each other and there are clearly understood distinctions. This renaming and deletion has caused disruption and the category is no longer useful - there will be too many places put into the one category - Australia as a country is mainly settled on the coast and we have a long coastline - the distinction was useful. --Matilda talk 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. As far as I can tell, the usual procedures were followed here, including the use of notification templates; so I can't fault the nominator or the closer. But be that as it may, very few people commented on the original listing, and now that their decision has been put into force, a hell of a lot of people are wishing they had known about it. Hesperian 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is normal on CfD to not have a lot of editors discussing when there is consensus. Many discussions are closed with no comments since silence is a clear indicator of support. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, five contributors is often sufficient to judge consensus; but in this case, with various forumssome editors now screaming blue murder over the outcome, there must be some doubt over whether the result really reflected consensus. Hesperian 02:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The depressing fact that there is actually more editors in a local AWNB discussion than on a worldwide CfD, and yet the latter is claimed to be "consensus", really points to the flaws in the process. In my opinion any serious controversy over a seemingly uncontroversial close should be an automatic relist. Orderinchaos 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly there was no violation of process and the results reflected consensus. The name chosen in what is used in the appropriate naming convention so that as a parent category, it is neutral as to the various dialects of English. The discussion appears to have been properly posted and the decision was one that is supported by the discussion. I don't see valid grounds for a reversal of the decision. I will also add that the name was chosen as one that not only works but is also short. It avoids having category names that use multiple combinations of various terms including city, town, township, village, municipality and who knows how many others. A result like that would clearly not be an positive state for the encyclopedia. I should also note that the discussion allows for the fact that below the country level there are likely to be variations. Can anyone state that there are no port settlements of any type in Australia that are not a city or a town? If that is the case, then maybe the solution is a simple as allowing Australia to have a slightly different form at the country level. If that is the case, there is no need for a DRV. Even if there are exceptions in Australia, is that a reason to create a different parent category? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Nothing wrong with the close. Per Vegaswikian, if the AWNB wants their own category to be different, so be it. --Kbdank71 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I agree with what Matilda has said. I also see issues that no one on the projects knew about this (CfD) which meant that there is no true consensus. I also do see issues with the use of settlements (which can mean cities, towns, villages, even small Aboriginal camps/community's would be included in one category which would be a rather long list within it where as having "City", "Town" type categories work for Australia since the lists are still longish but way shorter and easier to use, where as "settlements" isn't easy and doesn't work). Bidgee (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Local usage in Australia would never see the ports and their adjacent communities as settlements - in the lead paragraphs of the articles affected they are actually specifically identified as Port Cities - creating new category titles that do not fit into local usage is a misuse of the category name -SatuSuro 04:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Part of the issue is that sweeping changes to category nomenclature was made through a CfD that by its nature attracts little attention. It is clear that given the result, there is not consensus for these renamings and the categories should be restored. Decisions of this magnitude need more discussion than using the opinions of five people. It is common courtesy, at the least, to inform a national project if you are making major changes to their category structure. This quote in particular concerns me "Right, because telling someone "I know you wanted to do this, but it doesn't make sense so I'm not going to do it" is a great way to get dragged to DRV. Hence, I don't do it." DRV is a legitimate process and avoiding notifying others of your changes to avoid DRV is hardly in the spirit of openess. How many other changes have been pushed through by this editor under cover for fear of having his/her actions reviewed. Note I don't think relisting is a vaild option for two reasons
  • Changes of this magnitude that affect so many categories should be discussed at the village pump, not at CfD
  • The proposed renaming should be done on a category-by-category basis rather than as a mass rename. The proposal attempts to create a simple global solution for what is in reality a messy local reality. Each nation and sub-national entity has different arrangements for classifying towns, cities, settlements, localities, etc. and imposing a global solution will not work.

Finally, fair warning to all. I consider creating an RfC to seek further comment on the result of the CfD and DRV and the actions of the participants involved is warranted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What also concerns me is that the very editor who closed the CfD and deleted the category did the very thing in January 2006 [17][18]! Bidgee (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very interesting. This diff is interesting too. Agree with Matt's points, as this is not the first time this sort of thing has been done. Might need to go through the last year's CfDs and find any other questionable noms that have gone through less noticeably, too. Orderinchaos 05:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The current closure aside for a moment, finding that one of the most prolific closers at CfD may have closed similar discussions, and then claiming an "aha moment" is just this side of ridiculous. - jc37 06:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhat of a specious argument - we're starting to see evidence (and I've been emailed some as well) that there's a fair bit of gaming going on in addition to that already raised here involving the users concerned. Some users have clearly identified CfD, a low participation area, as a way to get radical changes in through the back door, claiming their own personal opinions as "consensus" and misusing the speedy rename process when they fail to achieve consensus at CfD. It should make for a very interesting RfC, and maybe even a reform of the CfD process will result from it - I certainly hope it does. Orderinchaos 06:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Low" compared to what? Just because a particular discussion that you (or some other person) may wish to see discussed, doesn't mean that others are interested in discussing it. This is true of any XfD. The number of members in a discussion varies based on who's interested.
    That aside... Gaming? Who? The closer? Not a chance. (And my comments were in regard to the closer. I haven't delved into this particular set of discussions yet.)
    "Specious"? I went through Logical fallacy, and found quite a few that apply here. And yes, I will be happy to reiterate how ridiculous I think it is to try to suggest a "pattern", when looking at the edits of someone who, nearly daily, closes dozens of CfDs, and find two that he closed which may be similar, and to suggest that this is an "aha moment". And here's another word: Balderdash. - jc37 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from getting their bot into a revert war, and some bad faith remarks suggesting they structured their actions to avoid scrutiny at DRV, I was not referring to the closer. The gaming relates to other CfDs, but involves the same participants. In one particularly blatant case they snuck through a speedy rename recently on a whole bunch of categories on a proposal identical to one rejected at CfD by a clear majority some months ago. The proposal was based on a weakly justified (and as it turns out from reliable sources, false) opinion - we're now trying to get that one fixed. Yet the same participants imply the project editors and volunteers (many of whom have FAs to their credit and have put years into improving this thing) are acting in bad faith when we try to take measures to make good the damage done by their ill-thought-out actions or raise questions about process. Orderinchaos 08:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 8 am in Europe, and since I went to bed at 1 am a monumental debate has been developing. Since other editors have raised meta-issues here, I'm gonna do the same before joining the discussion as it currently stands. The issue is that people will tend to stay away from a debate if they perceive it to be well under way already, i.e. people don't want to miss the beginning of the show. Obviously, the above has taken place during prime time for Australian editors and I'm sure, just as the Australians missed the original CfR (Categories for Renaming) discussion, most of the world has probably missed the start of the present discussion. Perhaps some sort of a summary box at the top of some voluminous discussions might be a useful implement? __meco (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime time? I initiated it at 8:25am in my time zone, it's not yet a time when people have gotten home from work and etc (in fact, it was pretty close to US peak time when I did so.) I would also argue that a "snowball" effect occurs - people won't want to be the first to speak but if they see others doing so they'll reply and comment on the comments, so to speak. Orderinchaos 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist As per the request and details provided by the nominator, and subsequent comments. Sorry I must also note that this appears to be a far too enthusiastic and thus eye-brow raising closure, defence and call to arms by Kbdank71. Perhaps if you could consider that it is common courtesy and common sense to alert the appropriate project to pending changes such as these, and so even if that wasn't done this time, this is a worldwide community project and it should be treated as such; and even more especially by administrators with the experience to know otherwise. Therefore I strongly support a relist so that we can see what ensues after a much more informed discussion. What is there to lose? Only face. What is there to gain - a stronger and more reflective consensus! --VS talk 07:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as in the original request from Orderinchaos - The earlier debate did not consider how much trouble deleting so many subcategories would cause, so we need to debate the restoral of these categories. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Orderinchaos and Matilda. Sarah 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist it would have been reasonable to give wide notice before proposing extensive changes. The 5 days is appropriate for individual items, but not for things like this. DGG (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. If this is relisted, what exactly is to be relisted? It appears that the Australia categories are an issue. Are there others? If most of the changes are not contested then why relist a large number of categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the whole thing. The wording of "port settlements", which is effectively a neologism, was just poor to start with - what is a port settlement, a settlement *by* a port or a settlement *in* a port (like some sort of houseboat thing) or what? Are we suggesting a port can exist in an "unsettled" state? Given that a port is by nature industrial/commercial, where does "settlement" come into its functions? There's no clear meaning and it certainly wouldn't appear in any RS beyond some sort of historical or colonial context. A port city, however, has a specific meaning in English. Also the issues with world cities like Mombasa, Kenya being called a "settlement" instead of a "city" is borderline insulting (think CSB here). Moreover the wording was only supported by one editor very late in the debate (meco) and not commented on by any others. I personally favoured an overturn and then that would allow British editors to have British categories renamed, US editors to have US categories renamed and so on if they wished to do it that way. If it was relisted I think perhaps this sort of contextual breakup of the nomination would be advisable. Orderinchaos 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-Australian editor, who has contacted me by email, wants to know if the CfD group are intending to rename a certain category, to which two of the affected Australian cities and several of the others belong, to "Host settlements of the Summer Olympic Games". I felt this question addressed admirably how ridiculous this obsession with not mentioning cities in categories has become. Orderinchaos 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
snicker :-) --Matilda talk 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Broader discussion needed. Clearly many people have a problem with this change and so commonsense says it needs to be reviewed. This is not a criticism of the close, but WP:CCC. Moondyne 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on a country by country basis as the issue is clearly different for each country. Gnangarra 14:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist settlement? Good god. What a trivial discussion that need'nt have been had, towns and cities are perfectly ok. Consensus is clearly not established. Timeshift (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Vegaswikian. If needed, the Australian ones could be renominated where the concerns addressed above could be directly addressed in solely an Australian context. It's not an issue that should require a deletion review. The concept that "no one was notified" is ridiculous. There's no requirement to notify WikiProjects when XfDs are started—the WikiProject bears the burden of keeping tabs on the content that they include in their project. For individual editors—if you care about the name of a category, put it on your watch list. Categories aren't edited much, so usually the only edits that will show up for you are CfD nominations. That's why the requirement that categories be tagged exists. This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard, but every time that happens we can't have a reversal of what has been validly decided under current WP procedures. As I said, if desired, we can have a a new nomination for the Australian ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the problem is not simply with the Australian ones - there was some process issues but in addition, neologisms like "port settlements" which, when the CfD is examined, were not contemplated or commented on by more than one editor and make Wikipedia look ridiculous to readers. This is one of the big downsides of poorly consulted changes, and it wouldn't matter who was making the changes, without that sort of feedback, such decisions get made. It happens in companies, it happens in governments and political parties, it happens here. As stated above and elsewhere, we have 6,000 categories in our project, and due to occasional MediaWiki failings, it's not as safe or robust as one might imagine (2/3 of all entries in a category I specifically watch for BLP violations once disappeared in several installments over a few days from my watchlist without my knowledge, and I know of several other editors who have had similar problems - generally the larger your watchlist the more likely the software is to bung it up). There is actually no requirement anywhere in any policy or guideline to tag articles to a project (in fact, WikiProjects are broadly ignored in such, much as Premiers, Prime Ministers and political parties are generally ignored in constitutions), although it's a good idea for all sorts of reasons and one I support. Orderinchaos 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have well over 6,000 categories on my watchlist, and I get about 1 category tagged for a CfD edit every two weeks. Really, it's not a great burden once you get them on your list. You could even have a dedicated account just for watching them. WikiProjects need to take responsibility for watching their own content and not place the burden elsewhere. If they can't handle the load, them's the breaks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does this address the MediaWiki issue I highlighted? Orderinchaos 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watching a category has nothing to do with the contents of the category. By watching a category you will be notified if someone tags it for CfD. That was my only point. It's an easy way to be notified of CfDs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with a MediaWiki fault which occasionally makes entire sections of one's watchlist disappear without warning? A "category" to it is simply a differently tagged article - there's no Basic Law that stipulates it's only mainspace articles that can disappear. Essentially, anyway, your entire proposal is an onus reversal - advocates of change should take responsibility for the change, not the people who have to deal with their unfortunate circumstances and are not forewarned. Orderinchaos 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. There is no "proposal". It's a suggestion. You are creating "onuses" where none exist. There is no onus to notify a WikiProject. Period. There is an onus to tag the category, which can be detected with a high degree of accuracy by putting it on your watchlist. If you'd like there to be a requirement to notify projects, that's another story, and one that can't and won't be resolved here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) A prudent editor seeking changes on the scale of the ones made here would at least look for a broad consensus (i.e. more thn just the usual gang) before making the changes. "This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard, but every time that happens we can't have a reversal of what has been validly decided under current WP procedures" is wiki-lawyering and process-wonkery at its finest. A poor decision has been made, but hey, all the steps were folowed so it has to stand! Do you really believe this is good for the encyclopedia? Can't you see that a process leading to such poor decisions should be addressed? Do WikiProjects really need to be "on guard" against these types of changes or wouldn't it be better if editors proposing these types of changes made a conscious effort to seek a broad consensus? -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been simpler to just re-nominate the Australian ones, as I said above. To start a deletion review instead looks more like wikilawyering to me than simply asking the closing admin if it would be alright if you could renominate the Australian ones due to concerns in the project. And yes, WikiProjects (or at least someone in them) should be on guard for changes to their content; that's one of the reason watchlists exist, and they are very simple to use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does that fix the African, Asian, European and many other categories though which have been misnamed by this ill-considered proposal? One editor's offhand comment, not acknowledged by a single other person, becomes encyclopaedia-wide mayhem? Agreed that this is not good for the encyclopaedia, and the above user should stop trying to pretend this is an issue which *only* affects the Australian articles or project. I've had feedback in the last 48 hours from many other parts of the world that they're glad someone is doing something about this. As for "simply asking the closing admin", they were already using their bot to attempt to revert-war by the time I even found out this issue was occurring. Orderinchaos 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it was "ill-considered"? I think that suggests an insight into the mind of the nominator that we should try to avoid. Everyone can have an opinion on the proposal, but your opinion isn't necessarily objectively true. I find nothing wrong with the result, personally. That's my opinion. You obviously disagree. I guess you should have watched the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the process, not the nominator. Hypothetical here - If I came up with a proposal in some far-off place, didn't have the experience or breadth of knowledge necessary to anticipate all circumstances, and am joined by a few editors who normally work together and have similar gaps of knowledge, then my proposal is ill-considered. It's not an insult to say that. I've come up with a few particularly bad ones in my time here - thankfully because I notified appropriately, people got to hear of it quickly and I got the weight of "WTF?!" responses from people who knew more than me and I backtracked accordingly. That is what I meant in my use of the word - I apologise for any other interpretation that could be rendered. As for objective - "port settlements" is a neologism (or more properly, a protologism since it is not in wide use in any community). If we had it as an article, it would be deleted per WP:NOT. Orderinchaos 23:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying; I misunderstood your use of the word, obviously. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response about watchlists - I have edited as of today 7171 distinct pages, Orderinchaos has edited 16,125 distinct pages, other active Australian editors ahve similar edit counts (this isn't a boast it is about practicalities) - it is difficult enough to keep track of the pages we have edited let alone those set up by other people. The Category:Coastal towns in Australia was set up by RedWolf (talk · contribs) following a CfD in April 2005 - not an Australian editor, apparently on an extended wikibreak according to his userpage though from his contributions seems be a currently active editor. Given he has had an extended wikibreak at least sometime, it is quite likely the page would no longer be on his wathclist and even if it was, given the manner of creation, I assume he is not going to be as interested as those that were actively using the category. RedWolf joined in 2003 and has edited 38,670 distinct pages - do you really think watchlists of more than 38,000 pages are the answer? Reliance on the use by individual editors of watchlists seems an inappropriate solution to this issue. Why should sensibly named, long established categories be treated this way. Articles I can understand, you have them on your watchlist, but categories used by many editors but which the page itself is not usually edited is a much more problematic page type and needs to be treated differently.--Matilda talk 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For categories alone—yes, it's a practical solution because they are edited relatively infrequently. I'm not talking about articles in Wikiprojects. It would be quite easy to have a special account that just watches the categories in a Wikiproject. I could give you stats on how many categories I have on my watchlist and how many edit changes total happen per week, if you want. It's not a large number. And as I said, there are way less than 1 CfD-related taggings per week. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"For categories alone—yes, it's a practical solution because they are edited relatively infrequently." No it's not a practical solution since our watchlists has thouands of articles and images and adding more clogs up the watchlists and even slowing them down (IIRC, Wikipedia recomends that watchlists should be no more then 2000) plus also it's possible for it to still be lost within the watchlist since articles are edited all the time and some of us are also busy and don't have time to look at everything in the watchlist at one time. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is way less than 1 CfD related tagging per week, surely it would not be an onerous task for the tagger to ensure, if the proposal was in any way likely to be controversial, it is notified widely. This attitude of "If you are not watching, then bad luck" does not seem to be in the spirit of a collaborative project. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] It is your last sentence Matt that also concerns me the most. Are there two projects here (1) CFDtagpedia and (2) Wikipedia? Is it impossible for the editors of the first pedia group to simply agree that there is a problem with their process? Can they not walk away and publicly comment an intention of letting projects know of future changes directly to the project page. Is that too big for them or too big a task or does it make them cringe in fear of showing publicly that things could be done better?--VS talk 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested there was no problems with the current process. I'm simply providing a suggestion for how you can keep up with the changes within the current process requirements. This forum is not for proposing a new process. I'd be happy to contribute to such a discussion in an appropriate forum, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You run into a few problems. "if the proposal was in any way likely to be controversial" is in the eye of the beholder, and could probably apply (or not apply) to every CFD, depending on the editor's point of view. "Notified widely"—what does this mean? I agree that it's courteous to "notify widely", but different editors will have different ideas about what is enough in what circumstances. Do you tell the creator? All Wikiprojects that have a tag on the talk page? Do you include Wikiprojects that you suspect would care, even if they don't have their tag on the talk page? Do you use village pump? Right now, the only requirement is tagging the category. I'm simply providing a suggestion of how you could be notified of every CfD for a category you care about under the current CfD requirements. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most are either routine or limited in scope from my quick inspection of current CfDs, so this is unlikely to be a problem. The main problem from our point of view with CfDs is the only way to check them is a manual process - they don't appear on the front page of CfD, they don't have separate article locations such as AfD does so can't be transcluded onto DSA, etc. Orderinchaos 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"routine or limited in scope"—again, in the eye of the beholder and entirely subjective. (We simply don't know what editors will be upset about what changes. As an admin who closes some CfDs, I have received some pretty nasty ex post facto complaints via email about changes that I thought would have been entirely uncontroversial.) Anyhow, it sounds like you have problems with the current process, which suggests you should propose some changes for the process. But that's not what this forum is for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) One inkling as to how upset people might be - don't like that term - perhaps it would be better expressed as how much of an impact a change might have, is how populated are the categories. Category:Coastal towns in Queensland has 43 towns, there are 57 town in the South Austrlaian category, there are 32 towns in the Victorian category - not sure why there are no cats for the other states - perhaps they are already settlements. Coastal cities has 31 articles plus 4 subcats ... If there is significant population of the categories, I think that is an indicator that the use of the category is widely established, and as before because one does not edit category pages when using them, it is very likely they are not on editors' watchlists, alerting the project(s) which is/are significantly impacted seems a good idea. Part of the point of this discussion in my mind is not what we have done, but how could we work better togethr in the future. --Matilda talk 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments above, Matilda. Just to be clear, I personally am in favour of notifying WikiProjects in CfDs of this type, and would find it courteous and helpful if nominators did so. However, it's currently not mandatory (nor would I support it being so), so it's difficult for me to see how we can fault the nominator for not doing it in this instance. I'm not "wikilawyering", as someone else has accused me of, I'm just trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the wikilawyering comment and apologise. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the cfd has ended up with a rename that screws up all the related category trees - eg Category:Port cities in Canada was correctly a subcat of Category:Cities in Canada whereas the renamed Category:Port settlements in Canada is not (as a settlement is not nec a city). So I would say that there was a consensus, the close was in line, but the result is chaotic. Occuli (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not going to do anything but endorse the close, but I have a couple of comments regarding this debate. There's a fundamental lack of good faith in all parties going on here. This was seen to be a wider issue, people did try and drum up more interest in them, but no-one seemed interested. People closing debates can only close what is in front of them, and screaming blue murder because of that helps no-one. What would be more beneficial is if all sides got together and worked out the best way to name these categories, rather than arguing about the result. Consensus can and is allowed to change, and for the record, G4 was initiated only to apply to article space, I've trawled the archives on this and I'm confident on that assertion. However, the fact that it is a general rather than an article space clause conflicts with that fact. The issue of G4 and how it applies to category space and the fact that consensus can change needs a complete review to avoid these deletion reviews which may cause and foster bad blood. Also, there's currently a bot in trial which will notify wikiprojects of xfd debates on project tagged categories, see User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts. Hiding T 11:06, 29 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hip Hop Is Dead Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) 1 Del, 1 weak Del, 1 presumable Del by nom.

There was unanimous agreement that NOR applied, but the weak Del-discussant said in part

However, it looks like someone didn't just blatantly make up these quotes, and we might be able to find them with a search or something.

which is the closest the discussion came to addressing the core question,

can this topic become an acceptable article?

and no one acknowledged the mandatory role (before a Del finding in this case) of some research to evaluate whether the "quotes" offer hope for verifiable content.
Result should have been called with

No consensus in AfD sense bcz of low quality (viz. irrelevance) of arguments presented; restart discussion with instructions to address the deletability of the topic, not the removability of the current content.

--Jerzy•t 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you seem to have that the wrong way around. AFD determines deletion of current content, not topics. If the reasons for deletion can be substantially addressed the topic can be recreated without any issue (By which I mean new content addressing those reasons, not just merely an assertion that they can be addressed and recreating identical content). --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, TF; i'm pretty sure that reflects a policy change in the last 4-5 years, but i haven't been looking for such changes in AfD, so you're presumably right.
      --Jerzy•t 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC) & correct placement error, 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three opinions on that article stated that it was original research that was the problem with the article; with no dissenting views or arguments, that's a valid deletion. Endorse Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if that had been closed as anything other than delete, it would've been so blatantly wrong. A unanimous delete opinion of the participants is pretty well always consensus. Besides, without someone actually providing sources for the quotes (which I'll admit I have not searched for) there's no reason to overturn. Searching for sources for it is suggested, but has never been mandatory. So, endorse the closure. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's not clear why this request was even made since the article was an unsourced essay about a one-man neologism with no dissenting opinions at AfD; create a new sourced version if you like but this fails policy. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per AfD and WP:NOR. Would this be suitable for wikiquote? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 26 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Pakistani cricket forum deleted as non-notable. Author then contacted me to question the deletion. Because this article went through the full AfD discussion process, rather than being simply speedied or prodded, the matter must be discussed here first. I have no vote either to keep deleted or undelete. Author's original comment:

Dear Sir,
Could you please let us know why our page http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Pakpassion was deleted.
I see the discussion speaks of "Notability". Could you please suggest what type of evidence you seek for this?
Pakpassion is among the leading provider of Pakistani cricket news and Pakpassion articles and interviews are quoted by many major news agencies who have a page on wikipedia.
Thanks
Regards Wazeeri JIP | Talk 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn most recent G11 deletion. The spam issues could've been taken care of by removing some text instead of deleting the entire article. As for the notability issue, it seems like there are enough sources on the most recently deleted version to maybe make the general notability guideline, so I'd like to see another AfD for it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was deleted at an AFD in 2006 over sourcing and decent sourcing that discusses the site rather then quoting fans that use it has not been provided. There are clear COI issues and the article reads like spam to me. I have no objection to a userfied version being worked on and presented here for review but I can't really see the point of overturning a G11 speedy if the sourcing issues have not yet been sorted out. I'm willing to review if more detailed sources are provided Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original deletion, unless proof that a proper article will be created instead of advertising spam. If the result of this discussion allows the article to be re-created, it must be eligible for another AfD in the future if it turns out to be unencyclopedic. Incidentally, the original deleting admin in 2006 is no longer active on Wikipedia. JRawle (Talk) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment G11 is a criterion without really workable demarcation lines, as compared to the others. I'm surprised more of the deletions under it are not brought here. I have no opinion on this one, except we should let them keep trying. DGG (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - spam, non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability as per WP:N or WP:WEB. It is unlikely that a forum would be a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 26 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

When I bump into mentions of prominent people in fringe areas (UFO's and aliens, in this particular case) out there on the interwebs, I usually pop over to WP for an overview. If I don't find one, sometimes I'll contribute one. In this case, there once was an article on him, but it's been deleted, which precludes contributing. Seems likely to me that he's notable enough to merit an article (>29,000 hits on Google, for example). Perhaps we could temporarily undelete it and get the article into keepable shape? Granted that much of what he has to say is, at best, questionable, but WP has plenty of solid policies that allow it to talk about questionable claims (and counter-claims) without appearing to endorse them. What sayeth the community? Waitak (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Given the flippant nominator's rationale given at the AfD, and the A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") speedy deletion reason I agree that this could be undeleted. If Waitak and others then aren't able to make a keepable article using the 29,000+ Google hits, then we can delete it again. Alternatively, copy to user space and await recreation when Waitak has improved it sufficiently there (drawback being that he would have to do that alone, as others might see fit to contribute if the article existed in main article space). __meco (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is some info at scholar.google.com. There is a mention in July 2004 Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Per the November 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article, Burisch real name is Dan Grain, so reliable source material might be found under that name as well. I don't know if undeleting the article will overcome the A7 deletion. How about get a draft article into keepable shape then undelete the article? -- Suntag ☼ 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... the article when it was deleted, was, to put it in a word, crap. There are no sources. It's a few sentences. That's it. If someone feels that it's recreatable and can meet guidelines, then please do put a draft together in userspace, and come back here for discussion. Endorse the A7 deletion way back when. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion - raw googlehits are not a meaningful metric. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't comment on the original article, obviously, because I've never seen it. What's policy? Is recreating it kosher? If the article as it stood was unworthy of WP (hey, it happens!) then it seems to me that starting from there is better than starting completely from scratch... If the article's that bad, maybe somebody wouldn't mind emailing it to me so that I'm not commenting in the dark...? Re: Google hits: I agree, but note that the reason I came here for this in the first place is that I've read about the guy in several other places, and wanted to see what WP had to say. Waitak (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the editor wants to remake the article and it would be substantially different from the deleted versions, s/he can just do it. If you are sure that the sources you have in hand show notability then create a new article. If you aren't sure, then start with a userspace draft and ask for a second opinion once you think it might be ready. DRV isn't strictly necessary here but if it helps us help you write a good new article, ok. :) Protonk (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, this is just what I was looking for. I'd be perfectly happy to make a new article, but I didn't know what policy is toward doing so. The only downside I can see of just creating a good article is that we'd lose the history, but that doesn't seem like it would be a great tragedy. Waitak (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The directions under Temporary review say: "you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted". After reading through the other cases, that seemed like the most applicable. Waitak (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, allow sourced re-creation. The orignal article was abject nonsense; once cleaned up it failed WP:CSD#A7 and would also now fail WP:BLP. It was three years ago, so let's WP:AGF and see what the requester can write. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, with care. Clearly a notable subject. Be very careful to stick with reliable sources and WP:NPOV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Bishop Brigante – Deletion endorsed. The standard in a case like this is whether there is evidence that the changes to the article were likely to have caused AfD participants to change their minds. Given that the sources added, while moving in the right direction, were not editorially independent as described at WP:reliable sources, that does not appear likely to be the case. As for his anticipated album, this can certainly be reconsidered after it comes out. As always, a well-sourced userspace version is recommended. – Chick Bowen 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

The AfD for this article started off with four delete votes when the article was in bad shape. After I improved it and voted keep, two keep votes followed that had better reasoning behind them than the delete votes. I confronted the admin who closed the AfD, but he does not want to un-delete the article, so I have no choice but to come here.[19][20] The article should not have been deleted, as the subject meets notability guidelines, and the sourcing is adequate. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could really go for an overturn and relist here. Nearly all the delete comments revolve around the lack of sources, which was fixed later. So we need to get a wider consensus on the new version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The deletion focused on the lack of reliable sources, not the absence of any sources. AfD closer MBisanz subsequently wrote:

    "Even after you added sources, people still indicated that I'm not impressed with the accumulation of minor competitions and webzine coverage that's being used in this article., as that was the same viewpoint taken prior to the content changes you made, people still felt the sourcing was of too low a quality to keep the article."

    Seem like properly exercised discretion was used in the close. No restriction on recreating if close reasoning is overcome. -- Suntag ☼ 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was validly interpreted at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bishop Brigante is a multi-talented hip hop musician and actor. Not only did he release a single on iTunes Canada, but he also made a significant appearance in the movie Narc. He acted in two hip hop-based TV series, Platinum and Drop the Beat. [23] He has Peruvian ancestry, and collaborates with local reggaeton artist Fito Blanko. Recently, he's been getting significant exposure on the popular website worldstarhiphop.com [24]. Lastly, he's releasing his debut album entitled The Poker Face soon, and his hip hop group, known as S.L.U.G., is also releasing a double CD very soon. He's definitely notable. [25] Blackjays1 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Proper AfD. Attempt a recreation in userspace before coming back here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to BlackJays1 the deleted article does not contain any substantial independent reliable sources and by our usual measure of notability this bloke is not there yet for a wikipedia article and some of your comments suggest that SRYSTAL is an issue. The discussion has a clear outcome and two/three keeps after improvement does not mean a base close if the article still lacks decent sourcing. I'm not seeing any meaningful argument that the merits of the sourcing were not considered at the article or any thorough rebuttal of the lack of sourcing. As such I endorse the close but am very open to discuss further sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 05:27, 29 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

This is for the deletion of "Kent Walls" He's hosting a show on Fox Sports. I just watched him today on FSN. Why is he not listed on Wikipedia? Fox College Sports to premier the 2008 FCS Tailgate Tour.

Completing DRV nom for Kai.robertson (talk · contribs). Article has been deleted twice: once an expired prod and once as A7. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn most recent deletion and list at AfD. Recreation of the article == contesting the PROD, so the next step is to take it to AfD. However, I do highly suggest the nominator have sources ready before the AfD starts, or it will probably be deleted again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP procedure tends to confuse people. DGG (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD, as is appropriate for any resonably contested speedie. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 27 September 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 September 2008

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

Deletion reason was "CSD I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image". I don't see how, since the image had a fair use rationale specific to the image specifying its location and reason for use (in Alan Shearer). Per the non free content policy, it was an acceptable use of a non free image as an image with iconic status and historical importance being the subject of critical commentary in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (as deleter). It was a non-free image in a BLP that did not specifically aid understanding or illustrate a specific point. L'Aquatique[parlez] 18:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its purpose was to illustrate the banner (not to illustrate a BLP subject). Its significance to the article and aid to the reader in that respect was rather self-evident I would have thought given the FUR wording and article text. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, this is the accompanying text: To commemorate his stint with Newcastle United and his status with the Newcastle fans, the club's main sponsor, Northern Rock, created a giant banner with the message, "Thanks for 10 great years" beneath a picture of Shearer and his signature-goal celebration, and installed it outside the Gallowgate End of St. James' Park. The banner measured 25 metres (82 ft) high by 32 metres (105 ft) wide, and was displayed from 19 April 2006 to 11 May 2006, the day of his testimonial match against Celtic F.C... I can't add the FUR text as you deleted it, but I believe it also asserted the significance and purpose of identification of the banner with respect to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehm... As far as I can tell, the most recent version here (sorry, admin-only link) had a tag on it that would've allowed it to be removed from the article on the 5th of this month, after which it could have been I5'd after seven days, which would have been the 12th. I'm not terribly up on my image deletion policy, but it seems like more than ample time was given to complain about this already, and I'm highly tempted to endorse this. Neutral for now, as I'm not committed yet. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did dispute it by removing the tag and commenting on the talk page. Apart from WP:Ifd, I know of no other forum for adressing this tag's placement on an image, and as you can see above, this image did not meet criteria I7 for deletion even before its placement for the reasons given. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was disputed. Not sure why it got reverted back on multiple times... I'm gonna' have to go for overturn and IfD now, given the process issues there, and this doesn't feel to me like an uncontroversial enough deletion for CSD. Zero comment on whether or not the image meets the NFCC. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to IfD. If we're going to discuss it for 5 more days it might as well be there rather than here, since an IfD is more likely to be conclusive and attended by editors familiar with the NFC criteria. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at IfD We are in a pickle at DRV here. We don't want to be bureaucratic for the sake of doing it, but we need to access closes on the basis of process, not outcome. While the image CSD conditions are considerably looser than the article CSD conditions, we must basically cede to the notion that CSD is for cases where discussion has already occurred or is basically a forgone conclusion. In this case, let us overturn this deletion and list the image at IfD. While I have little doubt that it will be deleted for failing NFCC 1, this is an acceptable DRV remedy. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected, IfD is not the only way this clear cut case can waste more time.[26][27] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to IfD - Wikipedia:Nfc#Images#4 expands on NFCC 8: Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary. The image itself and source material for critical commentary the image likely are in Big Al. Whether Big Al is source material for critical commentary on the image is something that should be discussed at IMFD. -- Suntag ☼ 07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I'd connect that particular guideline to NFCC#8, but anyhow it sounds broadly irrelevant to me. IFD is not for discussing if an image could meet the criteria, the question is does it? If it can, then fix the problems and reupload, same as AFD, speedy deletion etc. fix the problems and recreate. They decision aren't of the "never ever" sort (Though for some of the NFCC that's pretty much the effect), and aren't supposed to be. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

MilkyTracker is now released as GPL. It is now much more mature, and it is to be included in the next Ubuntu (Intrepid Ibex)[28]. It has many more features than SoundTracker (which is notable), and it is being actively developed. Ysangkok (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. No problem with AfD. From this nom, it sounds like an effort of promotion. No sign of independent secondary sources. Wait until after it has been released, promoted, tested, used and commented on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as Afd closer). The concern of the AfD was a lack of independent, reliable sourced from which to establish notability and this is not addressed by the nom. Indeed of the factors mentioned only the inclusion in an Ubuntu build is even marginally related to notability and the decision to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the AfD discussion obviously could have done with a few more comments, but the result seems perfectly correct. --Stormie (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see no reason given above to change the result of the AfD. Feel free to recreate, but please only do so if you can find some good coverage of it. And please note that, to my knowledge, being included in Ubuntu does not grant notability without meeting WP:N. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. Simply being released is not sufficient. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 26 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Pro-forma nomination, Hag2 (talk · contribs) wishes to request review per User_talk:MBisanz#Truly_amazing, but does not understand how to initiate the DRV process. MBisanz talk 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing admin, AfD was open 9 days, all tagging was performed, all comments supported deletion, no other aberrations noted. Process followed. MBisanz talk 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against deletion. Although I have never read the article in question, I believe that several things should be emphasized here: First of all, not one single commentor made note of the fact that THE OCTOPUS (POLITICS) is a significant element of the U.S. political scene. Alfred W. McCoy first made note of THE OCTOPUS in his 1972 book The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. Claire Sterling followed McCoy's expose` in 1990-94 with books: Octopus: The Long Reach of the International Sicilian Mafia, Crime Without Frontiers, and Thieves' World: The Threat of the New Global Network of Organized Crime. Danny Casolaro investigated something which he referred to as THE OCTOPUS, and his investigation eventually led to twenty years of U.S. history centering around suspicious political skulduggery that involved Inslaw, Iran-Contra, Oliver North, and Ronald Reagan—just to mention a few noteworthy elements. If I were able to READ THE ARTICLE, I may be able to offer more insight—at least more than the four people who offered absolutely no reason for supporting the article's deletion. Hag2 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse There is notable material for an article on this, but the most important of it is about much earlier material from the 19th and early 20th century--most of it is not about current politics, nor is it about the particular conspiracy theory that you emphasise. My advice was for someone who can work with the whole material from a neutral point of view to start over. I'll userify the contents for anyone who wants it for that purpose, but not to recreate anything like the article that was deleted. DGG (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well,well well all anyone ever needed to do was direct me to the cache. After finding that,...I too endorse this deletion. Octopus (politics) (as written) is little more than superficial, nonsenical, and theatrical gobbledy-gook. I expected a great deal more. Hag2 (talk) 01:27, 23 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I Am Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Okay, there's been some disputes. Some people have boldly merged this into App Store because people think that having an article for it is a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENT, yet however, we had an AFD discussion which ended in Keep, not merge, indicating there was consensus to keep it as is. But, there has still been disputes over the consensus on Talk:App Store. I have taken this to DRV just to allow for a more thorough discussion. ViperSnake151 18:56, 22 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Please undelete the page on "Moe! Staiano" He created the instruments for and was a member of Sleepytime Gorillia Museum, a band which has a sizeable following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.144.131 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

The Gracie diet is a famous diet, in order to eat healthy and stay healthy. It was developed by Carlos Gracie, the father of Gracie Jiu Jitsu. Therefore it is not some diet i made up. Everytime I put it on it gets deleted by wikipedia. I even put tons of references and it still gets taken down. I would like to contest it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatirnitzany (talk • contribs)

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


21 September 2008

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

Global Underwater Explorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Article was created and was immediately listed for a speedy delete (most likely on the basis that it had been deleted on 4 previous occasions). {{Hangon}} tag was put on the article, and some preliminary arguments for the keep listed on the talk page, but that notwithstanding it was deleted within an hour and a half. Tried to resolve with Admin, he is travelleing, but he agreed in principal with it going through deletion review, although he stands by his original decision.

Sound reasons why it should at least go through the AfD process. Amongst the List of diver training organizations, GUE is the third largest (arguable second largest) technical diver training organisation - it seems incongruous that the two above it and organisations below it should have articles, but it is not notable enough for one itself. Even a simple Google search reveals at least a basic level of notability.

Qualifications: I accept the stub that I created wasn't a very good one - not really my field - I thought it needed at least a stub because of the number of related redlinks. Not clear why it was deleted on several prior occasions; spamming by people connected with organisation?

But I do think it deserves an article, and should at least should have gone through a formal AfD review. Assuming we get that far, I will marshall up some better third party sources to indicate why I think it should not be deleted --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • try again on your user space and provide some indications of 3rd party reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases) that show something of notability. That will pass speedy at any rate. Even my my relatively flexible standards there was no reason given why this is a technical diving certification agency was important, or considered to be recognized as a standard certifying agency. But, even so, if, as it asserts, its associated with the Woodville Karst Plain Project, the question will then be whether that apparently local group is of sufficient importance that the organization certifying divers for it is important also. If however you are developing national standards, that would be significant. But we go by what the sources show. DGG (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I created a page within the my userspace to marshall a few arguments: User:Legis/GUE. As I mentioned, I am neither a technical diver nor anything to do with GUE, so I will leave a couple of posts on relevant message boards to see if I can garner some more insights with those who have better understanding of the topic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A GUE diver contacted me to point out that GUE has articles on the Swedish, German and Norwegian language Wikipedias. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and of course feel free to create a userspace version or recreate in mainspace with one that doesn't make any of the speedy critera (I suggest the former, to be on the safe side). Skimming what you've got up in your userspace, it appears that an article could be written, but I can't make any real judgments unless I actually see an article. I'm happy to userfy or email you the content as a starting point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one doesn't make A7, at least, but it doesn't demonstrate notability either. I do not suggest putting that version in the mainspace. What you need is to demonstrate that there are things written about GUE, rather than just trivially mentioning it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD. This is a close call. I's probably vote delete on the merits since see only one substantial independent source. But the draft is clearly not a speedy candidate and would benefit from a full AfD discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Lack of independent sources. Too much chance that this is a promotional effort. Recreate a proper article in userspace, and be sure to include independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 26 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

See also

(I don't think this list is complete yet).

Examples of spamdalism:

WP:SPAs:

Previous reviews

This might run a bit long. Anyway, I was looking through a band's website that my friend recommended to me and I noticed a thread on their attempts to get a Wikipedia article about themselves, which was speedily deleted through WP:CSD/A7. Now, the manner in which this artist's fans tried to restore their article was not the best; I believe they attempted to recreate their article multiple times instead of going to DRV, if what I've figured out is correct. Anyways, the article as last published according to deletionpedia fell nowhere near A7. A7 demands that bands assert notability, which the articlemakers clearly did, citing multiple independent, reliable sources. A Second AFD run or different CSD criterion would have been better

Regardless of the method of deletion, I don't think this article would even fail AFD if presented there. There are several independent sources confirming his existence and key details about his music. [29] [30] [31] [32].

Note: While this was one of many reasons I decided to try and come back to Wikipedia, I didn't rejoin with the sole intention of posting a DRV for a band. Chris Picone! 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Again: For WP:COI reasons as well as to prevent anything ugly from happening, I've asked the community "involved" with the once-constant recreation of the article to refrain from posting "votes" here, as they probably have nothing to add related to Wikipedia policy. Chris Picone! 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that this is an artist whose work is all self-published, and whose promotional method is viral marketing. Sometimes such acts will take off, but I don't see any evidence that this act has done so. There's no evidence of hitting any of the major charts, for example (compare with Dr Horrible, which made the Billboard top 40 on release), and all the merchandise at the store is either Cafepress type or "Dr Steel does not yet have enough money to make this". I believe the fundamental problem is that while the image is great, the music itself is bland and fails to live up to the "mad scientist" hype. If the guy was as good at making innovative music as he is at self-promotion, he'd be at #1 on the Billboard and no mistake. And of course it also does not help that they come back every time there is another namecheck on the radio. I would say the brief appearance on Leno is the high point of recognition, and that was long before the AfD and the three endorsed deletion reviews we've already had. I don't see any new evidence of significance to justify overturning, especially given the lengthy history of gaming, wikilawyering, G4 reposts, copyright violations and other abuse. The bottom line is, Steel's fans are desperate for an article on Wikipedia as a crucial part of their viral marketing, they have a long-term orchestrated campaign to make that happen, but the subject simply is not getting substantial mainstream coverage. This is underground stuff. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... just because there's a rabid underground fan base that wants an article on this doesn't mean that the result is inherently an advertisement. I don't think anyone at Wikipedia thinks that their actions are appropriate here, but denying it via WP:NOT is assuming that the only reason the article should exist is because fans want free advertising. The issue, and why the article was deleted, is if the artist meets WP:BAND. He has the necessary "multiple, independent, non-trivial sources" to meet the first criterion of it, so can't a case be made that, independent of the fanbase's desire, he's gotten /some/ media coverage? Then again, making an argument based on a strict interpretation fo the rules isn't what Wikipedia's about, so a few sources over a few years might not be enough. Chris Picone! 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that this is essentially a self-published underground act with virtually no significant coverage other than as a result of viral marketing. It's dead easy to make a website and a CD these days, rather harder to get signed by a major label or make the charts. It's extremely hard to find anything provably independent written about this act, because the same technique that's been used on Wikipedia is used elsewhere. More importantly, the level of coverage does not appear to have increased over time, as it did with Dr. Horrible or the execrable Jeffree Starr. The viral marketing has not resulted in non-trivial mainstream coverage, and the long history of abuse means that many of us are going to wait until it's unambiguously supported from reliable independent sources before we'll buy it. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media coverage pointed to in most of these discussions are either glancing blows (eg the Rochester newspaper article - one line), blogs (most of the sources in the last version discussed), or not really useful. Doctor Steel has not received mainstream attention enough to be considered notable, and thus the A7 was quite appropriate. Endorse and keep deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bother, while your point is completely valid, A7 if I recall correctly is for articles that don't even try to assert their notability, which the article at least attempted to do. It did fall under recreation of deleted content... Chris Picone! 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not thinking recreation is a good idea at this point. The links given above don't really look to me to give notability, and so it'd still fail CSD G4 at this point. I'm open to being convinced otherwise with more links, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, normally I'd agree that that particular application of CSD A7 was not correct, but the article wouldn't last five minutes at AfD. The sourcing is feeble, and I don't think it'd pass the WP:MUSIC notability criteria either. There has been consensus (not withstanding the swarm of socks) to delete this article previously, and I don't see any changes in the good Doctor's status that would make the previous judgement invalid. Arguably, the article was also eligible for CSD G4 when it was deleted, too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, per Guy's excellent analysis. I think Doctor Steel is going to have to fall into that category of articles which must have a version worked up in userspace, establishing notability via impeccable sourcing to reliable sources independent of the subject, before it can be seriously considered by DRV. --Stormie (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and suggest any further attempts be speedy-closed unless something really changes. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the place to do "viral" marketing for your unsigned band. Most folks don't take dozens of deletions to figure that out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis user essay seems relevant. An unfortunate effect of pushing against a consensus to delete is that the consensus becomes entrenched and unlikely to change even when it should. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, per Guy's excellent analysis. The easiest thing to do would be to create a userspace article and present it to DVR in a request that it be posted to article space over the prior deletions. Deletionpedia shows an article that includes much of what Dr. Steel says about himself during interviews. That self generated information is not independent of Dr. Steel. To get over the DRV hump, I suggest only using third party material and making the persona character distinct from the real human behind the character.-- Suntag ☼ 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. blog.wired.com
2. cinematical.com
3. suicidegirls.com
4. regenmag.com.
  • The Wired and Cinematical sources are bloggy, what I'd consider "glancing blows," and don't have a lot of substance to work from other than "fans think Dr. Horrible was lifted from Dr. Steel". The Suicide Girls and Regen interviews are in-character interviews of the good doctor, and as noted above are essentially primary sources. That's the biggest issue here - any references are either right out of the fan base or are direct interviews with the character. There's little real-world information to work with here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 23 September 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 September 2008

[edit]

19 September 2008

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

Ron Rocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD2)

Additional Resources not considered http://www.guggenheim.org/finding_aids/display.php?/A0035 786460 344 The Guggenheim Museum to Present the Performance of Artist Ron Rocco 7/22/1983

leoalmanac.org/journal/vol_4/lea_v4_n06.txt Ron Rocco presents a web version of his work "The Horizon is Nothing More ..... Berlin, Germany: "The Berlin Project" Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, N.Y., ...

Virtual Disturbance Taylor, Diana, 1950- TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 140-141 (Article)

Partial Access PDF Version (174k) ...Ricardo Dominguez and Ron Rocco http://www.artnetweb.com/port/grabs/...

Subject Headings: 

   * New York University -- Employees -- Political activity.
   * Cyberterrorism -- New York (State) -- New York.
   * Cavallo, Domingo, 1946-
   * Internet -- Political aspects.

Incumbent upon Recombinant Hope: EDT's Strike a Site, Strike a Pose Carroll, Amy. TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 145-150 (Article)

Partial Access PDF Version (58k) ...by Dominguez and artist Ron Rocco (October 1996–March 1997), a...

Subject Headings: 

   * Electronic Disturbance Theater.
   * Dominguez, Ricardo.
   * Internet -- Political aspects.
   * Cyberterrorism.

Digital Zapatistas Lane, Jill, 1967- TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 129-144 (Article)

Partial Access PDF Version (177k) ...Ricardo Dominguez and Ron Rocco http://www.artnetweb.com/port/grabs/...

Subject Headings: 

   * Electronic Disturbance Theater.
   * Internet -- Political aspects.
   * Cyberterrorism.

Electronic Disturbance Theater: Timeline 1994-2002 Dominguez, Ricardo. TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 132-134 (Article)

Partial Access PDF Version (174k) ...Ricardo Dominguez and Ron Rocco http://www.artnetweb.com/port/grabs/...

Subject Headings: 

   * Internet -- Political aspects.
   * Cyberterrorism.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDE1E30F931A15757C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Ron Rocco's Works on What Has Been Spoiled (1994), a mixed media piece comprised of cardboard, Plexiglas, photo-etched copper and artificial light, is the exhibition's most potent piece.

Displayed directly on the floor, the brownish tones of the back-lighted image that covers the central piece of Plexiglas suggests, but does not limit itself to, the dangers of the pursuit of power. The image, which is difficult to decipher, looks like a bald eagle as roadkill. The thick layers of strapped-together, flattened cardboard boxes that frame the image is a stroke of genius, adding to the impermanent feeling of the work.

http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=950DE1DD1538F935A15756C0A967948260

DANCE: 'LASER SCULPTURE'

By JENNIFER DUNNING Published: May 26, 1981, Tuesday 

Laser Sculpture Dance, a brief collaborative project presented Saturday at a Duane Street loft theater. The bodies of the three female dancers did assume the sculptured look that most bodies do in dance.

... Program notes credited Ron Rocco with the artistic direction and installation. -- 207.38.174.237 (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the unanimous consensus at AfD. The AfD did specifically discuss the sources, and found them trivial or otherwise unsuitable. Nominator ahould take note that DRV is NOT AfD round 2! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrr, I be endorsin' this here deletion. That thar AfD be clear a snowball. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, me hearties. lifebaka++ 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The original discussion attracted almost no attention, and was closed incorrectly as a keep by a non-admin after 4 days. It was relisted, but for only 2 days additional, and attracted delete !votes entirely. This split was not sufficient to get the proper attention to the article. I , for example, intended to make a comment (I do not know which way it would be) after I had looked further at the sources. I don't want to evaluate them now, for this is not Afd2. Unfortunately , there's no way of doing AfD2 after a delete, only after a keep, so the way of dealing with this absurd bias toward deletion by repeated AfD is to relist. A rush to close has now incorrectly produced opposite results in two successive AfDs for the same article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:02, September 19, 2008
  • Relist DRV is not a forum where the most smartest people use their huge brains and try to divine what would have happened if we did follow process. It is merely a place where average wikipedians look at the evidence and determine if we *did* follow process. Here we clearly did not. The perceived liklihood of a relist producing different results notwithstanding, a relist is the reasonable thing to do, IMHO. That two back-to-back listings of the same discussion with no change in the article content produced opposite results is a good indicator that something went wrong. Where at least one editor has opined that he would have participated, and potentially contrary to the existing delete !votes, if the second listing was completed for the full listing period, it is especially important to relist it now. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Tis valid points above. I be wantin' to reopen now, for the same reasons. I be thinkin' them two above me be wantin' the same. I still be thinkin' that the close was valid at the time, howe'er. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the close was proper. I can't help thinking that the requester is the article subject; the subject created the article and is almost certainly the IP resposnible for virtually all the edits (which is probably why it read like a PR piece). I suggest we leave this until an established user wants to create an article untainted by apparent self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on facts by closing admin. The first AfD was closed after 4 days. It was relisted 30 hours later and closed again after 4 days (not 2 as stated by DGG above). The discussion has been available for 8 days, which is more than enough time for participation. The two AfDs produced opposite results, only because the closer of the first one misread the one comment made in it and interpreted it in the opposite way to the way it was meant. Having understood what was meant, the closer endorsed deletion: "The problem was that I read the initial comments of Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs) to mean that he had added sources that "passes" WP:CREATIVE and missed the word "nothing". My only excuse for that is that I am dyslexic."[33] That was the only thing that "went wrong". In the light of the above, I don't see any problem with the closing of this AfD. If the creator thinks it can be improved, the proper course is to userfy it. Ty 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TY, I kinda see your point, but what harm would relisting it do? If it would give editors the warm fuzzy feeling that the process was fairer, wouldn't it be kinda good to do? If you are certain that the results would not change, then why not do it? It's not a matter of draw-and-quarter the admin or not, it's just a matter of would relisting result in more people being satisfied with the results? If so, how about let's just go do it? If it was done "with approval of closing admin", then it even lets you save face. The ethereal win-win we all tend to seek. So, what say you, matee? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with process being carried out in the spirit of it, even if there is some legalistic point of objection. I suggest a far fairer solution is to userfy the article, and then you can work with the editor to address the problems. If they are met, the article can be moved into article space. That seems to me to be the fairest course of action and the one most likely to favour the article, rather than rushing it back into an AfD in its present state, where we have already seen a unanimous response. What do you say? It doesn't particularly worry me if it goes back to AfD: I just think it's not the best thing to do. Ty 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per others above. I can't open all the links, but I notice most (not all) seem be reviews by drama critics, not art critics. They help, but don't seem to me to be enough to get him over WP:CREATIVE. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AfD (2nd nomination) - The first AfD closed as keep. After a keep close, you generally need about three months or so before opening a second AfD, not two days. If you didn't like the non-admin close of AfD#1, you should have contacted an admin to reclose it. If you didn't like the 4 day close of AfD#1, you should have relisted that AfD or posted a request to review AfD#1 at DRV. Starting AfD2 is not the same thing as relisting AfD1 because the AfD1 discussion is not physically present in AfD2. AfD2 was out of process because it was too early after a keep AfD and it was only open for four days itself. Process is there to allow every one to feel they are being treated fairly, even those on the losing end of that process. Overturn AfD (2nd nomination). In view of the circumstances, it seems reasonable to allow the article to be relisted at AfD as AfD (3rd nomination) with a note to let it run for five full days and a suggestion that only an admin close it so everyone can be happy. -- Suntag ☼ 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first AfD was a non-admin closure which any admin can review and overturn. An admin did and asked closer to relist, which he did. The admin could have over-ruled it and simply closed as delete. In this case there is no need for a time lag. AfD#1 was linked from AfD#2 so was accessible to editors contributing to the latter. The closer of AfD#1 has said he made a mistake as he didn't read the comment in it properly and now agrees with deletion, as I've pointed out above. The debate on this article has been available to editors for 8 days in total. That is plenty of time for contributions, and the ones made are all for delete. This article has been treated fairly. Ty 01:46, 20 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

SDU is a legitimate Business providing a free user community to clients of CA's Unicenter Service Desk product. Other pages were referenced when created ServiceDeskUsers. I'm not sure what makes this page so different than the ones I was referencing, but I am open for suggestions as to what I can do to fulfill Wikipedia standards. Gityerfix (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion review is a venue where users can request the review of a deletion where the deletion process was not followed. It is not a chance to try and get different opinions than those voiced at a valid deletion debate. Endorse deletion. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arr, I also be endorsin' this deletion. Thar be no reason to be here, parlay or no. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 15:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmmmm when did lifebaka become a pirate? Anyway, I agree that this AfD was closed properly, and this DRV does not make a credible appeal for the process to be further reviewed. It is unfortunate that the discussion did not receive very much participation, but those who did participate made valid arguments for deletion, and we do not have a quorum requirement for AfD. Having looked at the deleted content, it is indeed unreferenced and somewhat promotional in nature. If an editor wants to work on this article in their userspace and then request a review to repost it, then I would be willing to userfy the deleted content for them. But as for this DRV, Endorse deletion and Speedy close. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of spammy article by WP:SPA. Who is also the review requester. Amazingly. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin All comments at AFD indicated delete in line with policies. MBisanz talk 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I didn't know my AFD came back here. But yes, endorse. rootology (C)(T) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. AFD was closed properly. --Banime (talk) 00:54, 21 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Request Temporary Review -- either the article restored to my userspace so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion; or, the source of the article emailed to me to review 'off-Wiki'.

-- Agletp (talk) 06:47, 19 September 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 September 2008

[edit]
  • Matt Lee (musician) – I see no reason why we should host a discussion where the nominator uses the platform to abuse and impugn the motives of other editors. If you want a deletion review you start by showing the multiple non-trival independant reliable sources that are required for this person to meet our notability criteria. Until then please chill and treat others users with the respect and good faith that you would expect in return. – Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Matt Lee (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)(DRV) (AfD 2nd nomination)

Asking for review at request of article's creator. It is not clear that there was consensus to delete and in any event since the Afd nomination additional references supporting notability have been added. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note - You can see hard copy of Mr.Lee's writing and publishing credit in the 2nd photo in the site. It is hard copy, but the actual lp's liner notes from The Divine Horsemen record Devil's River. You can IMDB the movie bikini Island and see that his song Shot Down is in the movie. It is listed in the movie's end credits too.D.Schneider(69.231.39.97 (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and Un-Delete I wrote this article and worked very hard at it. I will take any help offered and the notability factor is there, regardless of what these other notes have to bring. They are in touch with each other, obviously, or the response would'nt have been so much so fast. Tricky has been on this like white on rice and apparently brought in a friend,suntag, whom has never been in on this article or posted a comment ever, to show expert critique and knowledegeable opinion based on tricky's request. Tricky at one point even endorsed this for re-nomination for afd consensus # 2. He has been going out of his way to delete this for some unknown reason and contacted Coren to find out why this article ,which was just nominated for deletion , had'nt been removed yet. :) . I feel this has been under unfair attack because the refs of notability have been included. I believe that this page should have more discussion. There were only two critics of this page and there were many more that supported a review when it was saved from deletion the first time. Mr. Lee has provided me hard copy of his credits which I posted to this site and it seems it was'nt looked at. There are refs of notability here and if we need more we'll get them. I just need time. The lyric/writing credit sheet has Mr. Lee's info on it and is here on this site in hardcopy. I've also put in a request at coren's site. These editors seem to be in a huge rush to delete this article. Sorry if they don't like punk rock or Mr. Lee, b ut I want a review of this, as the article was originally ok'd and then appealed by nard who so carefully watched this site as did tricky. They both pushed with all their collective might to delete this and will not stop until it's gone. I feel there's gross prejudice shown by them, because they did'nt even offer to help with the article, they just have been trashing it. look at the prior comments on this article before this last afd was proposed and see that there was support from others re: this article. If you look at the tag on the Matt Lee(musician) talk page, you will see that this page was accepted. It was then contested, but since then more and more notability refs have been added. Mr.Lee also has a new record signed to HepCat Records,subsidy of Interscope Records(same label as Britney Spears, Led Zeppelin's new record,The StrayCat's new record,and the list goes on....)coming out in nov/dec time. This is a major release. He also has records out for sale to this day with The Divine Horsemen at Atavistic records and at rollingstone.com . You can go to their record store and pull up The Divine Horsemen there. You'll be re-directed to The Flesh Eaters (band) site there. It's a combinant site for The Flesh Eaters (band)/The Divine Horsemen space there. D.Schneider(69.231.39.97 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note Who is suntag? This person is attacking like they've been on this case and suntag has never ever been invloved before. This is a person that is friends with tricky sockpuppeting here to delete this article.suntag never had anything to do with this and is all of a sudden so passionate about finalizing things.I am allowed a time to appeal this deletion just the same way that nard appealed this article when it was kept . There needs to be more experienced editors on this and not the same two (tricky and nard ) and their friends. This article is not getting a fair shake at all. There is evidence of notability and I want the highest admin to look over the two afd's that have transpired and look at the notes. That will show these two editors, if they are editors, have a vendetta and that the article deserves to be kept like it was before these two appealed the keep. Thank you.

D.Schneider(69.231.39.97 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC))(69.231.39.97 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note so far suntag has padded up this consensus with three entries. Does'nt suntag have any other articles to work on? So far tricky and suntag are the only ones commenting.This is all related to tricky somehow. I know tricky has this on his watch list too. Why are these two pushing SO hard? We need other commentary from non-related senior staff. D.Schneider(69.231.39.97 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Understanding your passion for this article I will not respond to your accusations. I will let my edit history speak for itself. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • see??? THOR even agrees.
  • I thought that notability would be established by showing mr.Lee's hard copy of his writing credits here.

with a little time and guidance I will improve the article to help it along. Just let me know what else I can do. I'd like to hear from someone with experience that can help and not destroy. Not one of these comments shows any reason why this article should be deleted. D.Schneider(69.231.39.97 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also , tricky's immediate response shows me he's on a mission to delete this article. I don't find any creedence to the arguments here so far because no resasons for deletion have been listed. There's only "delete", "endorse delete" and obviously no review here. Edit background or no edit background, tricky shows an overly concerted effort to destroy an article with viability and notability. It seems to me that tricky may have an ego issue here. Once he's decided on deleting, he's set to the ends of the earth to follow through. That's not editing, that's search and destroy. I'd like a fair hearing and not a kangaroo court. Kangaroo courts are not Wiki like behaviour. Thank you. D. Schneider(69.231.39.97 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Got deleted for several reasons

I need a review of my article before I upload it again. Thomasrk (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, all deleted versions appear to be copyvios. Endorse and do not restore. Thomasrk, I suggest you review our notability inclusion criteria for companies and make sure that TARGIT meets it before reposting an article about it, and when you do, write the article from scratch. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 18 September 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:National Nine News Darwin opener.png – Deletion endorsed. As pointed out below, the "keep" voters in the IfD responded to the nominator's claim of "purely decorative" but did not address how the image satisfied the fair use requirements, giving the closing admin discretion to consider any valid arguments brought up by the nominator to be essentially unopposed. Furthermore, while it is true that considerable leniency has been given to logos, this is strictly speaking not a logo but a logo superimposed upon a photograph to be used as an opening for the program. – Chick Bowen 05:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:National Nine News Darwin opener.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Image deleted against the consensus which was keep, the image did not fail NFCC#8 as the image was used to show the news opener which is only unique on NTD and no other channel owned by the Nine Network Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I reviewed this image before it was nom'd to IFD and think it is the best minimal FU we can have, while still providing context on the topic. Further, a vote of 3 Keep, 1 Delete at IFD is at best No Consensus and probably a Keep close. MBisanz talk 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Mbisanz. 3 keeps vs. 1 delete, with rational arguments pro and con, does not easily spell delete.John Z (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment close seems perfectly reasonable. Three respondants (other than nom) (Noting ones inappropriate attempt to attack the nominators motive, rather than their argument) all seemed to concentrate on the nom's suggestion of "purely decorative" than NFCC#8 itself, which is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - there is a big gap between something being purely decorative and "significantly increase..." in this instance maybe the respondants are correct that it isn't purely decorative, but they don't address the "significantly increase..." part of the actual criteria. The article says "The opener used for National Nine News Darwin uses an aerial shot of Darwin with the National Nine News logo and date." not sure how the image can Significantly increase undestanding beyond that. So in the strength of arguments stakes the Nom cited NFCC#8, the respondants failed to show any significance hence didn't overcome NFCC#8.--82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, in the absence of a bright-line rule consensus is the only thing that we have to decide these issues. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the image is restored, and replaced in the article NTD, will it then be accompanied by critical commentary and discussion as in the non-free content acceptable use guidelines? Reviewing wherein this this image was removed [34], there isn't any currently. In fact, there's appears to be a description of the removed image already? WP:NFCC#1?

    Are these pertinent warrants to consider before possibly overturning only to nominate for deletion again? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is a logo, to quote from our logo guidelines, Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes., this image will go in the NTD#News to provide the reader understanding about the local version of the national news program produced specifically at this stuido. MBisanz talk 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, I inferred from reading the IfD nomination and the discussions there that this had been a television screenshot. So the 0.6KB section needs another logo in this article for identification and to significantly increase readers' understanding?

        In IfD discussions, arguments supported by policies and guidelines determine retention or deletion, not !votes based on WP:IT'SIMPORTANT, WP:IS NOT!, or WP:THISEDITORDOESN'TCOUNT. While the nomination was on WP:NFCC#8 (and I'll argue, not contested), but those involved here in discussion should make sure this meets the acceptable use guidelines and all of the non-free criteria or it will just be nominated for deletion again under those tenants.

        I personally cannot judge on the appropriateness of this closure because I cannot see the image and corroborate the argument for deletion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • It appears to be a screen shot of the logo, I know the prior image was a screen shot of the logo that also included the anchor, and I advised against that image, since we don't need a person's image in it to gain context. Just clarifying the exact nature. MBisanz talk 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, the article already has a logo image Image:Channelnine.svg, so why does it need two? That was not answered at the IfD. Also, a screen shot of a logo that also included the news anchor is a screen shot, not a logo. Television screen shots need only be accompanied by sourced "discussion of the ... television (show? screenshot?)" (yes, it is vague) to meet NFC Images No. 5. What sourced discussion of the television supported use of the image? That was not answered at the IfD. A sourced discussion on the overall visual look and feel of this particular news show would seem to be enought to keep the image. But if no source mentions the overall visual look and feel of the local news show, then why should Wikipedia attempt this via a screen shot? -- Suntag ☼ 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (from closing admin) The article is about television station NTD, so the NTD station logo in the infobox is acceptable, but the subtopic of the news program does not warrant the use of another copyrighted image. The text of the section describes the opening of the news program enough to put it in context. A logo over a generic aerial shot with no supported critical commentary on the image falls well below the bar set at WP:IFD and WP:DRV for meeting WP:NFCC#8. It is generally supported that local consensus does not win over policy. Given theses factors the proper course of action was to delete the image. -Nv8200p talk 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (from original nominator). It isn't a logo, and it isn't needed to "identify" the show (the name alone does that alright). No other substantial arguments were brought forward in the IfD for keeping it, so the deletion call was correct. Keep votes didn't rise above mere assertions of "meets the criteria", without specifying how it did so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm pretty sure that we judge consensus against policy not headcount and I'm also not seeing any clear explanation how this logo fulfils anything other then a decorative purpose. Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I have said the image/screenshot is unique to NTD which also identifies NTD's National Nine News and no other TV station owned by the Nine Network which also ATM are rumors in the media that another network will take it over and axe the news[35]. All I'm seeing is editors over using a policy with others backing up "freinds" when the image does infact meet the policy. Bidgee (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What an staggering assumption of bad faith on your part. Instead of criticising the views of other users you would be better placed to actually explain clearly what the image adds that cannot be explained in text. Spartaz Humbug! 10:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not bad faith at all since it's fair to say. I have explained (I've even had MBisanz look at the image and put it this way we are not "friends" just someone who I get to look at something for an option) what the image has only to have others ignore what I've said or just try and change the subject. Bidgee (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A couple of people is not "consensus", consensus is reflected by policy. In this case policy says we don't have screenshots without a compelling reason. The function of identifying is fulfilled by the ident / logo in the infobox, this was just a random screengrab with no real evidence of critical commentary (do we have sources discussing the prominent use of the date, or the background image? Does the image change?) Guy (Help!) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn possibly relist. This isn't a case of consensus vs. policy. Instead, this is about if there is consensus that this is or isn't passing said policy. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse. I think the close was correct as a matter of policy and that that fact is established by the IfD even though more users argued keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 24 September 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 September 2008

[edit]
  • South Korean cultural claims – Out of process (too early) I am closing this discussion myself to overturn my decission to keep, and reclose as no consensus. I still stand behind my original closing, but the community has shown to disagree. Though almost nobody explicitly requests overturning the close, I believe that there is a general sentiment that believes there was no consensus at the debate, but they don't feel the need to overturn. I believe that overturning at this stage is better than dragging on a discussion on weather or not changing keep to no consensus is useful. I'll relist the article for AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) – Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

South Korean cultural claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Strictly speaking, the result was "no consensus" unlike the closing statement and I think the closing even counted the votes from SPA accounts's !vote. If such people are excluded, opinion for "delete" is more than the people who want to keep it. Besides, the closing admin weighted in his opinion that the WP:SYNTHESIS based on absurd rumors spread by Japanese/Chinese unreliable web forums and yellow media would greatly benefit the encyclopedia.. If the claims are established by majority of South Korean (As for myself, I've not heard of more than half of the rumors/alleagations), the article would have some merits, but I wonder the self-contradictory article would help the reputation of this online Encyclopeida. I think the article should be deleted for the addressed reasons at the discussion page. Caspian blue (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the debate ended in "keep", you think the result should be "no consensus". Am I reading this right? Keeper ǀ 76 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the admin closed the discussion as "keep" by his/her own judgment. I think it should be deleted, but somewhat expected that if the article was deletedkept by any closing admin, the rationale would be "no consensus". --Caspian blue (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out, but "no consensus" != "delete". If it closed as delete, there'd have to be consensus to do so. No comment on the AfD in question. lifebaka++ 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. well, that is not what I meant. There were canvassing/SPA accounts emerged, and editors there addressed toward "delete" more. I don't think "no consensus = "delete".--Caspian blue (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with the fix above it makes sense. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize that I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I really don't know what the nominator/requester is asking for here. Is the request to overturn a keep with a no consensus (keep)? So we are being particular about what flavor of keep we want these days? This seems all too familiar to me. Why not just renominate it in 3 months? Or was some other request being made that I failed to grasp? If the latter, could the requester please elucidate?Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do people here try to see the only minor flaw of my statement instead of looking at the whole picture? --Caspian blue (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the result as no consensus, which is of course a keep. (The only difference is that it can be renominated sooner) To delete there has to be consensus to delete. At the AfD, I said "keep and rewrite completely" That may have been unduly optimistic, for there seems to have been no agreement about how to rewrite it, or what the article should cover. I suppose the common-sense thing to try is for some uninvolved people to try & if the result isn't liked, renominate in a few months. I would support an agreement by which the previous editors abstained for a while while other tried. That's not a normal Deletion Review close, but admins do have the power to do a topic ban for the good of the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, for one, have no problems if people come to DRV asking for "keep" closes to be changed to no consensus. It means they are coming here (presumably) focused on process and not outcome. To tell people in one DRV that they shouldn't come here just if they don't like the outcome then tell them in another that they should come here only if they want the outcome changed isn't the best approach. This doesn't look strictly like that, but that's my speech. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the nomination statement in haste, so I clarified it.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum Rewriting/cleaning up seem impossible since some Japanese editor falsely accused me of being a liar on contrary to his repeated lying on my edits[36][37] and personal attacks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if there is a bad editor, it does not mean it is impossible to make the article better. It sounds like you think that only you are right and that anyone who is against your edit is wrong.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my first attempt to clean up the article, and I only faced the user who said something weird and tried to stay the article awful. If users like him keep refusing to clean up the article and working together, well the article would be another good ground for re-nomination within few months if the RV does not go through per commentor's suggestion here.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is impossible to make this article NPOV. It is sourced/referenced with blogs/editorial and news about the blogs/youtube clips (2 min clips of 30 min shows). Some of the voter who voted to Keep stated that this article needs a new NPOV title and reliable sources. That can't be done in this article because the sources are all rumors. I'll wait to see how you guys change the title to comment more on the title, but I don't think a neutral article will be possible. Also someone has to fix the contradictions of the article. The entire point of the article is to state that Koreans are making these claims and taking it seriously, but the Korea news reports on the blogs are stating they don't take it seriously or that the blogs are from people of other nations. We need to stay consistent, do Koreans take this seriously or not. This article seems to be using blogs and editorial to maybe discredit future difference in evaluation of history with Korea and other nations. It doesn't seem possible to re-edit this the way some of the Keep voters wanted. --Objectiveye (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems like a waste of time to have a keep revised to a no consensus, no? Stifle (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well the article can't be re-written the way some of the Keep voters want, so what are we going to do about that? (should their votes be changed or not counted) Can someone please bring in a non-blog/editorial source. And please don't bring in news articles about blogs as a source. --Objectiveye (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
news articles discussing blogs if published in reliable major newspapers can be a perfectly good source if they give useful information.DGG (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What Objectiveye says is wrong. S/he talks as if all the sources are blogs and editorials which are not reliable. But most of the sources are from major newspapers and websites of major organizations, such as All Japan Kendo Federation. S/he just calls anything unfavourable to Korea POV. Even if the article is unfavourable to Korea, it is neutral as long as it is true and it is sourced. Objectiveye states that "the sources are all rumors," but it is not true. What is [38] (Samurai is of Korean origin)? And Samurang? And this (Judo is of Korean origin)? And this (Kabuki is of Korean origin)? And this (Kabuki is of Korean origin)? Korean major newspapers states they are of Korean origin. How can you call them "rumour"? What this page (South Korean cultural claims) states is true and it is sourced. The fact that the article is unfavourable to Korea cannot be the reason to delete it. I call deletion of the article a POV if you ask me.--Michael Friedrich (talk)
  • Endorse and allow relisting at AfD to consider whether South Korean cultural claims is a POV Fork of another article, such as Korean nationalism. The close stated "the subject matter is clearly notable." However, merely because there is enough reliable source material to write an article on a topic is not the end of the AfD inquiry. Delete would not be a proper close. A difference between the effiect of a keep close and a no consensus close is the passage of a reasonable amount of time to the next AfD. A better close may have been no consensus, but meh. I endose the (default) keep and agree to allow the article to be immediately relisted at AfD to consider POV Fork and other article content policy issues not related to notability. -- Suntag ☼ 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Michael Friedrich, a couple of your sources are Japanese editorials and the Korean media is stating they don't take these seriously. We need to fix that contradiction. On one of the sources you pointed out, the very first sentence states Yudo as being Chinese origin (how does this prove your point). The Koreans are claiming that China had grappling martial arts and were teaching the Koreans, so the editorials and that reference is useless. Then I think one of the articles are referencing a fictional movie to make their point. Well, I'll wait to see how the contradictions and the POV title is changed. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:25, 18 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Crossing of Ingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I missed the AfD for this article because I was on a wikibreak at the time. When I discovered the page had been deleted, I did a quick Google search for sources and turned a few up. However, it seems there were some copyvio concerns about the original article, and because of repeated recreation the article has now been salted. As I felt the sources established notability, I contacted Stifle to ask if he could either undelete the page so that I could add these sources, or, if it was a copyvio, unprotect it so that I could create a new non-copyvio version. He suggested that I create a user subpage draft and bring it here so that it could be considered for moving to mainspace. So here it is: User:KittyRainbow/The Crossing of Ingo. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything seriously wrong with it, but I'm not altogether convinced of the book's notability. Are there any sales figures? Stifle (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've yet found. But, as I'm sure we all know, notability != popularity. Sales figures are a nice fact to include in an article, but notability is still determined by the presence of multiple reliable sources... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation The concerns in the AFD relate to the lack of sources to establish notability. I think there is sufficient coverage here to establish notability and thus address the concerns of the AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not convinced of the book's notability, but I'm pretty sure it's good enough for the previous AfD. Allow recreation, but please be prepared for the possibility of another AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging by previous AfDs I have participated in, the sources in this article would be enough to garner a consensus to keep. Simply having another AfD doesn't worry me, I'm prepared for that — but if what you really meant is "if taken to AfD this article would probably be deleted", well, then that is a concern. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation now if you really want, but I can not see how it can be notable quite yet--it has just been published, and, unlike the other Ingo books that are held by hundreds of libraries, almost no library yet holds it. Suggest you wait until there is something substantial rather than risk a second deletion. DGG (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used the WorldCat database to search for library inclusion of this series (I don't know of any other free ones) and there is indeed a marked difference in the number of libraries that hold this book compared to the others. However, it says this book is held in the same number of UK libraries as the previous ones; the difference is in the number of US libraries. And that makes sense, as it hasn't yet been published in the US (and therefore has no reviews from there, either). This book is as notable in the United Kingdom as the others in the series are, and notability in one country is notability everywhere... of course, if you don't feel that it has enough notability in the UK, that's a different matter. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sure, by all means you can show notability from reviews--it's better than library holdings, though they tend to go together--if you cite the reviews in the article and they are more than mentions, and are 3rd party published reviews, not blurbs or blogs or booksellers' press releases--I did not see any listed in the deleted versions of the article. (Yes, World Cat does have that limitation you mention--in the UK it lists mostly major academic libraries, which would not be expected to hold the book. And there is to my knowledge also no equivalent to it for public libraries in the UK.). But consider seriously whether it would not be better to have a good article on the series, with sections on each book, redirects from each of the book titles. I really think that's a better way for all series but the most notable ones--it provides the same information & the article will almost certainly stand. DGG (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'd seen the old article for quite a while before it got deleted, but there are five sources in the new one (six if you include the cite for the longlisting), which I would think would show notability. A series article is a possibility, but as at the moment Wikipedia is only covering 75% of the series, I'd rather we put this article in place and think about merging/redirecting afterwards... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. If there were copyvio concerns, email the deleted contents to User:KittyRainbow, and ask User:KittyRainbow to ensure that previous authors are acknowledged if theri material is used, as per the GFDL. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 19 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Admin ignored both consensus and evidence in deciding AfD outcome. Nonetheless AN/I discussion indicated that a review is required to have the article undeleted. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • edited 10:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Jerry, can you at least do us all the courtesy of explaining why in your close. Rather than "closed as Delete", could we not have a closed as Delete because...", as guided at the deletion process which notes that "a short explanation is also appreciated". It appears it was closed as delete because it was already deleted by User:Eluchil404, who simply cites the afd as a reason, which makes absolutely no sense at all. I have that bacwards. User:Eluchil404 deleted it after Jerry closed the debate. I must be missing something else since I can't see why Jerry didn't delete the article. There's probably an explanation, it is just a shame we have to hear it here. My apologies. Looking at [39] I'm borderline on this one, and I think it's borderline on policy too. But given the process wasn't handled at all well, I guess I'm going to come down on Relist. People want this deleted, go build the consensus or explain it better. Openness is not an option, it is a requirement. Hiding T 10:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. That was not an acceptable close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not opposed to a relist, but I'd also have voted delete since the sources are unreliable or not independent. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Admin-closure did not follow consensus, and has not provided justification for his actions. ffm 12:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The custom is to discount AFD !votes by new or unregistered users, but there were no other comments and hence no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as closing admin. Note that I did delete this article, but the database was giving errors that day, and some things did not go right. I think the developers could explain it, as they seem to have fixed it. There were issues with some deletions occurring with no entry in the log, and some deletions reporting as complete to the user with no actual deletion. Of course I was unaware of the problem, as another admin took care of it. As for the closing, AfD is not a vote, and keeps based on "I like this", and "Wikipedia will suffer without this" sentiment are given absolutely no consideration when determining the outcome. It is just like those comments were not even left. Awkward arguments like this is notable because the website allows you to make an install disk seem to me to be asinine. Unless some independant coverage is shown that recognizes that feature as important enough to cover non-trivially, then it seems hardly noteworthy. And the sources provided were blogs, personal websites, developer websites, and fanatic websites which cover trivially all versions of Linus-variants and clones. When a debate nomination offers credible and valid criterion for deletion, and after a full 5-day listing period and another relist period, there are no contrary valid keep arguments, then it is acceptable to close as delete. There is no quorum requirement for deletion consensus. This was not closed early, it was closed late. There were no valid arguments for keep in the discussion. I stand by my closing. A relist is unlikely to create a different outcome that the first double list did. And I do not see the validity int he statement that I attacked this editor or was in any way uncivil, or that I in any way acted in bad faith or as a rouge admin. These accusations are baseless and unhelpful. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jerry, is there a reason you can't actually explain your closures per process? This is the fourth closure of yours I've seen without one, all of which would not necessarily cause confusion if you were to provide one. Is there a reason you can't provide one? What am I missing? Mind reading abilities? Hiding T 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never underestimate the many benefits of sarcasm and criticism. I look forward to long conversations with you where you can shower me with more. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Imho the outcome should have been "no consensus" as neither keep nor delete votes are convincing. Hopefully relisting will, now that this has gone to AN/I and DRV, generate more discussion, allowing to reach a clear consensus. SoWhy 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make my comment above more clear: I have no problem with relisting this discussion, I just do not see the potential for this article to reach a keep outcome. I do not mind if my closing is reverted and this drv closed as resolved suchly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:37, 17 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jo Shin Ae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

The reason for article deletion is unjustifiable. She is a popular Korean actress and model and thus, can be considered as notable based on basic and additional criterias. I've listed all reliable sources for her notable roles here. Please do take some contemplation and restore the article. Thanks. 87.192.101.246 (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment list of sources copied from talk page listed above: http: //wiki.d-addicts.com/Shin_Ae [40] [41] and in korean [42] [43] [44] [45]. Of the English sources one is a wiki and so not of much use, one is a passing mention and one is an interview so not really independant of the subject. I can't read the Korean ones, but one is the Korean wikipedia which can't be used as a source (and doesn't appear to have any external sources in the article). --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Sorry. Notability is a difficult concept. Notability has to be demonstrated, almost always by comment in reliable, independent sources. Please provide these sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was deleted as WP:CSD#A7, an article on an individual that does not assert notability. The substantive content of the article was: "Shin Ae (Korean: 신애, born March 13, 1982) is a South Korean actress and model." There were some appearances listed, but most were redlinks and one of those which was not was a dab page, another did not name the actress. There is no IMDB profile for this actress, and the article contained no reliable independent sources. I would suggest that userfying for rework may be appropriate, but as an A7 deletion I endorse the decision. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been deleted shortly right after it's been created. It supposed to be more time needed for the editors to work on it. Most of reliable and independent sources are in Korean (eg) since she is a Korean entertainer. If you are searching for English sources, the possibility to find one is almost zero because you know, most Korean entertainment marketing does not reached worldwide market except few of them who actually entered the overseas market. In spite of that, Hancinema is the most reliable and the only best source for non-Korean speakers so far. -- 87.192.101.246 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not add her to the Korean Wikipedia? English Wikipedia is not the only Wikipedia in the world, and others have different inclusion criteria. Ours requires verifiability from non-trivial independent sources, but none were presented. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jo Shin Ae is already in the Korean Wikipedia [46].Daydreamer198 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo much of the above. That was pretty well not a good article and a valid A7 deletion (I might've erred on the side of caution myself, but whatever). I highly suggest rewriting the article so that it shows the subject's notability using nontrivial mentions in reliable, third-party sources. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The model is very famous in South Korea, but well since I can't see the deleted one, I don't know how the article presented her notability. The nominator can work on rewriting the article with the aforementioned sources any time.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation Looking at the article, it asserted roles in 6 TV series on major Korean channels, and two films. Whether it was a valid A7 depends on whether these roles are trivial, & the article gives no direct information on that, and links to two Korean websites one of which shows an English version [47] and appears to be an equivalent to IMdB (she is listed there simply as "Sin-ae", which may explain some difficulty in searching--and there seems to be at least one other Shin-ae in cinema.). That of course means exactly nothing by itself except to prove her real existence, and while there are English language excerpts from other sources there, none specifically indicates any particular notability that I can easily see & some clearly mention her in bit roles. Additionally, 2 of the films have WP articles--looking at them, she has a major role in the 2003 Summer Scent, but not the 2001 Four Sisters. Summer Scent, in turn, is part of Endless Love (TV series), which appears to have been very popular even beyond Korea. So if one does a little work, just within our own confines, there is at least an indication of possible notability. But though admins should check for sources before deleting, really it is expecting too much of us to expect if you think we will do all this routinely. Ideally it should have waited for an admin familiar with Korean cinema and able to read the sources, but again that's a little unrealistic at the English WP. The enWP does and should cover the world, and accepts reliable Korean sources, but it can only do so if the notability can be explained in English. So try again--The ideal source would be reviews of her in major roles, with the key parts quoted for us in English.DGG (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Looking at the Korean article about this actress, ko:신애 (배우), even someone who can't read Korean, like me, can tell that the article has only two sentences of prose and no sources. It's likely that most of this actress's fans know the Korean language and can read whatever Korean-language sources about her exist. Therefore, I would recommend that they concentrate first on improving the Korean Wikipedia article about her first. If, nevertheless, they still want to focus on writing the English Wikipedia article about her first, they should be allowed to do so, but with a warning that the article will be sent to Articles for deletion if they don't find independent reliable sources to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 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 September 2008

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

Pilot (Fringe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Concensus was to Keep the article, not to de facto delete it via redirecting it to the main article Hexhand (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this AfD needs to be reopened (not just overturned, but actually reopened so it can finish). While its my ideal result, I'm really surprised an admin closed it on the same day it was opened without allowing at least the normal 5 day discussion. I've left a note with the closing admin to ask him about it, since Hexhand didn't do that yet and didn't give him time to respond to a second editor's question about it (also, it should be noted that Hexhand has already "reverted" the closing without even waiting for this DRV to get started, much less finish). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x3) Actually, it was closed as a merge per your suggestion, and was just now completely deleted and recreated as a redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the merge was because of my vote... it had to be... but out of the seven votes, only one (mine) was a merge. Huh?? I thought the keeps had a lock. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it seems the admin felt the pilot was just not notable, and that none of the keep responses addressed the concern.[48] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I hope that was not the case. Perhaps he thought the early closure might prevent further rancor? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ECx2) Actually, I had (1) notified Dreadstar; the delay in doing so was I was trying to fix the malformed DRV. Thanks for fixing it, Collectonian; I wish the filing process explained things a bit better. - Hexhand (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the reverting of the redirect, I kinda had to do that to put the DRV template into the article inadvertently deleted by the redirect (I'd provide a diff had not Dreadstar utterly cocked up the ability to do so by purging the article history). As the article is still being worked on, it seemed prudent to do so. - Hexhand (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to both above endorses) I struggle to see why you are so certain this would end as a merge, if this was reopened I would certainly argue strongly for it to be kept. I think the sections on the production, ratings and reception of the episode easily establish independent notability with content that is, much of it, better in the article on the episode rather than on the series (including being the most expensively made tv episode ever!). What about the opinions for keeping the article makes them such bad arguments that we should be ignoring them. I thought the closing admins job was to interpret the consensus of the AFD in line with policy - I fail to see any policy the final version of the article failed. Are we saying that closing admins can now just use their own opinion to decide if articles are notable ignoring those in the AFD? Are we also saying AFDs can be snow closed one way when most opinions argue the other way and no one has pointed out a policy reason for ignoring them? Davewild (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol at Jerry's comment - so, it doesn't matter what the rest of us think, its gonna happen the way it did? Interesting application of how admins police each other and themselves.
Claiming that DRV is pointless pretty much tells us how little purpose you feel the DRV process serves. We are calling an admin on a mistake they actually made? DRV's purpose is to address these mistakes. If an admin isn't willing to even consider that they were wrong, maybe the vigorous application of a large fish is warranted.
Well, as you feel it is of no value to even discuss the matter, I guess you don't have anything else to say. - Hexhand (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion and reopen the AfD. There was no consensus to merge there, and citing a merge closure to G4 is completely wrong. I'd go restore the history myself, but I'm loath to unilaterally overturn an action that's already been brought here (drahmahz = bad). Should a consensus to merge/redirect/delete/eat a monkey develop after the AfD's been open longer, reclose as that. No prejudice against Dreadstar later closing the same AfD, after it's been open for longer (hopefully five days, give or take a few hours).
    I'd also like to note that it is not our job, as admins, to make consensus when closing AfDs. We're only supposed to judge it. Whether or not we agree with the consensus is immaterial (though you are of course allowed to argue your point rather than closing), we are to follow it. There is of course always room to interpret exactly how to close. Thus, it isn't the merge close that bothers me the most (starting a merge discussion may be a good idea in the long run, I don't know, though that is not what the discussion was about) but the G4 that followed. Merge is not delete; redirect is not delete; nothing besides delete is an XfD ending in delete. Reinterpreting a close from keep to merge, then from merge to delete is not how this process works. lifebaka++ 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment, after considering all the comments here and in the AFD, I do see consensus to allow the AFD to run it's course and will abide by that. I'm reopening the AFD. Dreadstar † 23:08, 16 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Contested prod. He is a well known journalist for a popular website, and associated podcast and newsletter. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A roof for my country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

There's a whole hullaballoo about this article at WP:AN, and for some reason no one has just done what we do, which is to list it here. One vote to delete beside the nominator at the AfD. Sources are out there. Can we please just figure out whether this should exist or not without skewering anyone who might have thought otherwise? Thanks. Chick Bowen 15:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to contribute to the review without seeing the article. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to email the most recent content to non-admins on request, or do a history-only undeletion. lifebaka++ 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JzG has since undeleted the history. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfDs of this sort are pretty common. I don't know what all the fuss is about. If an article goes for a relist or two without gathering much attention, it's usually a good sign that the deletion is relatively uncontroversial, since no one can be bothered to come comment on the AfD. So I don't see how we can fault an admin for closing this as delete, regardless of who did it; if it had been closed as no consensus or keep it would plainly be a bad close. So, in the sense that no other close was possible, I endorse this close.
    It does appear that the article could have been salvaged, however. Looking at the old deleted content, there's certainly some good prose to work with. So, how's about we userfy this for someone who wants to work on it, and let it go from there, eh? Sounds pretty reasonable all around. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and userfy if someone wants a copy of the deleted version to work on it by adding references and then recreating an improved version. If I had participated in this AfD, I'd probably !voted keep or weak keep, but the closure itself was valid. The AfD was open for 11 days and, apart from the nom, only one user !voted and gave a well-reasoned delete !vote. I looked at the deleted version on Deletionpedia[49] and at the time of deletion the article had no references apart from several external links to different branches of this organization. The delete voter in the AfD stated that he/she made a good-faith effort to look for sources before casting their !vote. So this case is not a good illustration of the (real) problem that User:WAS 4.250 is complaining about in the AN thread. Procedurally, the close was valid and should be sustained. However, if someone adds sufficient sources (which do appear to exist in this case), the article deserves recreation then. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and userify Not a controversial deletion at the moment of decision. AfD does not require a quorum. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (I think) - A relister relisted the article on on 1 May 2008, writing "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." No further comments came. The closer then found consensus. If the relister concluded no consensus and the closer concluded consensus using the same information, there seems to be no consensus on how to interpret the discussion. Overturn since no consensus. -- Suntag ☼ 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? The relister found no consensus and the later (deleting) admin (Wizardman) did? Admins being inconsistent among each other with how they close AfDs? Surely not!. :-) I agree with you Suntag. I'll let Wizardman (the deleting admin) and Wafulz (the relister) know about this DRV. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't delete things because "no one cared". Anyway, has anyone checked that there wasn't a technical problem with the relisting? If it remained stuck on the old day, and didn't get moved forward, that might explain some things. OK, I've checked, and it did get relisted. It's strange, though, because another AfD that got relisted at the same time (see here) got plenty of extra feedback. This is all moot now, because User:Colonel Warden has begun to add sources: (1) A cite from a book from the World Bank and (2) naming the founder, who was "Humanitarian of the year: the individual who has done the most to improve welfare of people in Latin America" for 2006, as described in Latin Trade. The links, if people want to check, are here and here. Hopefully those who said they would allow an article that was sourced will now switch to a procedural keep even if they still endorse the original deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is about process, not AfD round 2, and process appears to have been followed here, but of course it can be userfied if anyone wants to work on it to fix the issues identified at AfD. History is under the {{delrev}} template, so anybody here can simply move it to their own userspace to work on. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? Move it to userspace, add two or three newspaper sources, and then move back? If it would have to come back to DRV to be "allowed" back into mainspace, then process is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. In my view, the original AfD is terminally flawed due to insufficient participation. That is sufficient for an overturn, based on the continuing debate here, which is already of a superior quality to the debate at the original AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This does not need to be userfied. It is good enough for mainspace as it is. JzG undeleted the history, so DuncanHill and others can see the version that was deleted. The external links allow verification of much of the material (though I don't know how good those websites were at the time of the debate). What is needed is more sources that are reliable and indepedent (like the one Chick Bowen [originally suggested by WAS at AN I think] suggested, or this one or this one). I disagree with those who are saying that this article was unsourced at the time of deletion - it clearly wasn't as it had links to external content (not independent, but still verifiable) that allowed verification of the content. There may be a case for lack of notability or lack of reliable sources, but not lack of verification. When looking over an article to assess whether things can be verified or are sourced, the answers are not always in a section called "References". In my opinion, the original AfD decision should have been to relist. Hmm. I see it was relisted, but no further comments were provided. Really, it should have kept being thrown up for relisting until further comments were obtained. A further point is that lots of clean-up had been done: look at an earlier state of the article. From creation to that state was done in a succession of edits over one day (19 September 2006) by an SPA (Special:Contributions/Matterlandsen). So it definitely needed clean-up, but it seems it was cleaned up over the next 15 months. One of the weak points is that there are no redlinks currently pointing here from mainspace. On the other hand, as WAS pointed out at AN, there is an article in the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Un techo para mi país. Finally, I don't want to add to the "kurfuffle" at AN, but I can't let Coren's comment pass: "amazing how it's so simple finding sources to demonstrate notability in less than two minutes yet the original editor couldn't be bothered spending them" seems to imply we delete because the original author didn't bother doing the work. That's not how Wikipedia works. This is supposed to be a collaborative project where we are happy to do work if someone else hasn't done it, or hasn't worked out how to do it yet. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I've notified the deleting admin and the relister of the original AfD. Should the nominator and those who participated in the previous debate be notified or not? Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist. One delete !vote, a suggestion that the article be moved, and the nomination statement, doesn't really look like a consensus to me. Clearly a flawed close, in my opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse: Nomination for AFD and one delete "!vote", with no opposing views, is a clear consensus to delete, if not evidence that such a delete is uncontroversial. This doesn't need to come to DRV, which makes this entire discussion bureaucracy as its finest. Anyone could ask almost any administrator to userfy it for them, then edit the article to alleviate the concerns raised at the AFD and move it back to the article space. However, I would strongly oppose an unsourced article that has been deleted at AFD be undeleted before the concerns of the AFD are met. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closing admin - the article has since had two sources added. The clean up started at 22:52, 17 September 2008, after all the initial comments above (some replies have since been after the clean-up started). See the article for the changes. (1) A cite from a book from the World Bank and (2) naming the founder, who was "Humanitarian of the year: the individual who has done the most to improve welfare of people in Latin America" for 2006, as described in Latin Trade. The links, if people want to check, are here and here. Hopefully those who said they would allow an article that was sourced will now switch to a procedural keep even if they still endorse the original deletion. In my opinion, this also adequately addresses the notability issues. I would also point out "in August 2005, A Roof for my Country received $3.5 million from FOMIN (Multilateral Investment Funds) for social intervention in the Latin American countries it serves". Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close itself I don't see anything wrong with. It was already relisted once, no need to relist again. 2 deletes and a move (no opinion on a delete/keep really) sounds like consensus. As for the article as it stands now, I'm not sure if it passes or not. Wizardman 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. So as the admin who originally deleted is no longer sure, does that mean that a new AfD or an overturn are the most logical outcomes here? There are also sources mentioned in this debate that have not been used in the article yet. At the minimum, I would say that the deletion was not prejudical to undeletion or recreation to add more source. I would say the onus is now on those who think the article should be deleted to start a new AfD. More generally, this does point to the problem of deciding the result of a DRV where the article has changed during the debate. Technically, making changes during a DRV of a deleted article probably shouldn't happen (ie. history undeletion to allow non-admins to view the earlier versions shouldn't result in people reverting to an earlier version and editing in it - that state is properly reserved for articles that are at DRV but which survived AfD, ie. the DRV was brought to question a keep or no consensus decision) but that would be taking process a bit far, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 20:18, 18 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

S/T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This was deleted under A7, but it is an album and is therefore ineligible. The band survived an AfD and the album has been reviewed by media outlets (e.g. Pitchfork). Deleting admin appears to have retired. Chubbles (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ehm... While you've got a good point, the article as it was written sucked major balls, to be blunt. You're honestly about as good off starting from scratch. I'm happy to userfy or email it to you if you'd like, but I think you'll find it rather useless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I'll just start from scratch. You can close this. Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 16 September 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 pages of users with only one edit – creating their user page – Deletion endorsed with no prejudice against recreation. If the users return and want their pages back, let them have them. Otherwise further discussion is a waste of time. – Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Efrym87 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Austinleal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Danielpr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Carlodue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Bejarana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

MfD was closed as delete citing Wikipedia is not a free webhost, which is all very well, but this page had one edit, ever - like many new users the person added something small - in this case their name(s) to their userpage and hasn't edited since. That isn't what "not a free webhost" is about. Secondly the deleting admin cited "canvassing attempt that caused a radical change in consensus" except the "canvassing" (more like a POINT violation) was made to ANI - where, although it undoubtedly got the page more attention, the attention gained is uncontrolled and would have brought people both for and against deletion (unlike a proper canvassing attempt which seeks out people symathetic to the canvasser's argument). Therefore, this debate should have been closed as Keep or at the very least No consensus so should be overturned. ViridaeTalk 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me laugh. Maybe those who think deleting userpages of inactive users is at all useful/productive should be the ones to reconsider theirs? Not only does this set an unfortunate precedent, but is downright rude should the user choose to return. Brilliantine (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - (ec) in addition to the arguments above, these did not receive the full five day run normally required at MfD, they were all nominated just prior to 23:00 on the 11th, they should've run until about 23:00 on the 16th, they were inappropriately closed nearly 17 hours early. Precedent in the past at MfD does not support deleting such pages either. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have completed the {{delrev}} tagging of the userpages, only one was tagged and it wasn't linked to here. Additionally, I noticed that none of the user's were notified. In the off chance that one logged on (there are such things as Wikipedia users), he or she would not have known of the MfD unless upon actually looking at the respective user page (highly unlikely for a user).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is entirely possible, even likely, that someone would create an account in order to make use of the improved options for reading Wikipedia available when logged in. They may well create a userpage when they do so - that they then do not edit is no concern of ours - an encyclopædia is actually for the readers benefit, not the editors. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural overturn - These user pages were not merely user pages with one edit. They were user pages whose one edit to their user page posted content that made the user page a personal web page. Such pages also were screen to only include editors who have not edited in many months. What to do if you find someone else's user page being used inappropriately states "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion" which was done. The keep arguments seemed to be implemeting an exception to this where the editor has only one edit and has not edited in many months. There is no such exception. If you want to propose a change to Wikipedia:User page, go through the usual process. At present our policies allow the deletion of userpages for inactive editors where those userpages are a personal web page. The keep arguments failed to provide evidence that the user page had made collaboration among Wikipedians easier. Since the keep arguments were not ground in policy and the delete arguments were, the delete arguments were stronger. I would endorse the deletions, but the users failed to receive a MfD notice as note above, some of the userpages were not tagged with an MfD notice, and the discussions appear to have been closed before five days. Thus procedural overturn. -- Suntag ☼ 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting question. So if I register, and make a page that says, "I enjoy Wikipedia, and am from Chicago!" and then just use my account to get access to the bells and whistles like watchlist, but decline to edit, I can't have a user page? What if I make one edit to Chicago? Does everything change then? rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline says "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion". It does not say, "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion except if the long term absent user has only has one edit." Also, the guideline does not say, "A user page of a long term absent user that has only one edit can never be a personal web pages." Wikipedia:NOT#HOST says that a user page is part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. -- Suntag ☼ 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse my deletions. A user page is for someone who contributes to the encyclopedia. Those who do not contribute to the encyclopedia do not get the privelege of having a user page. This is all process for the sake of process. The Efrym one is the only one of these MFDs where I knew that there would be an issue and that would be brought up at DRV. The other four deletion debates all had a consensus for deletion. Unless this is just a way to fight off a precedent that already exists, I don't see the purpose to this undeletion debate. Process for the sake of process makes you a useless bureaucrat on Wikipedia. And as I stated, I thought it was policy that user pages are for contributors. If a policy needs to be made that states this, then by all means write it up. Wikipedia neither gains or loses anything from these five edits having been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such policy that one must edit to have a user page and this is what we've discussed numerous times at MfD and always resolved thus. Additionally, responding to Suntag, having a user page that says "hi my name is Joe" is not a violation of WP:NOT and that too has been discussed often at MfD. More importantly, none of these have a clear delete consensus. I close a lot of MfDs and I don't see these as clear deletes.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if a user page only says "hi my name is Joe", I don't see how that can qualify a personal web page such as amounting to being for self-promotion. (Humm, I wish I had a history view of the deleted user pages right about now.) However, don't you think there are circumstances where a long term absent editor, having one edi,t posts something on their user page that causes that user page to qualify a personal web page such as amounting to being for self-promotion? It seems reasonable to request that the user page be deleted under such cicumstances, even if the editor has only one edit. The passage of time without editing does play a roll in whether a user page or user subpage is a web page or hosts permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Suntag ☼ 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Deleting them would be a classic example of "process for the sake of process" and of "useless bureaucracy" in action. The pages are not disruptive, and frankly an admin who thinks it's OK to go around looking for these things, and then wasting his and everyone else's time really should start asking himself what the tools are intended for. I have seen no argument in favour of deletion beyond "I think policy says I can, so I will". Well it's not good enough. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think that the readers of the thread on AN/I are not so thick as to not to be able to form an opinion for themselves, and I think we should assume this level of intelligence on behalf of other contributers to a !vote. To do otherwise is supercilious. Sticky Parkin 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment may be taken to apply to the other debates as well. Moreover, I find the argument that the users may have been using account features to help in reading Wikipedia a strong one. Being rude to readers is just as bad as being rude to contributors. It is ridiculous to try and form policy "through the back door" and clearly against consensus, as seems to be happening here. Brilliantine (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would it be decent to leave a message on these user's talk pages about this? Or do we not bother with that kind of thing anymore? DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the request of Suntag above to see what the page looked like, I have temporary undeleted the first nominated page. There was no "history" this was done with one edit, all other edits related to the nomination for MfD and this DRV, there were a total of four edits, I only restored the one by the user whose page this is. This is the kind of material we are talking about, though at least one of the others just says "Hi".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Endorse All Deletions, we are talking about pages which were created between one and two-and-a-half years ago, by users who never made another edit to Wikipedia, and which consisted of such quality content as "Dit is carlodue" and "Bold texthi". The only reasonable argument made to keep them is "it's not worth the waste of time and effort to chase them up and delete them," which makes this DRV nomination frivolous at best and mischievous at worst. --Stormie (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Process is not to be followed for its own sake so "procedural overturn" is a poor idea, widespread consensus exists for deletion of the user pages of people who have never edited per WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and this DRV is a waste of the community's time and energy. --erachima talk 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This DRV is just as pointless as the pages themselves. Unless there's something bad on the pages, like privacy or copyright violations, there's no really good reason to delete them other than to add to the deletion logs. At the same time, there's no point generating multiple KB of text discussing useless and now-deleted userpages, and there's also no point adding still more entries to the logs by undeleting them. Seriously, don't we all have more important things to do? Like serious XfDs and DRVs maybe? Sorry about the tone there, and cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a concern, my point is mostly that it's a general waste of editor time to MfD, DRV, or do much of anything to these pages unless they somehow detract from the project. Removal of userspace material, simply because it doesn't add to the project (stuff with low or zero net value, rather than negative net value), seems like a good way to piss off and drive people away, as well as wastes a ton of time for everyone involved. I mean, just look at how much has been written in this DRV, how much I'm writing right here to explain this. This is a waste of all of our time. If the users complain, restore their pages, otherwise just let it sit, and don't waste any more time on trivial XfDs. Only precedent I'm trying to set here is that we probably have better things to be doing than this. Wikipedia 0.7 is coming out soon, why don't we all go do some stuff for that instead, eh? lifebaka++ 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus). The AfD discussions did not result in a consensus and there is no overriding policy. WP:NOT#WEBHOST clearly doesn’t apply – there is no plausible argument that these users are using their userpages as webhosts for external purposes. The deletion of userpages of wikipedians who have never edited elsewhere, whether they are once off visitors now totally and forever inactive, or lurkers, or ip editors is a policy gap. Policy should not be made by a partisan close of contentious XfDs. There are clearly two sides to this unresolved debate. One says that useless stuff, even in userspace, should be cleaned up by deletion, we must maintain a minimus threshold requiring that use of wikipedia is directed to contributing to wikipedia. The other says that potential users should be given userpage latitude without regard to activity, out of concern that such deletions turn away inactive contributors should they return. The close of the AfDs was a de facto ruling on this debate. The closes should be overturned as no consensus and the debate moved to WT:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn I think that none of the user pages looked as if Wikipedia was being used for free webhosting. In addition, the deletion discussions probably should have been closed as no consensus. However, it probably does not matter much what happens to the these userpages. If they remain deleted, I will not lose any sleep. Captain panda 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Are you kidding? Just leave them deleted, and nobody will ever mention them again, and better yet, nobody will miss them. They aren't articles, and there is no reason for keeping them around. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. These users have contributed nothing at all to the project. User pages are not a profile on a social networking site but rather for facilitating community among editors. BJTalk 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is really needed here is a debate about the 15,000 userpages that MZMcBride has said meets various criteria for possible deletion. This needs co-ordination between MfD (a link can be placed to 15 pages listing 1000 pages each), a bot to add MfD nominations to each of the pages (the amount of edits already being done and the 15,000 delete actions already add to the database, so what is another 15,000 additions of notices here or there?), and a debate at MfD about the criteria used for deletion. e.g. must be pages where the editor has only made a few edits to the userspace and none to article space. Must have been inactive for x period of time. Must have been active for only a short period of time (first and most recent edits), a look at the account creation date (if available) to check whether there was a long period between creation and editing, and making sure that no user talk page exists, and that there are no deleted contributions (eg. deleted articles). Finally, a look at the page logs for each page wouldn't hurt. If any log entries exist (other than account creation), and ditto for the other criteria, then put aside for later consideration. I think this is what MZMcBride did, but I'm unclear exactly what criteria were used or how comprehensive the checks were. Finally, I think people should be more aware that many accounts may be created not to edit, but to allow better viewing of Wikipedia - skins and other viewing preferences. For that reason, the accounts should all be left a talk page message, though that would involve creating large numbers of talk pages. I wonder what WP:USURP has to say about accounts create to read (not edit) Wikipedia and which have no edits? I think I'm right to say that there is no way to tell the difference between a "reader" account and a "sleeper" account and an "inactive/abandoned" account, right? Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I agree with Carcharoth. We need a community decision on the basic issue here, or we will see an unlimited number of divided MfDs. These pages are doing no harm, the cost of keeping these pages is far lower than the cost of deleting them, under present conditions. But, aside from that, a clue as to the problem is that complaints were made about canvassing because the attention of the community was brought to the MfD at AN/I. If announcement of the MfD like that changes the outcome, it would mean that the general community consensus is different than the local consensus at similar MfDs. That's a sign that the community hasn't made a clear decision, and that is the problem. If we make a decision that we will generally delete pages like these, we can then warn users when they register that if their account is not used to edit for X months, or whatever, it will be deleted, and we can set up a bot to do it. Otherwise we will continue to waste time debating this, over and over and over again. --Abd (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — if the users ever come back and want their pages restored, they can have them. What's the problem? Stifle (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Smokeyjoe & Abd among others. Mike R (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Rjd0060 and Stifle. --Kbdank71 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Sets a pretty harsh/rude precedent. Like redirects, what exactly is the harm in the userpage being there? --SmashvilleBONK! 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Only a person who contributes to the encyclopedia should have the privilege of having a userpage. These users have done nothing for the encyclopedia. AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deletion based in policy (what we do, not what is written down). These pages have very little use (most of them had no content) and might do some harm (containing identifiable information about people who have forgotten that they have Wikipedia user pages). Kusma (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there must be something more productive to do (like write an encyclopedia) than to argue about month-old pages that non-editors have created. Kusma (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closure was on the basis of policy, Not a free web host, instead of head counting. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per this rationale. I would go a step farther and suggest changing policy to allow any user who has edited only their own userspace to be given the option to delete their entire account. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Viridae, Brilliantine, and Abd. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:56, 18 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

For reference:

Eugene Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This was deleted by Mangojuice in June 2007 per CSD R1 (Speedy: Redirect to non-existent page). However, I have added several sources (a total of 12) including several non trival articles about him He is an important figure in the churches' investigations as well as notable for his illegal activity. Thus, the article can be expanded and I will add to it with a variety more sources. Plus this person is mentioned in six wikipedia articles (Cult Awareness Network, Fair Game (Scientology), Bare-faced Messiah, Office of Special Affairs, Moxon & Kobrin), showing that the article is of value to wikipedia and broader public. He is also mentioned in several wikisource court cases.Seelltey (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram has a "Early keep" with 9 keeps and ZERO deletions. Nominated by Mangojuice. How did it get deleted in the first place? Seelltey (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 20 for the real discussion; this was later reconfirmed at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 27. The AfD was canvassed at the Scientology WikiProject, and closed inappropriately. Mangojuicetalk 12:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion in question is about the redirect, though, so now both are above. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The topic Eugene Ingram was G10 speedy deleted 28 January 2008 Mangojuice as "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" You recreated the article Eugene Ingram on 16 September 2008 and desire permission for the article to stay, correct? In summary of the article, Ingam was born, then became a Scientology private investigator. He then was accused, charged, named, and charged again. Does that really sound like a biography to you? He has no family, no parents, never lived anywhere, and never went to school. To top it off, you appear to have lifted substantially entire sentences from sources without using the "" marks. -- Suntag ☼ 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G4? Stifle (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A7, G4, and G10 could all apply here as far as the article is concerned in its present state. Some references to significant discussion in secondary sources do appear to be posted on the talk page, however not too sure this satisfies WP:NOTE on its own. Now that there are some satisfactory sources listed, could perhaps be worth discussing a merge to Fair Game (Scientology) - I'll defer to what consensus is from this discussion. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT: this is definitely a CSD G4 case and exactly similar to the previous deletion and deletion reviews for Eugene Martin Ingram. Mangojuicetalk 12:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted and salted the page. The article as it stood was so slanted that it could not possibly have been allowed to exist without being re-written in a rounded fashion that reflects more of the subject then his brushes with the law. Controversial articles like this are always much better dealt with by creating a NPOV draft in user space that properly reflects an individuals entire life and works and not just the controversial parts. I have deleted this article as a BLP violation. Please note that BLP states that such deletions may not be overturned without there first being a consensus to do so. Needless to say I endorse my own deletions and the previous ones. Spartaz Humbug! 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article definitely needed a heavy rewrite for NPOV, but there are easily enough solid references for notability. Even NPOV, it wouldn't be flattering, and wouldn't cover every detail of his life from beginning to end, but that's not the job of bio articles. He could be covered in a section in Fair Game (Scientology), but it wouldn't fit well with the rest of the article and might be seen as a bit of a WP:COATRACK there. AndroidCat (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion of this article, which would have been better titles List of reasons why $SCIENTOLOGIST sucks. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I support the action of Spartaz. AdjustShift (talk) 17:38, 17 September 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 September 2008

[edit]
  • Visual gallery of toucans – Overturn and relist; although there is no real consensus here, the snowball clause is intended to prevent unnecessary discussion where it is obvious to everyone that a certain result is the only result possible. Where there is this much objection and discussion occurring after the close, it was apparently not proper to close the original discussion that early. No matter what prediction we may make as to what outcome would have resulted if we did allow the discussion to come to a complete listing, that notion can not trump the actual discussion where a reasonable number of wikipedians have doubt. Relisting is therefore the reasonable thing to do, and will cause no harm. – Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Visual gallery of toucans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) The deletion debate was closed in a single day, which gave no time for the debate to form. The reason given for deletion is wrong, because the article is not a photograph gallery. I could write more about this, but to be succint: I have never saw an encyclopedia that does not have visual identification galleries. Nikola (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; create a category instead. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category does not allow the same functionality. The category would contain surplus unnecessary images, and would not contain links to toucan species.
      And, by the way, have you ever seen an encyclopedia that doesn't have visual identification galleries? Nikola (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There were three photography galleries that were nominated and were deleted under the same rationale. See also:
  • Userfy - Thanks. I wasn't thinking along those lines. There are bird field guide books largely composed of photos with a little text. I have one on clouds that is just photos and names with an index table of information. Also, images used on the deleted page likely were free use, so there didn't seem an urgency to close the discussion. Instead of speedy closing the AfD discussion, it would have been nice to see more discussion on why articles similar to nature field guide books cannot be maintained in Wikipedia. Userfy per Fut.Perf. -- -- Suntag ☼ 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a category! Is there still any need for this DRV? lifebaka++ 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they want the images grouped by zoological classification rather than just ordered alphabetically, the category will hardly do. Also, if it's really going to become an identification gallery, people would ultimately want some comments on each image, pointing out the distinctive features and such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
M'kay. Just wondering. lifebaka++ 19:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody would be free to add comments, had the gallery not been deleted. Nikola (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your very informative and useful comment. However, allow me to note that it would be a lot more informative and useful if you would care to explain why do you think that the decision to delete "Visual gallery of toucans" was correct? While at it, could you too please answer if you have ever seen an encyclopedia that doesn't have visual identification galleries? Nikola (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. This is a debate, not a vote.
    And, have you seen an encyclopedia that does not have visual identification galleries? Nikola (talk) 05:24, 17 September 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:Lt Clayton.JPG – Overturn/ delete image and allow upload of uncropped image and unlink it from Christopher Clayton. Highlights of this discussion:
  • discussion consensus had image meeting the non-free-content rules, specifically WP:NFC, unacceptable use, images#12
  • Discussion of this type of issue (a non-free image of a living person) at WT:NFC seems far from reaching a conclusive consensus
  • question seems close -> consensus decides
  • doesn't represent a view that is iconic or encyclopedic; poor image of subject
  • image has been cropped too much
  • Consensus versus policy is hard to judge
  • deletion may be mandatory under policy even against local consensus
  • living-persons rule is dictated by the WMF
  • not within the purview of IfD discussions to water it down with arbitrarily vague interpretations
  • Local consensus cannot trump policy
  • wording of policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for interpretation to keep
  • All of the arguments at the IFD were based upon policy not opinion, being brutally honest, the policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow more than one interpretation
  • keep arguments were just as validly based on policy as the delete arguments and the consensus at IFD was that the image was allowed on the basis of policy
  • When policies conflict, the admin is not to judge which of them takes precedence, but to simply say what the community thinks as expressed at the XfD. We know enough to throw out non-policy based arguments, but we are not qualified to overrule the community about just what the policy is, and which one is applicable
  • the fact that is has living people in it doesn't matter, that event has come and gone and this is the only available photographic record of it
  • photograph helps illustrate the subject (the surrender of Port Howard)
  • image which is cropped to be exclusively that of a living person and as such a free equivalent can always exist
  • The simplest way to fix this dispute is to upload the full image and unlink it from Christopher Clayton. That way we have an image that satisfies the NFCC
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Lt Clayton.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Closed by myself as keep on the basis that the discussion consensus had image meeting the non-free-content rules, specifically WP:NFC, unacceptable use, images#12
This closure has been contested and I'm bringing it here for discussion/possibly overturning of the closure. Personally I believe that the image does not meet the NFC rules but that consensus in the discussion was that it did. The general bent of those seeking to keep the image is that it is sufficiently iconic of the person that a later image would not be as encyclopedic/iconic as this one is. Those on the delete side both at the IfD and later see that the image does not pass this bar. Discussion of this type of issue (a non-free image of a living person) at WT:NFC seems far from reaching a conclusive consensus. Peripitus (Talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. The question seems close to me, and in such cases consensus decides. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn At the risk of turning this into IfD2, I disagree with the statement that the image represents a view that is iconic or encyclopedic. It appears to be a relatively poor image of the subject in uniform. The image is meant to illustrate the POW's from the falklands war, but has been cropped so much that it doesn't do that. I sympathize with the closer. Consensus versus policy is hard to judge in the image deletion threads, given the low number of participants and the very explicit policy. I wish that we would devise a method to treat image deletions so that we can avoid the bureaucracy of closing a debate contrary to policy in order to relist it at DRV, but closing IfD debates against consensus appears to have the same result. Sigh. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. With all respect for Peripitus' stance in defering to majority opinion even against his own judgment in closing this, I don't believe this is a good idea in an NFC case. These cases are different from normal XfDs, in that deletion may be mandatory under policy even against local consensus, and in such a conflict a closing admin must follow his own understanding of what the policy demands (or refrain from closing altogether, if they feel they can't do that.) In this case, I think Peripitus too readily defered to numbers, contrary to the principle that IfD is not a vote. Many of the keep votes were demonstrably faulty, being based on a misunderstanding of policy. One voter had claimed there was a special exception for old images of uniformed soldiers who are now retired, and subsequent voters voted "keep as per...", taking this claim at face value as a valid statement of policy. Later discussion has clearly established that this exception doesn't exist in policy and was purely a private opinion (see discussion at WT:NFC, where consensus is clearly against the interpretation made at the IfD). This image is as straightforward a case of replaceable-qua-living-person as any. The living-persons rule is one of the few NFC components that are directly dictated by the Foundation, and it is not within the purview of IfD discussions to water it down with arbitrarily vague interpretations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and sympathy to the closing admin. Local consensus cannot trump policy and in this case its a replacable image of a living person and I simply can't see what value the image is adding to the article. Is side and there is no background. This simply cannot meet our image polices and should have been deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 05:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Add) I cropped the image down as I thought that was part of the "fair use rationale" process. I can easily upload the full version of the image and if it this minor detail that makes you think this image is without value, it can easily be rectified. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As the reams of back and fro discussion on the original IFD and NFCC Talk demonstrate, the wording of policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for interpretation to keep. The uniform being an essential visual image of a soldier, an image out of uniform would clearly not have the same encyclopedic content and so is permitted under the exemption However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. A non-free image is permissible in this case. Justin talk 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a general comment I find it rather disturbing that people are advocating avoiding IFD or DRV in deleting images. Personally where policy is ambiguous, proper debate and consensus is the proper means of resolving the situation. Justin talk 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Non-free images of living people really shouldn't be used. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - The delete arguments were stronger. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." See WP:DGFA. No evidence such as reliable source information was presented in the deletion discussion to support the idea that his "notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance." Also, uniform means uniform in visual appearance, not distinctive in visual appearance. If this low ranking soldier stood out among all the other soldiers because the close he chose to wore in battle, his fellow soldiers probably would have fragged him. Standing out by uniform in an army is reserved for generals and this guy. The keep arguments were based on opinion and the delete arguments were ground in the underlying policy. Since the delete arguments were stronger, the keep close should be overturned. -- Suntag ☼ 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Yep! I read the arguments of both side and the delete arguments were stronger. AdjustShift (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/keep This image meets the criteria for inclusion as a non-free image. Those who advocate removing this image need to realize "Non-free images of living people really shouldn't be used" isn't a valid reason to delete an image in and of itself. If so, this photo should be deleted as it is of a living person. This recent photo should be deleted too as the person is still alive. A more serious problem is the fact that policy is indeed ambiguous and could be better phrased (that some people even deny there is a problem and is another problem too!). My attempts to fix such a problem were resoundingly shot down, generally under the "no, not that" kind of argument (which I can accept), but with no additional guidance (not acceptable).
It should also be noted that my argument (and others) are about policy and do not contradict it, but only seek clarification. Since none is forthcoming, we are now here. — BQZip01 — talk 21:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the first image you mention is in the public domain and so WP:NFCC doesn't apply to it. The other is a more complicated case--personally I might argue against that one, but the counterargument would be that the thing that makes that person notable is no longer true of her. I don't think either of them is comparable to the image of Admiral Clayton. Chick Bowen 23:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel the need to add a comment on the arguments on the keep side as some of those arguing overturn seem to want to re-run the IFD. There were strong arguments on both sides but commentators here seem to feel it necessary to denigrate the opposing argument rather than argue the merits of their own case.

As I pointed out at NFCC I did a fairly simple thought experiment and asked a few colleagues what was the first thing that popped into their mind associated with a soldier. To a man they said "uniform" and if I were to do the same here I would be very surprised if anyone was to reply any different. The uniform is one of the essential things that define a soldier and is an essential feature of their identity. The uniform is a striking visual image, its part of their identity; soldiers wear their uniform all the time. At one level it removes individual identity, at another it marks them out as members of a group. It is such an essential part of their identity that the image of individual retired and out of uniform simply does not convey the same encyclopedic content. Policy allows an exemption for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, after retirement a picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. Not one editor has objected to this image on criteria grounds, the only thing against it is that BLP does not generally allow a non-free image of living persons. However, there is an exception to that policy and it is arguable that it applies to individuals such as this. All of the arguments at the IFD were based upon policy not opinion, being brutally honest, the policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow more than one interpretation. The keep arguments were just as validly based on policy as the delete arguments and the consensus at IFD was that the image was allowed on the basis of policy. There were strong arguments on both sides at the IFD, personally I would commend Peripitus for following the consensus that the image conformed to policy against his own view of policy. Justin talk 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Reasonable close, and that's all that need be said about it. The claim about past career made sense as one of he standard exceptions. I see the delete votes as an attempt to alter established policy. When policies conflict, the admin is not to judge which of them takes precedence, but to simply say what the community thinks as expressed at the XfD. We know enough to throw out non-policy based arguments, but we are not qualified to overrule the community about just what the policy is, and which one is applicable. Nobody claims this right for content, not even arb com. DGG (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete One of the few parts of the WP:NFC that is relatively easy to interpret is the use of non-free images on BLP's. Clayton's notability does not rest on his earlier visual appearance and this image cannot really be justified under the NFC. It almost certainly also fails WP:NFCC#1 & 8, a blurry cropped image of Clayton standing in a field doesn't significantly add to understanding and is easily replacable by text. This image shows one small, insignificant part of his long career, it certainly has no iconic value. RMHED (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Hang on, so what's this? I'm still new to the "behind the scenes" works of Wikipedia. I put a non-free image gets put up for deletion, closing admin says it stays, then another admin (FPAS) complains to him, n now he suddenly changes his mind n this thing starts. I don't get how I'm supposed to get a free image of him at the surrender of Port Howard, that event happened 26 years ago. I am still however looking for a free image for his infobox pic. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep (1) The closing admin appeared to make a reasonable judgment of the lack of consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. (2) An image of a person as he looked on the day he made history a quarter-century ago is not replaceable by a free image that may or may not be obtained in the future. Unless the Argentinians are planning to invade again, at which time the Queen will recommission HMS Cardiff and bust the Admiral back down to Lieutenant, and send him back once more, it's hard to see how this photo could be reproduced. :-P --SSBohio 03:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. An admin made a reasonable decision about consensus in a disputed case, against his personal judgment of the merits. If that isn't what admins get paid for, don't know what is.John Z (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on clear lack of consensus to delete. i recognise that there is ongoing overt discussion about changing the rules to ensure this image disappears at some point, but the decision of the closing admin was appropriate. I'm also concerned that some arguments are now advocating that consensus should not apply and that decisions in this area need some kind of arcane knowledge that mere mortals aren't endowed with. That is a significant shift in direction for Wikipedia and probably needs exercised in the broader context, rather than just through a self selecting group. ALR (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my above entries Ryan4314 (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok. here is where I see this. IF this photo is simply of a person (and the cropped version is), then we would have to make some pretty heroic arguments to get around NFCC 1 and 8. Simply suggesting that he was notable for being in the military and now isn't in the military doesn't cut the mustard. If, however, the photo is of an event that happens to have people in it and that event is something of interest, that is a different matter entirely. If, in the Port Howard article, we show a larger image which includes POW's in the background, this isn't the same discussion. the fact that is has living people in it doesn't matter, that event has come and gone and this is the only available photographic record of it. On top of that, a photograph helps illustrate the subject (the surrender of Port Howard). That is a much easier argument to make. But we aren't in that situation. We weren't in that situation in the IfD. We have an image which is cropped to be exclusively that of a living person and as such a free equivalent can always exist (especially for the Christopher Clayton article). The simplest way to fix this dispute is to upload the full image and unlink it from Christopher Clayton. That way we have an image that satisfies the NFCC. Otherwise we are left justifying the inclusion of this photo by appealing to reasons that apply to a different, hypothetical photo. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what people want, I have no problem doing that, no one mentioned it until now and I just assumed FUR images had to be cropped. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a good solution to me, but remember that probably would mean a good fair use rationale could be written for Port Howard but not for Christopher Clayton. If you feel strongly that the image should be in both articles I don't want you to cut this process short. But it is probably the easiest solution, all things considered. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the deletion review nobody once mentioned NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, then nobody challenged that the image met those criteria. This isn't IFD its DRV and the purpose of DRV I will remind you is to confirm whether the IFD conformed to policy. It doesn't exist to have another bite of the cherry and re-run the IFD. As to the argument that a suitable free image of a retired military image can always exist, well there is a convincing argument to the contrary. Justin talk 08:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. There is no need to get snippy with me. I'm aware of the purpose of the IfD and noted as much in my keep comment up near the top. The reason this DRV was opened is that the admin was faced with a good faith concern that local consensus was being used to override policy. As such, our opinion of what the policy says is important. DRV isn't just "was consensus followed" because then we wouldn't need it. It exists because we balance local consensus against community policies and guidelines and sometimes those conflicts result in a close being out of line with policy. In cases like this, a DRV will look a lot like IfD2 because the relevant interpretations of the NFCC are critical to determining if we can even say the close was good or bad. In this case I'm suggesting a simple solution to this problem: upload a version that includes those POW's meaningfully and unlink it from the Lt. Clayton article. As for the image of the retired persons bit, I don't agree with you, and I don't think WP:NFC does either. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is getting snippy, the IFD didn't consider NFCC#1 or NFCC#8 the argument centred around whether the image was exempt or not to the criteria for living persons. So to be blunt the DRV considers that question and is not a re-run of the IFD. There is sufficient ambiguity in that area for two reasonable people to read that Paragraph and come to separate conclusions as to whether the argument I advanced was valid or not. The consensus at the IFD was that sufficient people agreed with that interpretation and it was within the policy guidelines. Given the lack of a clear consensus that it isn't outside of guidelines, then on balance both at IFD and DRV the result should be KEEP. It is not a case of balancing local consensus against policy guidelines, the arguments were advanced on a policy basis. Where policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for more than one interpretation, to my mind the balance of consensus is key to deciding the issue. Peripitus didn't make a bad closure, in fact I have to commend him for going against his own interpretation in line with community consensus. Justin talk 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a appellate court. We are not forbidden from discussing issues with the image that would impact the propriety of the close if those issues were not raised in the original IfD. As an analogy, if we had an article that violated WP:BLP but was kept at AfD due to a local consensus that it was ok, we would expect that it would be ok to raise BLP issues at the DRV. Further, while NFCC 1 may be ambiguous to you, Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 is not. To quote (under inappropriate image use): "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).", "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.". The only thing which is up for debate is the last clause of the second point there. And I repeat that it is a tenuous argument to claim that a non-free image of the subject in uniform serves some function that a free image or text can not. As another easy analogy, we do not allow film stills of actors in roles to show the actor, even when that actor is overwhelmingly famous for that role specifically (see Ian McDiarmid). As for the "local consensus versus policy" issue, it doesn't matter if the local consensus discussion involved discussion of the policy. If the retention of this image represents an implementation or interpretation of WP:NFC that is not supported by the community at large (as it is a policy, not a guideline), then what needs to be looked at is the local consensus, not the policy. This is a fuzzy point, so I can see where we would disagree (as it is ok to have different interpretations as an outcome of local consensus, just not interpretations so divergent that we would have to rewrite the NFC to reconcile them). But simply discussing policy doesn't mean that a local consensus can override it. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a tenuous argument? I've had people says its weak, doesn't conform to policy, now you're saying tenuous not to mention a number of analogies that just don't actually relate to the argument. However, I've also had a number of people agree with me and support it on that basis. Not one person has said this argument is wrong because .... About the only person who has addressed the argument advanced the comment that a uniform was, well, uniform. However, I think I answered that by pointing out that it also separates the military from the civilian and for that reason is a striking visual image. If someone can come up with a compelling reason why an image of a retired soldier in civilian clothes is in anyway a suitable replacement for an image in uniform I'm prepared to listen. Otherwise its just some old dude in a suit and to be honest I think it does ex-servicemen and woman an injustice.
In addition I don't see how you'd have to re-write NFC to reconcile my interpretation, there is an exemption in policy that already exists for retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance. Its permissible within the existing guidelines.
Finally, just to re-iterate, policy was discussed but not over-ridden, the consensus was that the image fell within policy guidelines. There is a big difference there. Justin talk 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the film star analogy didn't fit. Ian McDiarmid is mostly famous for his role as Emperor Palpatine. It would be insane to suggest that a free image could be taken of McDiarmid as Palpatine, for a number of different reasons--just as it would be insane to suggest that a free image of Clayton as a LT could be obtained. However, NFCC 1 does not allow us to include a non-free picture of McDiarmid as Palpatine in the article for that reason alone. Similarly, a non-free image of a military member who is now retired can't be used just because they no longer wear the uniform. I didn't feel the need to formulate my response in the form of "your argument is wrong because...", but if you would like me to, here goes. Your argument is wrong because you appeal to a non-existing exemption to the NFCC in suggesting that photographs of still-living retired military personal can be used as fair-use simply because they no longer wear the uniform.
As for the "does servicemen an injustice". Baloney. Were I to ever be notable, I don't feel that a picture of me out of uniform would be an injustice. Likewise I don't feel that a picture of another military member out of uniform is somehow demeaning. That uniform represents a lot of things to the wearer. Some of them personal. Some of them societal (as in, connected to military traditions more than their personal feelings about it). It does not, however, mean that portraits of these men and women are frozen in time. Even retired individuals, who (at least in the US) do not actually officially leave the military do not have a homogeneous impression of their self-image.
As for the "earlier visual appearances" bit, we are stretching the limits here. You refer to the photo as "striking". Tell me what is striking about it? Is it solely the visual reminder (i.e. the flight suit) that the subject was once a military member? Really? How is that not replacable by the text "Clayton is now retired from military service"? As for the claimed exemption in the NFC: How is Clayton notable for his visual appearance as a LT, rather than being a LT? Protonk (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were McDiarmid to dress up as the Emperor Palpatine 24:7 for his entire career it might be an appropriate analogy but he doesn't and never will; it isn't part of his identity it was a role in a film. Nobody would argue that an image of him in that role could not be replaced by a free image. However, the difference with a soldier is that the uniform is part of the identity, it what marks them out as separate from the civilian, it is a striking visual expression of their identity and it is worn 24:7. So the film star analogy doesn't fit at all.
In response to your comments. I disagree there is an exemption to the rules on living persons

However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

so a) retired CHECK, b) notability rests on earlier visual appearance CHECK, and a new image would not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career CHECK. In other words, arguably the use of images of service personnel during their service fall into this exemption.
And sorry but I do happen to think that later images of servicemen do them an injustice, you actually managed to capture some measure of the reasons in your own response. The uniform does mean an awful lot to the wearer, its part of their identity, its part of what makes them a soldier.
Why is the photo striking? Well it tells us that Clayton took part in a historic event for one, in a conflict for which he is notable for a Mention in Dispatches. It is intended to conveys a visual image of his military service that couldn't be replaced by text. To use another analogy, the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima can always be replaced by text to the effect that three blokes raised a flag on top of a mountain can't it? The obvious answer is that no it can't. Justin talk 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you mentioned the Iwo Jima photo, because that is the prim example of the exception to the otherwise clear rule. That photo is permitted as a FU exception because the photo itself is notable. In this case, nothing about the photo is notable. There is explicitly not an exemption for photos of notable events, because that is how (were this taken by a war correspondent) war correspondents make their money. Robert Capa made money by taking amazing photos of singular events. We can't just repurpose photos like that because we think the event is significant. As for the ritered person exemption, I don't think we are seeing eye to eye. Clayton wasn't notable for his appearance. He was notable for his acts. He wasn't playing at being an officer, he was an officer. As such, we can't justify including his photo on that basis. For the military uniform bit, I guess we'll jsut have to agree to disagree. I don't think it is offensive or dishonorable to show a free photo of a man in civilian clothes where a copyrighted photo of them in uniform would work just as well. On that note, have we tried just asking him? I'm sure an e-mail address is available somewhere, or a mailing address. He may be able to release a current photo or release an old photo. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, asking him has been tried through the auspices of the HMS Cardiff association, in fact as I pointed out at IFD Ryan went to some lengths to get a free image. I'd also suggest that you're wrong about the war correspondent commercial interest in this case, as the image use would still have to pass NFCC and would fail on the commercial use criteria; this image doesn't. As for notability based on appearance, can I suggest a simple experiment, ask a few people what is the first thing they think of in relation to the image of a soldier? Agreeing to disagree with I don't have a problem with, I take issue with people saying the argument is invalide without providing a reason. Justin talk 11:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)I agree with Protonk in that an uncropped photo would raise different discussion issues that may need its own IMFD. An uncropped photo would make it more likely that source material discussed the photo. Cropping the copyrighted photo makes a derivative work (which requires a permission seprate from mere copying) and disrupts the right of the copyright holder to have their work displayed as a whole. Check out U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act. -- Suntag ☼ 00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#3b states "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace." NFCC policy directs editors to use a portion of an image where this is possible, which is exactly what has been done. It seems strange that an objection is being raised against an action sanctioned by Wikipedia policy defined by the Wikipedia foundation. Justin talk 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I hoped I had made clear, the cropped photo shoes (effectively) just the person, not the event. An uncropped photo would show the event and so would have a FUR for Port Howard but not for Christopher Clayton. Your quote is correct insofar as cropping doesn't basically alter what the image is meant to represent. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - If confined solely to its merits within the NFCC, this image fails to meet that policy and should be deleted. Discussion on alterations to the policy are ongoing, but they appear to be a rehash of the same argument over whether or not a uniform is an irreplaceable part of a person's image (it isn't). The image itself is (like the Conquerer image before it) a poor illustration of its subject anyway and can probably still be deleted. The only difference between this one and any other image of a doctor or farmer is the ultranational egotism that crops up over images of members of the military. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I take great offense at this accusation. I can certainly express an opinion regarding the subject at hand without such slander & slurs. Please retract the last sentence. — BQZip01 — talk 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, wait a minute, what was that last sentence for? It wasn't really needed. Protonk (talk) 13:59, 18 September 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 September 2008

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

Firestarter Racing Mini Monster (Truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Administrator Stated This Page Was Deleted Because It Was About A Person Not Noteworthy. If Administrator Had Read The Page They Would Realize It Is About A Newly Developed Monster Truck, And There Are Countless Pages On Specific Monster Trucks On Wikipedia. Kildare2 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted the article. The templated reason was not very accurate, but it still fits speedy criteria as the truck entirely not notable as it is "yet to debut publically" [sic.] If it does debut and becomes notable (ie a subject of reliable third-party coverage), then you can come back and write an article about. Renata (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CSD criteria very specifically does not allow for speedy deletion of products. Deletion should be attempted via PROD or AfD. Expanding the narrow criteria of CSD is a violation of the intentions of the community when they approved CSD. No matter how deletion-worthy an article is, if it does not neatly fit within a specific CSD criteria, then it can not be speedied. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn a truck is not a person no matter how you look at it, and doesn't fit A7. That said, Renata is correct, and the article certainly won't last a full 5 days on AfD, especially since it's "Yet to debut publically" as the article says. Suggest either Kildare2 withdraw this review and repost the article after the trck's debut and with some reliable sources, or Renata undeletes and AfDs it, after which it can safely be deleted after a few votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and take it to AfD, where it most likely will snowball massively. While this is of course just bureaucracy, if this had just been taken to AfD/PROD in the first place we wouldn't have to be here. Just a note, Renata, but whenever misused CSD end up here they're usually overturned. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) See below.[reply]
  • Comment - My Comments As Creator Of The Page, And In Response To Renata3:***
    Renata3:
    Apparently I need to post to my own talk page in an effort to dispute your decision to speedily delete my page titled 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)' and I must say, I have read the comments of other administrators pertaining to the manner you handled this matter, and I find it troubling. As an administrator I assume that you are expected to enforce the rules of Wikipedia, and yet you don't seem to follow them yourself. In fact, you denied me my due process and became judge, jury and executioner all in one...apparently your efforts to change your self proclaimed 'deletionist' ways aren't going so well. As well, I expect you did all this pertaining to a topic which I'm quite sure you know nothing about, which brings me to my next point.
    As far of the relevance of my truck is concerned, let me bring to your attention some information which you may be able to use to make a more informed decision. Aside from being an absolutely unique and original hand built one of a kind vehicle, it was created with the assistance of a gentleman named Steve Combs. Steve is not only a monster truck veteran, but one of the inventors of the nitrogen charged shock, and his product is used on practically every professional monster truck racing team, including such greats as Grave Digger. According to 'Monster Trucks' by Scott Johnston:

    "Today, the Combs racing shock is one of the most common components found on a Monster Truck, perhaps second only to the terra tire." (Pg. 226)

    Do you really believe he'd be wasting his time on something as 'irrelevant' as the Firestarter truck? To even entertain the thought that after the hours, experience and cost involved, that this vehicle is not noteworthy only exposes your ignorance to the topic. The fact is, you're looking at an authentic one of a kind vehicle - the first of it's kind before it makes it's debut - and you don't know enough on the topic to recognize it's importance in the industry.
    If anything, I am only guilty of being proactive in posting this article before attending my first major event, and understand that contractually I am not able to disclose any information at this time. It was my hope that when the event is announced, that those interested could find out more about the truck before attending...isn't that why an encyclopedia is used, to do research?
    I would like the courtesy of being involved in the disputation process, as I was denied access to appropriate procedure the first time this page was posted. A good first start would be if I could be provided with a copy of the page you deleted so that it can be reposted with my concerns.
    Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildare2 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy deletion did not fit the letter of CSD, yes, and was therefore an inappropriate deletion. However, the article does not merit inclusion, and would be deleted at AfD. Undeleting an article on principle, fully knowing it would be deleted at AfD, and sending it to AfD for process sake is needless bureaucracy, and a waste of editors' time. So keep deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not overturn: While the criteria of A7 in this spirit was not proper, I see no administrator abuse. It was an error, to which we all make at one point or another. The article, though, is crap and doesn't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because it is not notable. Sending it to AfD would result in its snowball'ed closure and would be a waste of everyone's time. I'd agree on reopening the article just to speedy delete it with a proper rationale, though. Furthermore, Deletion Review is not a place for rants against an administrator. seicer | talk | contribs 03:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I endorse the G11 deletion. I can't see the deleted revisions but I trust seicer's judgment re: CSD's. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really, Don't Worry About it Guys!!! After the lovely comments make by Seicer, and the inappropriate actions taken by Renata3, I'm going to go ahead and ask that any information I've uploaded to Wikipedia be respectfully deleted from your Database. It's been made very apparent that this is not the place for me. Thanks for your time. -- Kildare2 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn - A7 doesn't fit. As for G11, there is nothing from the deleted article listed in this discussion establish that G11 applies. Simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for G11 and there is no showing of the article being blatant advertising. -- Suntag ☼ 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This isn't a product and it wasn't made by a company--it's somebody's hobby. There's no conceivable assertion of notability, and there's no way it would pass AfD. If you want to troutslap over the mistaken CSD citation, fine, but it would be silly to undelete it. Chick Bowen 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as G11. Language used by nomnator above, for example "...contractually I am not able to disclose any information at this time..." make it impossible to view this as anything other than a promotional attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The speedy procedures and limitations are not there by accident. Proposals to extend A7 to other classes of articles have been soundly and repeatedly rejected by the community. Do we mean that administrators are supposed to follow policy, or do we not? Can I find whatever articles I think will not get through afd and nominate them for speedy even if they specifically are listed as not being deletable for that reason, and expect my colleagues to support me? We will then have 1500 admins deleting on 1500 different interpretations and what stays in Wikipedia will depend on which of us gets there first--WP the encyclopedia whose coverage is random? Sure, it doesn't work right some of the time--is the solution to improve consistency, or abandon all attempts at it? On a practical basis, the time and trouble in deleting this article via afd would have been much less then speedying it and then having it discussed here. If arbitrary process is challenged, the simple thing to do is to let it go to a community decision--saves trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse as G7. The author has requested removal above and there is no benefit to keeping it against their wishes whatever the validity of either speedy deletion rationale. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is not the place to propose new criteria. It clearly did not fit the one it was deleted under, and promotional intent or conflict of interest does not prove a page is actually irremediably promotional. Even if it is, deletion is not very sensible if the topic is encyclopedic, which is a matter for AfD. Non-adherence to our own rules is a perfectly sensible reason for an exasperated new contributor to wish to withdraw his contributions, and should not be used as an excuse to continue to not adhere to these rules.John Z (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A clear abuse of process. Jtrainor (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThank you John Z, 'exasperated' is a perfect description on how I felt after posting my first article, as is 'genuinely shocked' after the comments and accusations made by Seicer. My intentions were to post an article concerning a newly completed monster truck, relevant due to the fact that is posesses a never before seen design and concept. To directly address some of the accusations made concerning the page...this is not simply a hobby. Stamp collecting is a hobby. This is a 'concept' truck for lack of a better word, designed with the input of experts in the industry and costing tens of thousands of dollars. The purpose of placing it on Wikipedia was to inform those interested in the monster truck industry, not simply as a promotional tool or a method to link to a simple YouTube video as Seicer suggests. I would like some advice on how to proceed here, I'm getting some good input from some very helpful administrators, and it seems I've been wronged to some extent in this case.

Kildare2 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this would make sense to do after the article is restored. this first speedy must first be overturned explicitly as an error, in order to reject the views of such admins as the one who closed it and the supporters of it above who ignore the clear, explicit, repeated requirements of wikipedia policy. if they had said at their RfAs that A7 meant whatever an admin chose to have it mean they would not have been selected. How else can we express the need to follow policy? I apologize to the author of the article for the amount of fuss, but general issues are involved, not just this article. DGG (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to state my strong disagreement with DGG here. To insist that a right result be overturned because it was based on a wrong reason (though this should be duly noted) is pure bureaucracy. DRV is a forum for improving the encyclopedia by fixing the errors of the deletion process, not for teaching admins a lesson. WP:TROUT is thataway. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 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 September 2008

[edit]

12 September 2008

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

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

Closing admin says there are questions about the notability of the subject of the article, but bases that on the assertions of IP SPAs and gHits, where counter argument of several registered users says there are no notable sources. Too much weight given to unregistered users. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I woulda' leaned more towards deletion myself, but no consensus is a perfectly valid close there. There really isn't any consensus to do anything with it. So, endorse the lack of consensus close. However, I do like Cari's suggestion right at the end: would a merge to What What (In the Butt) be acceptable? If it isn't, I suggest renominating in a week or two, after editors have some time to work on it more. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned to the closing admin, two registered users (Phrasia and Calebrw) said basically WP:OTHERSTUFF. No other registered users said "Keep". TravellingCari said "Merge". Three registered users said delete. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I could care less what the numbers are. There isn't really a consensus to delete the page there, given that discussion. Feel free to try again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Satyr misrepresents my close. I based it on none of the factors that he’s stated in this deletion review request, as I’ve already explained to him. I came to my close after giving less weight to the people wishing to delete who said there was little or no coverage in reliable sources. Now, let’s start from the top – Samwell’s notability is established because he appeared in What What (In the Butt). This has been mentioned in numerous reliable sources;
    • mke online discusses the song, make various mentions of samwell appearing in it, and also make a claim that he has just signed for Southern Fried Records.
    • Blogcritics magazine – this is a an interview with the creators of the video, and again makes several references to samwell. The video was also parodied by South Park.
    • BBC online – Samwell was a you tube hero on the BBC Lily Allen and Friends show.
    • AG magazine – he is discussed in relation to the video in this magazine (see the bottom of the page)
    • Atacdus – Here is shown as the artist in the video.
    • RFT News – This is primarily an interview with the video producers, but the start is directly about Samwell, and makes mentions of him throughout.
    • Milwaukee's Daily Magazine – article about Samwell being the artist in the video, and how it was parodied by South Park.
    • In LA Magazine – Paragraph about Samwell, talking about his success on youtube.
After finding these after doing a search before I closed, I hope people understand why I gave the view that there were no reliable sources discussing Samwell less weight. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - you're saying he's notable because the video is? Notability doesn't inherit. I totally agree the video is notable - it's the actor we're talking about here. None of the sources you've mentioned have significant coverage of the actor, though they all cover the video. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I disagree with you - I believe the sources do give significant coverage. His claim to notability is through the video - he isn't inherently notable because of it, but the sources show that he actually is notable for it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - I just don't see how three single-purpose IP "Keeps" can derail an otherwise solid "Delete". I'm all for "anyone can edit", but not "anyone can derail process". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Entirely proper. As Ryan accurately said in his closing statement, the AfD "simply failed to show a consensus to delete."John Z (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and suggest renominate it after a few months. It seems pointy to request a review of a no consensus close based on a vision of consensus that can only be supported by ignoring certain elements of the discussion that are within administrator discretion. The close was entirely proper and reasonable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF here. I'm just seriously baffled that the three SPA IP "keeps" can be weighted so as equal to the three registered user "deletes". And that the three IP "ILIKEITs" can be weighted equally with the three registered user "NNs". I'm not bringing this to review because I don't agree with the no consensus, I'm bringing it because I truly believe the AfD was closed incorrectly, and that Ryan (as much as I admire him) did not accurately judge consensus. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User # post at about time of AfD post Position leaned towards WhoIs location
User:32.148.236.90 1 Keep Lake Mary, FL
User:69.210.102.55 1 Keep Richardson, TX
User:76.199.158.68 2 Keep Richardson, TX
User:65.30.186.104 1 Keep Herndon, VA
User:96.242.135.203 3 Keep Reston, VA
User:Phrasia ~200 Keep N/A
User:Calebrw ~2900 Keep N/A
User:Jasynnash2 ~5,400 Delete N/A
User:Icewedge ~10,100 Delete N/A
User:Seresin ~10,400 Delete N/A
User:Travellingcari ~11,800 Merge N/A
User:SatyrTN ~37,100 Delete N/A
User:Shatner1 ~200 Refactored discussion N/A
User:Fabrictramp ~72,600 Added deletion sorting tags N/A
User:Bjweeks ~14,060 First No consensus closer after 9 days[50] and reopened after talk N/A
User:Ryan Postlethwaite ~23,900 Second No consensus closer after 10 days N/A
  • Overturn AfD close. Allow recreation via DRV. - Both Phrasia and Calebrw said keep because he is famous. Fame is not reliable source material and you can't compose a Wikipedia text based article out of a word of mouth social evaluations. The keep arguments carried very little weight. The delete arguments provided search links to show lack of reliable source material and focused on the lack of source material for the article. The delete arguments seemed to outweight the keep arguments. In this DRV. Ryan's posted reliable source material sufficient to allow recreation of the article. -- Suntag ☼ 23:44, 16 September 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 September 2008

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

Servitor Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) A J Butler (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting the article be restored to my userspace or emailed to me. It disappeared too fast for me to store a copy.

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

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

I REQUEST SOMEONE UNDELETES THE PAGE "AZI VISTA" I BELIVE THIS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR NOT BEING A REAL PERSON YET HE IS. HE HAS A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE CALLED "DARK SOULED OUTKASTS2 OF HIM WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER SO THERE'S PROVE HE EXISTS! Completing malformed nomination for Azi Vista- Frontman of a emo, metal, alternative band called Azi Vista's Angels. Also written a comic book called 'The Jail Angels'. Artvile was delted A7 by User:Hersfold. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming he doesn't exist. The deletion was due to: 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. . Corvus cornixtalk 22:12, 11 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

SUPERPOWER the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Page was deleted by me as a copyvio of this page on September 8. I have received a request to undelete it on my talkpage: by User:71.76.254.143 and by User:SuperpowerTheMovie Since the copyright situation has not, in my opinion, been satisfactorily cleared up, I am bringing it here for comment. —Travistalk 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have 'em shoot the WP:OTRS an email, and that'll clear it all up. 'Til that, probably should stay gone. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writer of the review obviously owns the content at the website superpower the movie as she put the copyright disclaimer on there right after you suggested it. She's willing to do anything you want in order to meet your standards. Right now this "banning" or "deletion" or whatever is hurting her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.254.143 (talk) 11 September 2008
  • Note - Okay, I have restored the article. (I would close this discussion, but I can’t seem to find the correct template.) —Travistalk 21:39, 11 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Microcredit Summit Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Please bring this page back! The Campaign has an international reach that brings together microcredit practitioners, advocates, educational institutions, donor agencies, international financial institutions, non-governmental organizations and others involved with microcredit to promote best practices in the field, to stimulate the interchanging of knowledge, and to work towards reaching United Nations Development Goals of 175 million of the world's poorest families, especially the women of those families, are receiving credit for self-employment and other financial and business services by the end of 2015 and 100 million families rise above the US$1 a day threshold by 2015. Wiki allows the Campaign to help raise awareness of its goals and activities and helping international organizations find resources they need to improve their efforts at ending poverty through microcredit programs. Microcreditsummit (talk) 16:57, 11 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

German photography in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Clearly, Wikipedia is not the answer for those out there wishing to contribute their knowledge. Another forum needs be found. I will inform the 972 people on my email list. Thankx for being such automatons.99.8.229.159 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are spot on, wikipedia isn't for you to contribute your knowledge, very much not so, see no original research and verifiability --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would MZMcride delete German photography in America? By what right? On what intellectual basis? I want to see this page restored. This page represents an immense amount of shared knowledge about photography. It is being maintained conscientously, connecting many threads which already exist within Wikipedia. Every fact has been checked and referenced. This information is useful to anyone concerned with photography or with cultural anthropology. I do believe this seemingly arbitrary deletion deprives Wikipedia users of a valuable intellectual tool. Guaranteed, if the German photography in America page remains deleted, Wikipedia as a university concept has no future.Solo Zone (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anyone is welcome to bring an deletion review if in good faith, and should not be criticized for that, especially when not all the comments at the afd were negative. DGG (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't delete the article. I've never read the article. I can't express in words how little I care about whether or not the article exists on Wikipedia. I deleted a broken redirect or two to the article at some point. And Solo Zone, you misspelled my username. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of misspellings. You fix them. 99.8.229.159 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a university concept. It is an encyclopedia. Corvus cornixtalk 20:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest userfication (moving to a subpage of the user's userpage) to allow the user to continue to work on the list, or article if it becomes one. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify The deleted list contained 80 people , of whom about 30 had WP articles; By our usual standards, a list of people has an implied "notable" meaning "has WP article", so what is necessary for re-creation is to 1/remake it without the other names until you make articles for them. 2/Explain at the top just why German photographers are a special group warranting an article--what makes this a distinctive subject as contrasted with French, Italian, American-born, etc. The reference used may explain that, but you need to explain this to us with exact cites. Whether this ends up as a list or article or both depends on what you do with it, just as Carcharoth says. I apologize that I didn't join the discussion--the non-obvious title led me to not investigate closely. Most of the comments at the AfD were not helpful, making absurd analogies instead of rational arguments. The close was justified, because indeed the article did not show justification for keeping at the time, though the closer's comment "Spectacular fail" seems out of place and snarkish, as were some of the comments there. DGG (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There was a very clear consensus at the AFD discussion. Deletion review is a place to show how the deletion process was not followed, not a place to reargue the same arguments (or advance new ones that do not give new information) on why an article should be kept. The nominator is also reminded that civility and decorum are not optional on Wikipedia, and is pointed to the Wikipedia style guideline on lists and this essay on poor lists. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus at AfD discussion was unanimous and no reason has been presented as to why the closure was incorrect - just a flurry of insults. --Stormie (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is "German photography in the Americas" a distinct subject of popular or academic interest? That is, is there enough material in reliable sources about the subject "German photography in the Americas" so that an article can be written about it that does not consist solely of a statement to the effect that "Germans have photographed in the Americas" and a list of photographers? If such an article can be written, then a shortened version of this list would probably belong in that article. If such an article cannot be written, then this list needn't exist. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:01, 14 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Hi can any one help me with why my article was deleted back in July

This was about one of the most significant global toy companies prior to the modern era

I am widely published in heritage and museum contexts and have a PhD in art history and work at a senior academic level

but my article was deleted because someone whose main interest/expertise seems to be ice hockey decided that it "does not show much significance"

since then a slightly related article seems to use some of my material

I only do some editing and creation of wikipedia pages - but this was a totally legitimate page at an international level and from a cultural and design history perpective and wonder what qualifications those who thought to delete it had - it seems an act of cowboys, nerds and jocks

I would appreciate some genuine help from the community in restoring a page that had valid factual content and would be useful to anyone researching toys, dolls and childhood

Bebe Jumeau (talk) 07:39, 11 September 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 September 2008

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

Denis Rancourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Denis Rancourt is a very notable person in the Ottawa area. The user who speedy deleted this page did so in a reactionary manner because he has no knowledge of this area and it's politics. Denis Rancourt is very notable and has been in the news several times in both local (Ottawa) and national (Canada) newspapers. A number of different incidents led him to be in the news. This was not just a one time news story which disappeared after one week. I think deletions like this are part of the reason for the deterioration of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should represent a whole worldview and not just US figures. I think the deletion by US users of Canadian content is a problematic practice.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what was the indication of the subject's importance stated in the artice? --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the top of this page, the instructions state "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look" (my italics). Your request to Orangemike was accusatory and posted 23 minutes before listing the review here. Why did you not give him enough time to respond to your comment? Stifle (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I'm most offended by the accusation of being a clueless Yank! I can talk about Bob Rae's curious career path with some knowledge; I know about the kitten-eaters; I have friends who are Grits as well as NDP, and don't have to look up what BQ stands for. The article was about an obscure local professor against whom a local paper seems to have a bit of a vendetta; didn't appear to rise to the level of notability, and raised serious BLP concern as well. Despite incivility and the accusation of bigotry, I'm willing to restore the article to Milton's userspace for improvement, if that makes sense to my peers here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got two things going through my head here. First, I would have greatly prefered to have seen an AfD to decide whether or not this subject is notable. Whether or not it met the word of the CSD, it doesn't meet the spirit. However, the article as written does not give me confidence that it would have passed AfD on its own, so my thought is that the best solution here is to recreate a better article on the same subject. This version should be taken to AfD or PRODed rather than speedied again, and hopefully will be given some time to be worked on first (two days oughta' be good, in my mind, after recreation). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and optionally list at AfD Sufficient indications of notability--University professor in the news for a controversial course. This may or may not be notable, but its enough of an indication to require an AfD. My friend the deletor, despite our general agreement on almost all issues, seems to be under the general impression (based on many discussions with him) that saying that someone is the subject of political controversy or holds a notable position or has written some books, etc. is not an indication of notability. I agree totally that those things are not necessarily proofs of notability sufficient to pass AfD--but the bar for speedy is any indication, a deliberately very low standard to allow opportunity for discussion. Any article indicating anything which in good faith could be taken by a user is sufficient to p[ass speedy--speedy, as the policy says, is for unquestionable deletions--those where nobody could reasonably have doubt about the suitability for an article. Given that this article actually had Reliable sources with substantial coverage, this is a clear misunderstanding of the speedy criteria. As Lifebaka says, one need not have confidence that an article would pass AfD in its current state to know that its not a speedy. DGG (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question, User:Stifle. I suspect the only reason User:Orangemike deleted my article was that he found me through another user who I know as a friend here in Ottawa User:SmashTheState who OrangeMike has some kind of personally vendetta against. He previously deleted some of his articles. We're all Wobblies and OrangeMike seems to disagree with Smash's more radical politics. I assumed a bad faith delete and asked for a deletion review instead of communicating directing with OrangeMike who I had already heard complaints about from SmashTheState.
In response to the notability of Denis Rancourt. There are articles on Ward Churchill and other professors I would label (fairly or unfairly) as radical ideological professors. I think that Denis Rancourt is just as notable but perhaps doesn't receive the same media attention (in the USA) that Ward Churchill does.
In further response to the suggestion that the Ottawa Citizen was the only media outlet covering Denis Rancourt and perhaps had some beef with him. Rancourt has received national media attention outside of the Citizen, as well as their affiliated Canwest newspapers. The Ottawa Sun also reported on Rancourt. A timely article appears here on their website Denis the 'menace'. I hope this is enough information to get the article recreated or for their at least to be a proper nomination for deletion which can be fully challenged.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will defend OM against this charge. Quite irrespective of differences in politics, and what may have led him to this article, OM's speedy was not particularly unusual-- I think he's using the wrong standard, a matter for friendly discussion, but i do not think it shows personal involvement or bias. And, by the by, media coverage is one of the key factors in notability, something to keep in mind when you defend the article at AfD. DGG (talk) 23:59, 13 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This article was deleted in what was basically a snowball AfD on the 9th. Most of the keep votes contested the inadequacy of the nomination. The nomination itself suggested that the subject "might be notable", although the nominator later ammended this (at my suggestion) to say "Originally I believed this article was notable cause because I assumed the ship in question was the equivalent to the Starship enterprise. But this article lacks reliable third person information and on further investigation I believe this article fails under the criteria of excessive and useless info." Some keep votes made clear, emphatic statements that the subject was notable. The few delete votes noted that reliable sources that covered the subject were neither cited nor found in a reasonable search (Disclosure, I did most of the talking in that AfD). User:Seicer closed the debate as keep, later noting that the keep points regarding the nomination were a valid reason for closure. While I don't disagree with that, I would like to bring this to review in order to get a consensus to relist the article with a proper nomination. I'm aware I can just wait a few months and renominate this article, I would rather not have to explain away a past resounding keep. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If relisting is warranted because of an improper rationale that was later corrected, I would support that. seicer | talk | contribs 01:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of. I'm really asking for some consensus to do that 'early'. Because I was heavily involved in the older AfD, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to turn right around and renominate it because I didn't get 'what I want' (as it were). I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I would feel better if I had some third party consensus that the old AfD consensus related primarily to the shortcomings in the nomination. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 11 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Black Rose (Cher album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Some lawyer has blanked the page, then added his/her letter which alleges 15,000 copyright violations on YouTube (or by YouTube). Administrators please look into this; I'm not qualified to evaluate or change the page as it is.Fconaway (talk) 22:01, 10 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

I can't find any record of this deletion in the log. Neither can I find any discussion of it. The cached page indicated it was proposed fore deletion due to lack of notability. However, google returned thousands of references to the subject, including pictures of her with Sarah Palin. Can we reopen this issue. The deletion seems starkly political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.110.5 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment AfD is linked above. it's courtesy blanked but the information is still available TravellingCari 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A case of missing logs, which I've fixed. I don't see any reason given above to overturn or look at the AfD closure. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Properly deleted though frankly I do not see why the afd was hidden for privacy reasons, and i would like some explanation of that. As I argued at the afd, when some totally unnotable person is interviewed about a candidate, it doesn't make that person notable no matter how often the interview is republished. One had to do something notable to be notable. I tend to be flexible about what, or how much, but this is ridiculous--it amounts to making an article in Wikipedia for each article in the press. DGG (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Surely at a minimum this should be a redirect? There is a lot of international news media coverage about this person, including new quotes at [53]. However this person isn't mentioned at Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla which is where one would think it would be, if it was I'd simply say redirect. But if not, it should be overturned, or merged. It's hard to judge the validity of the original AfD, I'd have said no consensus, but the closing Admin provided no justification, which doesn't seem right given how much debate there was. Nfitz (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no redirect. Everyone who knows Palin does not deserve a redirect to her article. Synergy 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Many of these political AFDs have been attracting lots of partisans who don't care about Wikipedia but do care about politics. Closers need to, as this one did, separate the crud from the folks who are trying to apply Wikipedia's standards. The closer did so, and made a close within reasonable discretion, and indeed more likely right than not. Once the AFD was found, the nominator here has no remaining valid argument. GRBerry 03:44, 15 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hugh Jeffery Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This is my own deletion. A protest has been made on my talk page. I speedied under G10 as a BLP problematic article. The page provided a single book source (appears to be reliable) under a references section and is focused entirely on the subject's criminal activities and sentence. It was tagged as an A7 which, with a reliable source cited, I did not think it met (though I do think notability is questionable), but I felt an article on this living person, with no inline citations, with that focus, should not hang around another second. This may be a liberal interpretation of WP:BLP so I'm really here for a second opinion. I know this is an odd DRV listing procedurally, but I do not wish to restore and let it sit for five days while at AfD when BLP issues are involved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as copyvio [54]. I think notability and verifiability is mostly OK, though the various online versions of the story differ enough that creating a consistent article would be tricky [55] [56] (I hope these links are persistent!) Regards, Ben Aveling 12:44, 10 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

2 users who started discussion are sock puppets of same user and now they are blocked. 2 other users list obscure personal opinions UrSuS (talk) 07:27, 10 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
note to closer and discussion participants - "they would only be used in lieu of proper discussion" is not a rationale as their use would be no different from the use of '''support''' - if this is your reason, save your bytes and just type "*'''endorse deletion''' ~~~~--Random832 (contribs) 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

This template, along with Oppose, Neutral and Question, were deleted because it was felt that the icons they contained ( and ) encourage people to believe that AFD etc are a vote. There seems to be no objection to the existence of the templates, other than the icons, and I propose that for consistency with commons and other wikis, and as per discussion at AN, we should: 1. reenable creation of these templates; 2. create templates following the example in User:BenAveling/support; and 3. permanent protect the templates. Regards Ben Aveling 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems fine to me. I always felt that the oppositions to the icons on face had sort of a tinfoil hat character. AfD isn't a vote (but it was) and these templates don't make it a vote anymore than bolding the words "Delete" do. I am however, willing to be persuaded that this isn't necessary because we have roughly equivalent userspace templates right now. The other arguments (server space, "changing opinion", "debasing debate" etc) don't hold much water with me. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Wow. Reading failure. I guess I didn't notice the part about "no icons". In that case I'm fine with these being created but not all that excited. I would probably never use them, as it seems easier to bold a word than enclose and pipe a template, but that's just me. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome. --NE2 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd accept their use at RfA if they did not have icons, on the grounds that the discussions there are so much in need of improvement that anything is worth the try. "Support" is not usually what one says at AfD, in any case, but keep/delete/etc. and I would encourage people to give more nuanced opinions in any case. eg "keep or at worst merge." Changing AfD to any extent towards an explicit vote is the opposite direction from where we should go. DGG (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed; they don't have icons. Good catch that keep/delete/... would also be needed. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing recreating those templates - the templates I'd like to see do not have icons and they complain, ever so politely, if no reason is provided. See below. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wasn't this just covered a couple of months back? has anything changed since? If we want consistency with the other wiki's perhaps we should change our notability standards, image policies, deletion polices, rfa's etc. In the scheme of things not using these templates here would seem one of the least confusing parts --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The objection then, as originally, was that people would be mislead by the icons into thinking that AFD, etc is a vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'd rather see certain other wikis adopt some policies we have, but this is simple way to avoid a small typo that I've made a lot of times, and I've seen other people do it too. So long as we don't add icons, what does it hurt? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A problem we already have. These templates should actually help - as per discussion at AN, if no argument is given, bolding does not happen and a warning is given. Eg:
No parameter provided: *{{User:BenAveling/support}} expands to:
Parameter provided: * {{User:BenAveling/support|Consistency with other wikis}} expands to:
  • Support: Consistency with other wikis
Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards keeping deleted. I don't see consistency as a particularly strong rationale, and I can't see how these will improve things. What is the difference between Support and support (no rationale given)? The latter feels a little to pointy or dickish to me. Hiding T 10:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For AFD or DRV, saying Keep or Delete or Support without also providing a reason carries basically no weight and has very little value. See User:BenAveling/!Vote. support (no rationale given) also carries little to no weight, but it makes that explicit. Basically, requiring the parameter reminds people to discuss, not just to vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it makes it any more explicit. I also think DRV is a bad example, because it is the one place where issues get discussed. Since it is predominately populated by admins, that may have some bearing, and it also has some bearing on why I don't think this is needed. Admins know how to close debates, they don't need to have a little template point it out. I'm also unsure how the template is supposed to work. If a user adds his comment in the form of this template, it seems to me the user is already aware of the fact that a rationale is needed. And if a user soen't use the template, what is being proposed? We amend their comment, something I'd be against? No, I think I'm leaning even further towards keep deleted. I think this is an area where we should WP:KISS. I remember being a newbie and how intimidating it was simply working out how to do a bullet and bold typing. Let's not force templates on people too. Hiding T 12:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on making it mandatory... I don't see how you could. The main reason I've proposed having these templates is that I use them on Commons and it's a nuisance having to remember that on en, I have to use '''. I just figure that most people will follow what other people do, even if they don't really understand why, so perhaps some good might come. I agree that most people at DRV have clue, but I've seen plenty that don't - they're the ones that are there because they don't understand what happened at AFD. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. So we're all supposed to change what we do to suit you. :) Nah, realistically I can't see that this will have any more impact. You can clue in some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't clue in all of the people all of the time. Hiding T 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I can support this particular proposal (User:BenAveling/support). What if someone uses the template on RFA or the upcoming arbcom elections? "support (no rationale given)" seems pretty BITEy to me, and "Note: Failure to provide a reason will result in a warning." is simply not acceptable. If someone writes "Support. ~~~~" at an RFA, we ask them to provide a reason. We don't warn them. So.. why can't {{support}} solely consist of '''Support'''? I'd Support that. :) --Conti|✉ 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. These are already userfied in a few places, and you're moew than welcome to userfy it again for your own use, but there's a clear consensus that it shouldn't be in mainspace. Same with the templates, go ahead and use them if you like, but it seems like it just makes the XFD's more confusing. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Not to be BEANS-y, but * {{User:BenAveling/support|Per nom}} . There, you'll never see "no rationale given" again. I'm with the others who are concerned that this will be used in place of proper discussion. And while I understand that yes, we already have this problem, I don't think making it easier to vote via a template is going to solve the problem. --Kbdank71 16:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the complexity of BenAveling's version - this should simply expand to '''support''' alone for usage-compatibility with the versions on other wikis. --Random832 (contribs) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This has the potential to quite a bit of what I would consider rather unnecessary transclusion. (Wasn't there a consensus that transclusion in signatures was bad for similar reasons?). As such, I would support MfD for all these userfied versions too. - jc37 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to reiterate what was said at the last DRV. Consensus there was that there's no good reason to restore the templates (which I agree with, they're kinda' pointless) but userspace versions (such as mine at User:Lifebaka/+, User:Lifebaka/-, and User:Lifebaka/=) are just fine. So just keep yours in your userspace and everything's cool as far as I can see. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right but the previous templates had icons. This is just alternate markup for the same thing people already do. If you don't like voting, there are surely more productive ways to prevent it than to micromanage the markup people use to vote. --Random832 (contribs) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and do not create version described above (no icons). Transclusion cost is too high. If anybody ever changed the template (capitalize a letter, change to italicized text, etc, then the server would have to update all of those transclusions. If we told people to subst them instead, then they'd be typing way much more than to just enter it themselves. What possible gain is there to this suggestion? And how about if somebody changed the support template to "delete"? Vandalism affecting all proposal pages at once? Bad idea... brings no good and some bad, so no. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have conveyed much of what I was thinking when I commented above. - jc37 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The only obvious net effect of restoring these would be to promote inconsistent formatting in the discussions where they're used. Not sure why we'd want that. (As an aside, the "save your bytes" message strikes me as inappropriate.) Townlake (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Jerry. Icons such as this are not needed on the English Wikipedia because presumably anybody participating in a discussion where they might be used can communicate in English. By contrast, on Commons or the Meta-Wiki, they might be more useful, since there might be discussion participants there who prefer to communicate in a variety of languages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Jerry. As Kbdank71 notes, people can very easily bypass giving an actual "reason" by typing "per nom" or ~~~~ (that's how {{relist}} works). The negative consequences of having and using these templates (gives the impression of a vote, transclusion load, colourful icons that draw attention away from the text) far exceed the few possible advantages. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but what icons are you referring to here? I'm sorry, but complaining about icons when the templates don't have icons, or complaining about inconsistent formatting when templates actually enforce consistent formatting, or worrying about people vandalising the templates when part of the proposal is that the templates be protected, well, I'm sorry again, but these are all examples of the reasons that AFD/DR is not a vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies regarding the "icons" comment: I mixed up the deleted templates and User:BenAveling/support. I've stricken that part of my comment as inapplicable. However, where have I complained about (or mentioned, for that matter) inconsistent formatting or vandalism? Jerry mentioned vandalism, but "per Jerry" doesn't necessarily mean "per everything Jerry wrote". If I was unclear in my first comment, let me try again: Delete - use of these templates would create significant transclusion load (as well as slow loading speeds on XfD pages) for little or no benefit (formatting consistency is not strictly necessary and perhaps not even desirable, since XfDs are supposed to be discussions and not votes). –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the TfD consensus was clear. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted but unprotect. I didn't realize the last deletion discussion was 3 years old. Let him create his icon-less templates: TfD, not deletion review, is the place to discuss if consensus has changed. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Jerry, this is unnecessary transclusion, and its made worse (server-wise) by requiring a parameter. Further, by requiring a parameter, its no longer consistent with other wikis, so one of the only real benefits is gone. Mr.Z-man 16:07, 15 September 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 September 2008

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

Matt Lee (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Sockpuppetry. Three "keeps" by Guitaro99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or his IPs [57][58]. No reliable sources at all (not even the rollingstones.com one). Only other "keep" refers to the number of references as a reason to keep, but since none of the refs are anything but band websites none of them pass WP:RS or WP:N. I am seeking to overturn the keep and delete this article because the AfD clearly gave NO valid reason to keep this. -Nard 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all ,no sockpuppetry. I was inputting from work. Second, it's not the rollingstones.com, it's rollingstone magazine.com . The bikini island (major movie) imdb site clearly states that Mr.Lee and his partner Mr. Reese have a song called Shot Down published in the movie under the FAQ section on the first page of the site.Also , as Mr. Lee's career moves further this year, he will have more info for me to input to this site. He has an album w/ the D.I.'s coming out in november on Hepcat Records. The same label as Britney Spears and the Stray Cats. There is a "Keep" from ukexpat that refs are showing notability. Mr. Lee's bands are listed in wikipedia with the same notes and articles as well.Particularly,The Divine Horsemen and Julie Christensen. All the records listed are published and available works. The D.I.'s Lock 'n Load is going to be back on the racks in the new Hepcat release as well.I believe that the request to delete the article has not been researched. Especially because that user identified the one single thing they looked up as rollingstones.com . That was never included in the refs. It was listed as rollingstone magazine.com and has several refs listed throughout the article. I am D. Schneider@work.(69.231.50.49 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
One other thing. Wiki assessment already looked into this matter and it looked clear. D.Schneider(69.231.50.49 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Father Time (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Back in July, I AFD'ed this article because it violated WP:CRYSTAL. The album's page didn't contain cover art, a track listing, or anything else; furthermore, given that the artist in question (Hal Ketchum) is on Curb Records, I had a feeling that the album would be repeatedly delayed, as was his last album. However, sources like this and this verify that the album has indeed been released. I don't want to step on anyone's toes by simply re-creating the page, so I thought I'd DRV this instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:06, 9 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Blendon and Penhill (ward) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Wikipedia Notability

Wikipedia:Notability

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

Jed keenan (talk) 14:06, 9 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

P. S. I Loathe You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Deleted 6 months ago, book has been announced. [59]see second link. Series is one of the most popular for young people. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As long as the new version solves the problems that caused the deletion last time, you don't need a DRV for this. Just as any admin to userify it for you, add the new information and sources, and ask them (or any other admin) if that satisfies the previous deletion. Then they (or you) can move it into mainspace. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse complete content was, "P. S. I Loathe You is the tenth book in the bestselling The Clique series by Lisi Harrison. The book is scheduled for release in February of 2009." plus an infobox. That doesn't assert notability. Simple annoucement of existence does not confer notability. TravellingCari 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are the deletion logs:
  • Deleted 21:30 19 Feb. 2008 at AfD.
  • Deleted 22:45 19 Feb. 2008 per WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context.
  • Deleted 23:48 20 Feb. 2008 per WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context.
  • Deleted 22:52 8 Sept. 2008 per WP:CSD#G4, continued recreation of deleted material.
The book is non-existent and won't be published until next year. It was a one-liner article that read, "Series X is a best seller, therefore this book is notable because of the supposed connection." No sources, insufficient context. seicer | talk | contribs 04:37, 9 September 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 September 2008

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

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

I am posting this deletion review on behalf of User:Westcoastbiker, who said the following at WP:AN. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page "Bettertrades" recently, with the intention of putting up a new and useful page about something I knew and had sources for. It was speedily deleted, and I couldn't get either the deleter or the suggestor to specifically explain the issue. I edited the page even more. I have done everything I can to keep neutral POV, assert notability, and adhere to wikipedia standards. I tried requesting help from User:Coren and User:Jerry, since Coren was the deleting admin, and Jerry was the one who restored the page to my userspace. I've been trying to get some approval or editing from anyone who can help me to make sure that I make the page correctly in order to assure that it doesn't simply get deleted at a pass again.

I would like to move the page from User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades to BetterTrades (note the uppercase "T"). I hope that my exhaustive efforts have proven useful, and that I can move forward with working on other wikipedia interests. Westcoastbiker (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

The book reference by Scott Schilling is printed material about the company. The focus of the selection in the book is largely about the CEO, but it's in relation to his experience with this particular company, and the history there. I thought this seemed appropriate.

I haven't found any newspaper sources about BetterTrades yet, but most of the time businesses don't get printed press unless they do something controversial, which doesn't necessarily attest to notability (but it still helps for information!) Is one book source sufficient for now, considering that it seems (in my humble opinion) factually reliable? It is third-party printed. Westcoastbiker (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

What;s the nature of the book? DGG (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book where the author researches entrepreneurs who are also philanthropists or public influences. The author writes a description of the person and business involved at the beginning of each chapter, and then formally interviews the person in question. It's a recent book, 2007. Westcoastbiker (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

What's the extnt to which it covers him? DGG (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll do what I can to work on other edits and submissions, and I'll bring up more sources when I find them. I guess the current content just stays in my userspace?Westcoastbiker (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

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

List of Elite Four members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I had a discussion with the closing nominator here. He explained how he arrived at his interpretation, which I understand. But I don't think it's a reflection of our actual policy, and therefore not grounded in reason. He arrived at his conclusion by:

  • Ignoring 1 merge !vote as having no rationale. (Correct.)
  • Ignoring 2 merge !votes as having a poor rationale. (Reasonable.)
  • Not ignoring a keep !vote that was "just a policy": it's notable. (A double standard?)
  • Not ignoring a keep !vote that claimed there were sources, but only found unreliable or primary sources. (A double standard?)
  • Ignoring secondary support for a merge, from myself and Nifboy. (Who !voted for something other than merge.)
  • Interpreting a merge !vote from AMiB as keep, because the administrator thought the article would need to be temporarily kept in order to complete this merge proposal.
  • Interpreting Sundragon34's merge !vote as a keep, because the administrator missed his later comment. (An honest mistake that the administrator admits.)
Actually, Sundragon34 has stated on the Afd talk page that his earlier comments are his !vote, and his latter comment was merely a separate opinion that merge would be preferable to delete, but that he still favored keep. So I actually got his !vote right (accidentally). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I believe there was a double standard between the ignoring weak arguments for merge and respecting weak arguments for keep. I also think there were a few interpretations of votes that just don't match up with the rationales of the editors, let alone their big bold letters. To me, that's at least a no-consensus. If you factor in secondary support for a merge from other !votes, this might even be a consensus for merge. I know AFDs are not a vote, but I think there was a pretty serious re-weighting of consensus here. More than anything, I'd like to get the honest third opinion from the Wikipedia community. And sorry about the "essay". Randomran (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Jerry is correct in noting that a merge does require a keep closure. AfD was not the correct venue for this article, there should have been a merge proposal on the talk page, with input from interested and involved editors. GlassCobra 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closing administrator. Asking for a keep to be reversed to a no-consensus demonstrates no understanding of what that outcome means. Requesting a keep be changed to a merge is just silly... bold editors can merge at any time without a drv or an AfD. That the discussion could not be closed as delete was absolutely clear; what form of keep closure it came out as was a metter of administrator discretion. Since at least one editor make a plausible argument that the content should be merge to multiple locations, a simple close as merge was not the best outcome. Those editors who want the article merged and redirected can just go do it; there is simply nothing to do here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm making the case that it was incorrect to close this as a keep. If it was no consensus, then it should have been re-listed to give it time to develop a consensus. If there was any consensus at all, it was for a merge, and definitely not keep. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no other reasonable closure of this AFD. As pointed out above, merging can be discussed on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just start a discussion on the talk page on whether it should be merged or not where you may be able to get consensus for that move. In the AFD itself only the nominator supported deletion and discussion on the talk page in the best place for deciding whether a merge should take place. The AFD does not preclude a merge being decided at the talk page. Davewild (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am concerned that I would be interpreted as forum shopping, gaming the system, and ignoring the consensus -- which was interpreted to be keep, rather than merge. That would not be my intent. Randomran (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To anyone who says that feel free to point them here, as long as a proper discussion on the merge takes place I see no problem. I think everyone who has commented above is agreed that there is nothing to stop you from initiating a merge proposal on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you see, that's exactly where "forum shopping, gaming the system, and ignoring the consensus" accusations are likely to come from. Please stop being stubborn and just go do the merge. There is no purpose to dragging out this unnecessary process. Since, as closing administrator, I said right on the talkpage for the AfD "The merge proposals may or may not be valid, but this can be handled by bold editors outside of AfD", nobody should have any real problem with it being against consensus to do so. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you satisfied now such that this DRV can be closed as "request withdrawn"? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see this as a an issue of reflecting what actually happened. I hate to be a PITA, but just closing it as keep when that's far from an obvious conclusion seems to create an inaccuracy in the public record, and can cloud future processes around the same article or subject. This wasn't a straight up keep, as far as I can tell. Although I guess I'll leave that up to other editors to form a consensus on the issue. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is particularly bad to open a DRV for a Keep closure that the nominator feels should have been no consensus. We tell people that DRV is meant to deal with process issues, not the outcome of articles, yet when one comes looking to review process we shoe them away. As for the actual "outcome" difference, no consensus is pretty distinct from keep. If this merger discussion falls apart or gets stale, someone may want to swing by this article in a few months and send it back to AfD. an article closed as "no consensus" is MUCH easier to send back to AfD than one closed as "keep". Honestly I'm glad to see one DRV that is looking at process (at least in part) rather than just "I didn't like the result of the close, please reverse". I don't have a comment on how the process should have worked or what the outcome ought to be, but that's my thought. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 9 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

John E. Pike/Temp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

original content

I cut and pasted a copyrighted newsclipping posted on the subjects website (not his copyright) I then grouped the quotes by the subject, then grouped quotes about the subject, then began rewriting the general material, then added his press clippings with links to transcripts (which goes directly to notability)

please restore the original content, if you want me to rewrite. 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i kinda object to nuking my work product, because you would rather be safe than sorry.

Corvus cornixtalk 03:07, 6 September 2008 says: "Copying word for word from another site is not fair use. See WP:FU." But for copying word for word there would be no fair use. user talk:pohick214:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

btw, you might have more 'interest' about the subject than Corvus -- one of the quotes compared him to Edwin Land, existing article on Federation of American Scientists where he worked for 18 years Pohick2 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"I cut and pasted a copyrighted newsclipping posted on the subjects website" - there's your issue right there. WP:FU does not apply here, and is in general only used for images. If you wish to write this article, please do so from scratch - no borrowing text from anywhere else. It's really not difficult, and I can tell you that aside from being completely legal, it's a hell of a lot more satisfying. TalkIslander 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) "what we have here is failure to communicate"; WP:Bite lol; "be seeing you"Pohick2 (talk 14:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Deleting articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion is not biting ;). TalkIslander 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pohick2 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there should be no problem once you finish rewriting it, but its better to do such rewriting off-wiki. DGG (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to Pohick2 when I pointed him here, it's highly unlikely that a copyvio will get undeleted. Corvus cornixtalk 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as i explained to corvus, deleted original content will not rewrite itself.01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't really of huge concern to us - chances are that the article would fail A7 anyway. TalkIslander 10:27, 9 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slovio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Is introduced non-trivially on Omniglot. And if a constructed language in introduced non-trivially by a reputable language resource site or book, it should have an independent article. RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Linking to a redlink to prove that it's notable doesn't seem to shore up your argument. Corvus cornixtalk 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to second AFD here. Davewild (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted In order to be included on wikipedia subjects must generally meet the notability guidelines by including significant coverage in reliable sources. Without such coverage articles will generally be deleted. If you feel an article on Slovio can meet the notability guidelines through such coverage then would suggest creating a userspace version of the article (e.g. at User:RekishiEJ/Slovio) showing that coverage and to bring that version back here for people to consider. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See [60]. Conlans introduced independently by a particular reputable language resource site should have an article. WP:N is just a guideline. I don't know who deleted the article, so I didn't inform the deleter. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not talking about informing someone after you list the article here, I'm talking about doing so beforehand. I find that the majority of the time, a brief civil discussion with the deleting admin will either lead to him changing his decision or to you gaining a better understanding behind the decision, which resolves the problem without opening a five-day process here. If you didn't know that this discussion was customary and/or missed the instruction when you were listing the DRV, then that's fine — just say so, and we can move on. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 10 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

This article was originally posted a few weeks ago, and the requested changes have been made. It is written from a neutral point of view about a company that headed efforts to redesign Lambeau Field and is also building the first post-Katrina hospital in St. Bernard Parish, New Orleans. I would like for anyone to please read over this article, as it is not only neutral, but also a warranted and good addition to wikipedia Sharnden (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn(refactored by Jerry; this is a follow-up comment by nominator) What does the above have to do with the article being about a company that definitely merits it's own page on Wikipedia? In all seriousness, the Hammes Company article has been rewritten, sourced, and has been a huge part of two incredibly important pieces of American culture (Lambeau Field and Hurricane Katrina). The article is written as educational and is easily as significant and moreso than many other companies that have had pages approved by Wikipedia. It's not like the author is unwilling to make future changes, but the changes that have been made continue to go ignored by CyberGhostface. As the article stands, there is truly no reason for it to be deleted.Sharnden (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Sharnden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*You're the DRV initiator, you don't get a vote as well. If you're responding to CyberGhostface, please indent your comment below his to indicate as such. GlassCobra 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By not being the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:17, 8 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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


I have reverted my close. Kindof sad the community thinks so poorly of non admins where I see alot of the arguements below regarding "overturn, non-admins can't close these types of AFDs." Community - We've alot of work to do in the area of faith. I would recommend that any uninvolved admin please reclose the AFD. I don't want to waste time by subjecting this to a long discussion. I revert my close. I'm sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article was recently subject to a non-Admin deletion discussion closure. In my opinion there was a strong argument (from myself, but also from a sizeable number of editors) that the article in question represents a dictionary definition. I believe that the non-Admin in question has made this decision in error. Mrh30 (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about that - yes I realise my wording needs to be a bit more neutral. I'm just a bit baffled how you can consider that an article that start 'Mathmo or MathMo is a term used in British University slang' isn't a definition of a slang term! Mrh30 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on that list but would have come here anyway. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Even discounting the IP !voter, there is still not a clear consensus to do anything in that debate. "No consensus" was the proper call to make, and one that I would have made myself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't see how the closing user could come to this decision on the arguments. Shoesss' comment is irrelevant; the argument for deletion is not that the term is not notable. That leaves only one keep comment that actually addresses the DICTDEF argument, namely that by simxp, which I find rather unconvincing: DICTDEF means that an article about a word can only be kept if there is something encyclopaedic to say about the word. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse closure or just Delete it. The article has no sources that are specifically about the word, just a few instances where it is used. The article makes no claim of notability for the term, nor for those to whom the term applies. There were not enough comments on the AfD to find "no consensus-keep"; it could/should have been relisted to encourage more debate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; this isn't a new debate on the article, but an examination of the close. None of the presented arguments were very strong either way, and there was no consensus. Some might have preferred to relist but the close as no consensus was also valid. — Coren (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No, NonvocalScream did not say he found the keep comments stronger than the delete ones. Otherwise he'd probably closed it as "keep". It was closed as "no consensus" and frankly, I think that was correct because neither side's arguments were strong enough for a keep oder delete. SoWhy 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admins should only be closing unanimous keeps from the very essay he cited. It makes this an improper close--Crossmr (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays are no guidelines. While they may give helpful tips and insights, they are not apporved by consensus. We cannot hold someone responsible for not following a page which states at the very top of it "You may heed it or not, at your discretion." This DRV should only be about the question if the closure was legit or not (just imagine an admin had closed it), not who closed it. SoWhy 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, they are just essays, The same essay he used to empower himself to close the debate is the same essay he should be bound by when closing it. That's like saying "Everyone should follow WP:V but I don't really like how its written so I'm going to just follow my own ideas on WP:V"--Crossmr (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he shouldn't. I guess, he linked the essay only to explain what a non-admin closure is. We cannot hold people responsible by such things. WP:V is a policy on the other hand, it is accepted by huge consensus while the citic essay is not. But that's not the point or at least should not be it. I'd advise you to base your judgment on the closure itself, not the closing person. Because if you think that an admin would have made the same decision, then it does not matter that NVS closed it. And if you don't think that, then you surely have some arguments as to why this hypothetical admin was wrong in closing it. In both cases we can ignore the person who closed it and concentrate on the closure itself. SoWhy 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That essay is the only thing that indicates a non-admin closure is permissible. You can't only half follow it because you want to the power to do something but don't want to be bound by the rules to do it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, this is not about whether non-admin closure is allowed or not. It's about whether this closure was correctly done, no matter who did it. SoWhy 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm..if someone closes something who is not allowed to do so, then the close is incorrect.Just as an admin closing a discussion they were involved in would be improper or closing an AfD they were involved in.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NonvocalScream said "I find the policy arguments stronger in the case of keep and explanation of applicability to Dicdef." I can think of no other interpretation than that he find the arguments for keep stronger than the arguments for delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I wrote: if his close was reflection this judgment, it would have been "keep". It's not, so apparently even if he personally thought it's "keep", he correctly applied "no consensus" to it. SoWhy 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Its interesting that nonvocalscream takes the time to cite an essay about non-admin closure but the essay clearly states that non-admins should ONLY close when its unanimous in favour of keep (snowball or darn close to it), 1/2 the people calling for delete is hardly unanimous and this was an improper close. I would also recommend that NVS refrain from closing any further AfDs until he's studied the process further.--Crossmr (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure,I completely agree with Nonvocalscream's judgment in this case, this is a great example of a no-consensus close due to roughly equal numbers of roughly-equally-weak arguments. I'd probably have voted delete had I run across this AfD, but certainly there seems to be no overall consensus to do so. ~ mazca t | c 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete - I should stop contributing to DRVs during my lunch break, I now find myself disagreeing with myself. On a second review of this there is not really a single keep argument that properly addresses the article's problems, while WP:NOTDICDEF does encourage expansion of dicdefs with potential, the two "keep" arguments did not really address how this was possible in this case. There appears to be a pretty solid policy-based consensus that this is a non-expandable dicdef of a barely-notable word. ~ mazca t | c 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete two of the arguments for keep were "per above" and "it's my user name". One of them provided a link to six Google News search hits for the term, only one of which is actually giving a definition for it, but that definition is only loosely related to the article content. The closer incorrectly weighted non-policy or invalid reasons for keeping the article; the correct reason would have been delete. --B (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    mrh30 wasn't arguing for keep per that statement (he was the nominator). The claim to keep is that it is notable (a few name drops dont' make it notable. I don't see any reliable sources giving it coverage, this is ALL trivial coverage) and don't delete it just because its a dictdef. even though its not a dictdef..but if it was you shouldn't delete it. and then 2 "me toos". This is so far from a good close its laughable. Nothing evidenced established notability (which means its gone anyway) and nothing evidenced showed the article didn't violate WP:NOT which gives it another boot. Without coverage the article can't be anything else beyond what it is.--Crossmr (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - This should have been deleted a while ago. There was, however, no overall concensus - but that shouldn't stop you from being bold and deleting something which really shouldn't be here! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because closers (especially non-admins!) ignoring consensus and acting on their personal opinions, instead of evaluating consensus like they're suppose to, never leads to deletion reviews, drama, and disruption... TotientDragooned (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid reason (/sarcasm):) No battle here, I'll accept whatever result is made in the end of DRV. I'm not attached to the article. And for what it is worth, it should be deleted. That however, was not the result of the discussion. :| NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:DRV said "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". Richard Pinch (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, we now know what you think about the status of the closer vis-a-vis AFD, but now tell us what you think about the close. Was no consensus valid, and if not, why... why keep or delete? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The delete arguments were that this was a poorly sourced slang dictionary definition. The sources in the article are "Homepage of Mathmo.org, "Sex and the City", The Oxford Student, Week 5, Trinity Term 2004 and "Used by student Jamie Sawyer on the UK series of Beauty and the Geek". If these are the best sources we can provide then the deletes win the day, as they are hovering somewhere between unreliable and original research. WP:NEO is the applicable guideline for such neologisms, I believe, and in this case it looks an awful lot like either a protologism or a very restricted neologism. The suggestion that it be smerged to an article, should one exist, on university slang, seems like a sound one. If no merge target exists then in the bitbucket, please. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. If you don't like the essay, try the guidelines at WP:DPR#NAC. There was no consensus: consensus is paramount. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on linking the essay The script links the essay for me. Don't worry, I'll fix that today so it does not. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist it should not have been closed by a non-admin. I strongly doubt it will be kept, but it should get a new discussion. DGG (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I am a believer that non-admins should not close AFDs which have the potential to be controversial. On looking at the AFD itself I would lean towards closing as Delete as most of the Delete arguments make strong arguments based on policy while I could only say that a couple of the keep arguments make a real attempt to counter. Am disappointed however that no one at the AFD raised the possibly of transwiki to wikionary which seems to be to be the best approach unless there is some reason wikionary would not want this that I do not know of. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See the last comment someone did.--Crossmr (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as the original author of the essay mentioned, (WP:NAC), I have been in numerous ongoing discussions with a broad cross-section of wikipedians where the overwhelming consensus is that non-admins can and do fulfill a very beneficial role in closing certain discussions, but for some discussions such as this, they simply should not do so. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. This is exactly why non-admins should not be closing deletion discussions that are anything other than a clear keep. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it's a reason why WP:NAC is still an essay, and should not be policy, IMVHO. Which is why DRV exists, as both Editors and Admins can make mistakes. And should be allowed to, just as their decisions should be allowed to be placed under review. LaughingVulcan 23:25, 8 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

An article about the Welsh Foundation was recently deleted and blocked prior to allowing me the opportunity to provide justification for the article. The article was initially deleted because it was deemed to "not assert notability." In fact, this organization is the first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is funded entirely by proceeds of a Charitable Lottery Pool (CLP). This unique approach to fund-raising is significant because it is not currently utilized by any other public charity recognized by the IRS. Please reconsider the deletion of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsumqualiseram (talk • contribs)

Comment from deleting administrator: I deleted the article Welsh Foundation because, in my opinion, it was not notable under criterion A7; that 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." While being the first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is funded entirely by proceeds of a Charitable Lottery Pool, this is not a claim to notability. There are charities in the UK that do exactly the same thing, and in any case, notability is not determined by being the first, but by WP:N. In addition - and I'm from the UK here, so I'm not savvy with the systems, but I can't find any record of the organisation as being tax-exempt at this link. Even a national search yeilds no charity called 'The Welsh Foundation'. I might also add it has no hits in any news sites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition - I know it's not British, I was stating that it isn't that special on a global scale, as UK charities and organisations have done this for a while. I'm happy to take this to an AfD, if necessary? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to equate A7 with WP:N, something which the deletion clause itself takes great pains to point out is a mistaken view. The criteria is not about notability, it is about an assertion of importance or significance. Hiding T 11:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well 501(c)(3) and IRS suggest it's American, so if it is indeed a UK organisation then clearly something is wrong. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HE did not say it was a UK organization. He compared it to UK organizations. The external links he provided are US-internal revenue service links. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting administrator (deletion 3 out of 4): Other than the statement above, which did not seem particularly important to me, and where there was no mention of it being unique in that way, there was absolutely no mention of importance. It was a clear A7, in my opinion. 06:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (talk • contribs)

  • Comment, having looked at the deleted version of the article, it is not a UK organisation, it claimed to be located in Southern California and is named for a person with the last name "Welsh". It would appear to not have anything to do with Wales or the United Kingdom. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I know it's not Welsh, but if you check the IRS links, there's no mention of it being 501 (c) (3) exempt... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there just seemed to be a little confusion on that point (and I even assumed it was based in Wales until I looked carefully). Just thought I'd nip it in the bud before anyone else got confused. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:28, 8 September 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 September 2008

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

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

A year ago, ASuite page was deleted because it is non-notable software. Today, I rewrited a new page of this software with some english sources on my userpage: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:El_salvador/ASuite . If this new article is good, I will ask you to restore old article and I will merge it in new ASuite page Salvadorbs (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation. Undelete and merge histories. Judging from the AfD, the article looks to be much better sourced than the deleted version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? You've read the AFD and the article. The article sources are (a) An automated code analysis report (b) The homepage of the project itself (c) a softpedia review (d) a linux.com article (e) a directory listing. (a), (b) and (e) are useless as far as any notability goes, and really only confirm existance. (d) was mentioned in the original AFD and wasn't accepted as enough. This leaves (c) and that's much better sourced? You'll also note that this has come to WP:DRV before here along much similar lines for sourcing. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read the AfD and the article. No, I hadn't noticed the previous DRV, but it doesn't impress me anyway. I am happy to accept (c) and (d) as sufficient. I don't see this as an issue of advertising. It's a suitable entry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and allow recreation Agreed, the proposed page looks good and if the user can salvage anything from the deleted version to add to it, it can't do no harm. SoWhy 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace and restore history There is just enough here for notability as far as I can tell and it is certainly better than the previous one which was deleted at AFD. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment been here before and doesn't appear to have addressed the sourcing issues, nor the obivous WP:COI issues. Can't say it looks a particularly good article to me, much of the content is non-encyclopedic in nature and needs to be cut. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted Sourcing is still unacceptable. This needs reliable credible sourcing from the real world. Spartaz Humbug! 06:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I count two non-trivial, independent sources which I think is just enough. This can be taken to AfD again if need be but it seems clearly to have been improved enough to escape G4 which is the real issue at this DRV. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted as non-notable, the cached version has more than one assertion of notability. Certainly enough to avoid speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Laurence Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)[reply]

  • I agree. Send to AfD. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored a version of this article for the purpose of AfD that has been edited to remove clearly unverifiable or false information (details of what was removed are on the talk page), and I am amenable to this version being presented to AfD, which I will set up shortly if nobody else does it in the interim. Prior versions of the article remain deleted due to BLP issues. Risker (talk) 05:29, 8 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Deleted as an A7 (no assertion of notability). A look at the cached version shows numerous assertions of notability. So why was this article really deleted? RMHED (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So numerous important civil service positions aren't assertions of notability? RMHED (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Did he do something other than his job? Corvus cornixtalk 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do any high ranking civil servants do anything other than their job? I believe he had a hobby, though I can't quite remember what it was. RMHED (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted An ordinary person doing an ordinary job, possibly quite well, but insufficient independent evidence of importance or secondary sources (newspaper or magazine articles, etc.) Remember wikipedia is a tertiary source and summarizes what other sources have to say about a person. Note, however, that there is another British Statistician of the same name (but different middle initial) who quite possibly meets the professor test, so the title should not be protected or salted. Thatcher 02:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as deleting administrator - there were no real assertions of notability; it read, as Pmedema says, like a resume of a middle manager. Merely working for the civil service does not make one notable by Wikipedia's standards. Neıl ☄ 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As per Thatcher. Minkythecat (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why doesn't the deleting admin just tell the truth about this matter instead of trying to obfuscate it behind a raft of wikipedia guidelines? Poltair (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
with regard to glaring elephant in the room... maybe it's because the whole truth hasn't emerged and probably isn't likely to? Given the sophistication of the whole enterprise, it wouldn't surprise me if the "confirmed" identity was in fact a red herring... but anyway, rather than ascribing machevellian motivations, is the article meeting WP criteria? I'd personally say no. Minkythecat (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poltair, what benefit to anyone would that produce? Those who are interested in the wider issues surrounding this article are no doubt already aware of them. Those who are not interested do not need to know. One speedy deletion guideline is not a "raft", and applying it correctly, as it would be for any other article, does not amount to obfuscation. Neıl ☄ 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Am I the only one extremely confused by this discussion thread?TotientDragooned (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I need to clarify this. I'm not talking about A7. I'm talking about the fact that, like him or not, this article presents far more information than we would ever have compiled ourselves about a living person who may soon be the subject of substantial press attention. That rationale has nothing to do with A7. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD To say that a person is head of methodology at the UK Government Statistical Office, has a number of published papers, and had a major role in politically important government statistics releases is about as clear an assertion of importance as I have seen. I'd need to look further to se if it passes AfD, but it certainly does pass speedy. The arguments above are irrelevant. Taking them in turn: 1/ we do not speedy for LIKERESUME. 2/ w don't need newspaper articles for an research professional, the published work per WP:PROF is sufficient even for those not in an academic position 3/ high ranking civil servants merely doing their job, is applicable to almost anyone in wp. so does the Prime Minister. 3/ being notable by Wikipedia standards is not the same as mere indication of possible notability. Only the later is required 4/ "meting WP criteria" is for AfD, not speedy 5/ "so many government statisticians in the world." some of them are at the top of their profession, like him. Saying so is an assertion of notability, If the job is actually not really significant, that's for AfD. There are probably more Olympic athletes than statisticians, in any case. 6/COI is not reason for deletion, let alone speedy, though certainly present in the writing of the article. 7/the publications are verifiable Not verifiable is not in any case a speedy condition. 8/"The right thing to do" that seems to be an expression of factors not relevant to A7. In summary, the merits of his work are for discussion at AFD.  : I am reluctant to say it, but in all honesty I am not sure this can be regarded this as a good faith A7. I am aware of the circumstances, I share fully the general feeling towards the person involved, but I think this speedy deletion is COI, the desire to remove the page on a person who has been reported to have harmed Wikipedia. Such a motivated deletion can harm Wikipedia more than anything he can do. DGG (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - drahmaz aside, it's largely another NN/vanity article, no significant sources to back it up. And that's not mentioning the myriad of joyous opportunities for vandalism and BLP issues it provides. No, leave it gone, please! - Alison ❤ 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD It's a horrible article as it stands, but it clearly asserts notablity as DGG says. It might even be kept. I'm unclear on the COI issues, but if someone is speeding an article of someone they have issues with, that darn well better be a reason to overturn. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I am quite involved in the current drama, but my edit to this article was when I was unaware of this, and truth be told, it was made robotically. That aside, I agree with DGG that this is a borderline case, but there is little external third party coverage of this person, and as a result the AfD is not likely to result in any result other than delete as his research output has not been cited often in journals that I can see, and no evidence to the contrary of that has been provided here. I am willing to change my opinion if someone can point out a highly cited paper, and I would not be surprised if there was one, but given the current drama I think it is necessary to have some upfront evidence of notability before we go through another week long process which will hurt the 'pedia and the subject. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the way to deal with difficult cases like this, with out-of-article considerations, especially when they involve wikipedia, is to follow the full formal procedure, leaving a ilttle ground as possible for re-visiting the matter. I thought we had learned that from some previous articles. Summary procedure to try to avoid controversy is counter-productive, at least if anyone is looking. If there is truly a need for such procedure, the honest way to go about it is OFFICE DGG (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for sources as a background task throughout an entire day before I opined here. I didnt find anything worth writing about.
I am convinced that best thing to do is to scrub the article, and start again if someone believes it is an appropriate entry in Wikipedia. I'm open to reviewing my opinion now or later, but only if someone provides credible sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Library search turns up one mention in "Inflation is lower than figures show official Drop in published rate could cut pension increases and cost of borrowing * New estimates due within months" The Observer (London); Jul 13, 1997; MARK ATKINSON; p. 001: "A recent study in the US suggested that the real rate of American inflation is 1.1 per cent lower than officially estimated. But in the UK, the Government's Office for National Statistics (ONS) insists that the biases which distort the RPI are far smaller. 'It would be unwarranted to assume that the bias in the UK RPI is of the same order as in the US Consumer Prices Index,' said Michael Baxter, head of technical development in the office's RPI division. The ONS is expected to produce an estimate of bias in the next few months. Any changes to the way the RPI is calculated would require approval by Chancellor Gordon Brown." Doesn't really amount to much, I leave it to others what to do. I tend to trust Neil's judgement. Hiding T 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. There is an assertion of notability now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 10 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

FIPS (computer program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Prodded earlier with the reason "Questionable notability, no sources. Also looks like it is outdated and obsolete, so unlikely to gain notability at this point." The software is unquestionably notable - it was, in its time, the only free way of shrinking Windows partitions to install another OS such as Linux, and so was mentioned in most (probably all, to be honest) guides to installing Linux, as well as being included on most or all Linux install CDs. Just take a look at any Linux distro or installation guide from the Windows 3.1 to 98 eras, or even just Google it. It's been made obsolete by newer, more friendly tools like GNU parted, but it was a very important piece of software in its era. makomk (talk) 19:17, 7 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Closed as keep despite an apparent consensus to delete. Recommend overturn and delete. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination itself lacked any substantive argument for deletion. The opinion that a subject is not fit for an encyclopedia is akin to simply not liking it. I really feel that no articles should exist about Pokemon, regardless of how much coverage there is in reliable sources, but I recognize that wikipedia does not only cover what I like. Your argument, although not discounted, is by no means supported by consensus; have a read over WP:TIND (the 'no deadline' essay)... it is just as convincing as the essay you linked-to in your !vote. I agree that a reasonable close may have been no consensus, but in this case, where the nom was not valid, I felt it leaned over enough to keep to warrant calling it as such. I doubt a keep closure would get overturned at DRV to no consensus, and I am very certain that this one would not find support as delete at DRV. But, if you see it differently, feel free to submit it. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the conversation, Stifle said it should have been closed as "no consensus", which is a form of keep, which is why I was so sure that DRV would be unlikely to overturn just to recharacterize the type of keep closure. I am surprised to see people here saying overturn the closing as keep, as I can absolutely not see how one can see delete consensus in the discussion. No consensus (and/ or relisting as DGG suggested above) is the only other possibility, which I just discussed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:41, 7 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Not simply Bio, but an critical dealer at the center of the 1980's balloon New York art market. Established and promoted major figurative expressionists of the era, including Jean-Michel Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, Barbara Kruger, Eric Fischl and others. Dubbed on the cover of New York magazine in 1982,"The New Queen of the Art Scene". Also a controversial socialite form the same period. Multiple sources available. I believe the speedy deletion tag was in error. Knulclunk (talk) 13:29, 7 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Most revent version restored under delrev tag Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Talk page content restored from 15 June forward (c. last deletion) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin John Callanan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notably was established in the article. Proper discussion was not engaged at review by editors familiar with the topic area. No attempt was made to edit the article Artlondon (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link to Second AFD here. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm Since Artlondon is a SPA I suppose we can let him off his abject failure to engage with me before bringing this to DRV. Consensus is measured against policy not headcount and the´raised issue - notability was only challenged through assertion rather then proper referencing that met WP:RS. As sushc deletion was the only possible outcome to this discussion but I'm very open to reversing the close if some proper referencing is provided. So far they haven't so endorse own deletion Spartaz Humbug! 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) - Just to clarify none of the references provided discussed the subject in any detail and links to places you can buy books and lists of conference attendences don't cut it to establish notability. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC). Struckthough manifestly untrue comment about SPA. My apologies. Spartaz Humbug! 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist when someone closes an afd without any comment whatsoever people may not unreasonably take it as a sign they are not open to discussion. The references provided were adequate in my opinion to support notability, but I'm not advocating a keep on the basis of my own opinion--just further discussion. DGG (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spartaz on this one, DGG. If people are going to make asinine extrapolations to justify bad faith assumptions, we can not be expected to walk on eggshells to accommodate them. A brief closing summary may just mean that the closer does not see the closing as controversial or as requiring any additional remarks, as it may seem obvious to them. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that it was & I apologize it I gave that impression; I have enough experience here to know you are willing to discuss; merely that the user might reasonably have taken it as such. It was just a response to Stifle's objection to bringing it here directly. We should not set up procedural barriers to review of admin actions. DGG (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cheers, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lets keep it simple: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." [65] Artlondon (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artlondon, the accepted standard for article inclusion is discussed in our notability guideline at WP:N and specific advice on the notability of individuals is at WP:BIO. Basicially there are a lot of tangential references but nothing has been produced that specifically addresses this individual in detail. If such sources exist it would be simplest to simply cite them because that is all that is required to trigger undeletion by me. Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (note that sources need to meet our reliable sources guidelines WP:RS. Spartaz Humbug! 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article had an awful lot of references, which gives me pause, but consensus was clear. Artlondon, this version of the page was much better than the first, perhaps you should request userfication, and continue improving the quality of the sourcing? TotientDragooned (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was concentrating on the article to make it the best I could do. If some points are too much or not good enough for you, they should be edited out; but this does not justify deletion of the whole article. A published author is notable, as is a person which two high profile artistic residences and a teaching position at UCL when only 26 year old. Artlondon (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artlondon, this is notability by assertion. That's not what we work on. If the individal is that notable then someone somewhere will have written about them. The art world is well endowed with literture and documentation. Please help us to help by finding the sources. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary to restore an article at drv upon request if it is not in the google cache so that non-admins can see the history, and then blank it, so google will not catalog it. The notice should have said not to edit it, not don't blank it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Artlondon is not an SPA. He's been here for over two years with 1,130 edits to 367 unique pages.[66]. Ty 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and userfy This is an unusual situation, as the subject has an international presence, which would not normally merit deletion, yet three of the most experienced art editors on wiki !voted that way, so I can't fault the closing admin. The sources do provide information e.g.: "In addition, "Martin has recently worked with: The Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, The Mayor of London, Transport for London, Network Rail, and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Currently Honorary Research Assistant at The Slade Centre for Electronic Media in Fine Art, University College London and Artist in Residence at RIXC, Latvia."[67] I suggest the best solution is to userfy and work with editors at WP:WPVA to gain consensus for an improved version. Ty 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Process followed, if an admin wants to userfy, that is their choice. MBisanz talk 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I disagree with Artlondon's premise of reopening this debate: the article did not suitably establish notability, the discussion was engaged by editors familiar with the topic area, and sufficient time had passed for correcting edits to be made the article. TheMindsEye (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article. even if it is substainly reduced to leave minimal info, there is no reason for absolution deletion. The lack of explanation and real discussion in this process makes the whole thing appear malicious. Artlondon (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, here are some other articles I started which undoubtedly warrant deletion: NaoKo TakaHashi (artist), SCEMFA, Susan Alexis Collins, Bookworks
    Er didn't you already vote to undelete when you nominated the article for deletion review? Please provide better sources and I can review the close. Happy to do so. Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get a second "vote" — by listing here, it's implicit that you want the article undeleted. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good close, no problems that I can find. Sources were weak, but better than anything I can find. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unenthusiastic "endorse". [Can I adjective a verb?] We're not discussing the article, we're discussing the process by which its deletion was decided on. The latter seems fair enough to me. ¶ Now for the article: I see inklings of notability about Callanan, and I recognize that you've put a lot of work into the article. If Callanan goes on to get unarguable recognition, then he deserves an article and much of the article that already exists becomes usable. So I suggest that you "userfy" the article (being sure to comment out its categories), and tinker with it until the day when Callanan gets a couple of substantive write-ups in newspapers, art magazines, or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (No, you should use an adverb, like "unenthusiastically", if you are modifying a verb.) Stifle (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • this process is not transparent just because users comment on a public page there is little reasoning. Artlondon (talk) 08:18, 11 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tryad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not unnotable GeShane (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One deletion reason was that people suspected it was a nonexistent band, but http://tryad.org/ here is its website. Another request might have had to do with it not being a "noteworthy" band according to Wikipedia standards; however, the standards listed for bands are all geared towards traditional label bands and not for the type of internet-distributed open liscenced music that Tryad produces. Further if you go to jamendo.com you will see that Tryad indeed has a good fanbase there, and so by CC licensed internet band standards it is quite notable.

Note: second AFD nom is here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - there's nothing in the article that comes close to meeting our notability guidelines. We're not a primary source; unless secondary sources have covered a band, we really can't verify anything that's in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Process followed, close within discretion. MBisanz talk 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD although lightly attended found no evidence of meeting the WP:MUSIC and nothing has been produced here to change that. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment general notability guidelines certainly cover "internet-distributed open liscenced music", had this band received significant coverage in multiple independant reliable sources? The nature of distribution or licensing should have zero impact on that, indeed you'd think if the broader world thought these to be notable the open distribution and licensing would make them more likely to be being covered in said sources. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    newcomers may reasonably be reluctant to confront someone directly, especially when they closed without comment. DGG (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They may also be reasonably reminded about the instructions which suggest that they try to discuss it first. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      the above comment seems about the acme of all the wikilawering or wikibureaucratic reasoning I have yet to hear at Deletion Review. There is no policy that we decline a deletion review because the requester doesnt ask the admin,or because the requester doesn't respond to a qy, or, most especially, because the requester doesn't respond to a qy about why they didn't first ask the admin. This is not RfA, where such !votes are sometimes appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I can only say that I don't share your opinion on that matter, which is a well-publicized fact (-: Stifle (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as the close was on the basis of it being a hoax, which it isnt. It seems irrational, though, to close something thought to be a hoax as a redirect. I can';t really see a different conclusion than delete, but the place for that discussion is afd, not here. It's time we stopped debating notabiiity at deletion review. The reason is not in my view primarily procedural, but because the participants here are relatively few and non-representative, unlike teh much wider group who come to afds when they see something in field they are interested in. DGG (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look again, the deletion in question here is this Afd as noted by the deleting admin in the deletion log. Nothing to do with being a hoax, items such as notability get mentioned here a lot for several reasons, one being that a change to the status re-notability can be enough to overturn a deletion based on a lack of notablity (The "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light.." part of the purpose of drv), and also to give pointers to newer editors who may not understand the issue, in some cases reiterating it may in fact enable them to produce sufficient sourcing etc. In this case since the nomination here is based around an issue of if the notability guidelines applied are appropriate a response not talking about notabilty seems unlikely. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse. I would have preferred the AFD stay open a little longer - two participants is awfully flimsy for forming consensus - but I don't think the article has any hope of surviving a relist. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tryad and the recreation did nothing to address the concerns of that VfD. --Stormie (talk) 03:20, 8 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Article speedied as "blatant advertisement," when it wasn't of an advertisement nature. As one can see from SunSpider's page, here, it is not a commercial product, merely a browser benchmark page. I would like the article undeleted so that content can be salvaged for possible recreation of the article itself or to be merged into a section of another article. I fear that if the undeletion doesn't happen, prior uploaded fair use image(s) for the article may be deleted by bots. Tokek (talk) 00:26, 7 September 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 September 2008

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

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

Unsigned band, never released a record, Kept at AfD as no consensus despite not passing any part of WP:MUSIC. One editor produced some "coverage" of the band during the AfD which turned out to be three local news items about the band playing locally - two other editors voted Keep because of this, presumably without reading the sources. Black Kite 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure DRV is not AFD_2, process followed, admin close within discretion range and doesn't preclude another AFD in a couple weeks. MBisanz talk 02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse From the comments made those who argued for keeping do appear to have looked at the sources - 'borderline notability' as one of them said. Reasonable close based on the consensus at the AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, a headcount leaned more towards deletion and there were no policy-based reasons to go against that. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as I am the one who closed it. Couple of things here - AfD is not a majority vote, so the fact that there was one more person saying delete, than there were saying keep, should not be a point. Secondly, all of the users who commented on the AfD left some sort of comment, and all of the comments do make sense - most of which are relating to notability. It is clear that the article can be improved a bit, so maybe that should be the route taken here. Either way, there was no consensus to delete it, so it was kept. Just for the record, had I left a comment on the AfD, I would have said "delete" myself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course it's not AFD2, but admins are meant to close AFDs not on vote count, but on the arguments provided. Can someone saying "Endorse" here please give a good reason how this band passed any part of WP:BAND?? Where is even the borderline notability? I'll say it again - this is an unsigned band that's never released a record! Even bands that have record deals and have released multiple records sometimes fail WP:BAND...Black Kite 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those who commented for keeping in the debate felt the coverage was significant enough to meet the main notability guideline. Personally I think the coverage is borderline. As the only argument used against this was they believed the article did not meet the notability guidelines, there is no policy based reason for the closing admin to disregard any of the arguments. If the closing admins are going to start using their own opinion on whether articles meet the notability guidelines then we start getting in trouble. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, as I said above, I think the article does not meet our notability guidelines - but given the fact that there was no consensus at the AfD, I closed it as so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 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 September 2008

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

Template:RFCbio (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCbio|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCecon (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCecon|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFChist (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFChist|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFClang (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFClang|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCsci (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCsci|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCart (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCart|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCpol (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCpol|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCreli (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCreli|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCsoc (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCsoc|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCstyle (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCstyle|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCpolicy (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCpolicy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCbio list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCbio list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCecon list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCecon list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFChist list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFChist list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFClang list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFClang list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCsci list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCsci list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCart list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCart list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCpol list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCpol list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCreli list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCreli list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCsoc list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCsoc list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCstyle list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCstyle list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Template:RFCpolicy list (edit | [[Talk:Template:RFCpolicy list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Without any warning to me, Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) spontaneously deleted these templates while the RFC bot was still operating. Given the spontaneity of the situation, I wish that for the meantime, the status quo is restored. Since I have changed where the RFC lists are produced, the RFC list templates will be redirects, whereas the RFC tags will resume their duty as tags. --harej 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call waiting a month for objections spontaneous, but in any event I have undeleted them. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 5 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

The deleted material was the first draft of a new article that was being composed in the user's own space, as suggested by the wikipedia developer's guide. The page was deleted almost immediately after it was created. The material was all factual, well-sourced and had a neutral POV. It provides factual information about a topic that has been extensively covered in the news. The administrator who deleted the page did not cite any policy or reason for the immediate deletion of a page that is actively being drafted in user's own space. This would however appear to be a violation of the wikipedia policies. The delete log is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=chrislk02&page=user%3Apulsifer&year=&month=-1. Further discussion appears at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_review_of_userspace_deletion_regarding_Sarah_Palin Pulsifer (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and undo deletion. Editors can work in a sandbox or userspace to draft an article. After it was completed and put in mainspace it could then be AFDed if it was not up to Wikipedia's standard. We should follow regular Wikipedia procedure. Editors have every right to create new articles. QuackGuru 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an elaborate attempt to prove two points by inference: (1) that the Alaskan Independent Party is a subversive organization, and that (2) Palin supports that subversion. All this despite that lack of any evidence that (1) Palin had very much to do with the organization and that (2) the AIP or AKIP or whatever has violated any laws. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As deleting admin. The userpage article was an attempt to create a fork of material that was declined to be inserted into the Sarah Palin article. The content made some fairly intense assertions based on questionable sources. The fact is if the content was not suitable for inclusion in the article, circumventing the process by creating a userspace copy (that will obviously not be copied to the mainspace) is just trying to push the point. I am trying avoid usage of BLP but I think this is a potential example. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the content on the deleted page is very similar to multiple attemps by pulsifer to enter this material into the main Sarah Palin article. FOr example [68] and several other attemps. Each time it is a bit different or rearranged but the same point. It has been removed by multiple editors. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BPL policy specifically states: "In some cases users may wish to consider drafting a proposed article in their user space and seek discussion at WP:DRV.". The material Chrislk02 deleted was compliant with that policy. He has not articulated a valid basis for deleting draft material in a user's own space. Pulsifer (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping stuff like that in your subpage, knowing it hasn't a prayer of being approved due to BLP concerns, is against the rules. You could always keep it in a notepad document on your PC until you've got it the way you think it would have a prayer - then propose it on the talk page and see what happens. And I assure you, if it doesn't refute the two concerns I raised above, it will be rejected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both above delete comments has nothing to do with Wikipedia procedure. The article was not finished yet and was not in mainspace. There was improvements being made. You can AFD it once it is in mainspace. Let's do this right. Editors can work on a draft. Once it is in mainspace then we can debate the merits of it. A draft or sandbox should be encouraged on Wikipedia. A draft is a great way to improvement articles. QuackGuru 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's inflammatory, BLP-violating material. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No claim had been made that that the material is inflammatory or defamatory, so the point you have just made does not apply. Pulsifer (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly had been, you were simply ignoring it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is a BLP concern here, which there is, it doesn't matter where it is. The Wikimedia foundation can still be held liable, and there is too much media attention on this subject to risk leaving this up, anywhere. If someone wants to write an article and not have it deleted, take it somewhere else or even offline. Anywhere but our servers, thanks. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Aquatique, in order to material to be defamatory, it must be factually incorrect. Please state what item in the material was factually incorrect and I will be happy to correct it.
An answer as weaselly as the material you're trying to push, which is why it's unacceptable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs: there is no need for those types of uncivil statements, particularly in regard to what I said, which I will repeat: if there is a BPL violation, I will be happy to address it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are guilty of McCarthyistic tactics with this stuff you're trying to push, so don't go lecturing me about things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I striked your blockworthy comments. QuackGuru 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user's sole purpose in posting this stuff is to demonstrate guilt by association. That's McCarthyism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you are not an admin, and you are out of bounds modifying others' comments. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these types of uncivil comments are uncalled for. If the wikipedia admins believe it is appropriate to start questioning motives and intention, then I will be happy to defend both my motives and question yours. But there is no reason to go down that route. If you believe there is a BPL violation by the draft material in my user space that is sufficient to merit its immediate deletion, then please state what it is. Pulsifer (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to modifying someone else's comments. If I made a change that modified someone's comments, then it was either inadvertent or due to an editing conflict. Pulsifer (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not you. It was QuackGuru. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn BLP concerns over Palin, a (very) public person and a public servant? Come on. Even if this is disinformation purposefully spread by her political opponents, there's no reason not to cover it, in context an respecting NPOV, as part of the overall coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign. Of course the inclusion of this info into any article may be challenged and is not in any way guaranteed, but there is no harm in allowing a contributor to work on a draft to present for future consideration. The McCarthy comparison is a stretch, there's no way you can equate an obscure Alaskan secession movement to the political stigma associated with the prospect of communist subversion so prominent in 1950's cold war theatrics. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/keep deleted. Per WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Seems cut and dried to me. --Kbdank71 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing the moving target that is being presented here. The material was not only fully sourced, NONE OF THE FACTS STATED ARE IN DISPUTE. Pulsifer (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the fact of why you're pushing it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making these inappropriate comments. Pulsifer (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guilt by association is what it's about. You're the one that needs to stop it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are rude and should stop now. QuackGuru 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user is blatantly POV-pushing and it is he who should stop now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user already knows that his thesis is going to be rejected for the reasons stated above. He is violating the rules, and several have told him so. He needs to stop it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Pulsifer is clearly aware that the material was rejected on the talk page of the article where he originally tried to add the material, and just trying an end run by keeping it in User space or trying to fork it to a seperate article doesn't change the BLP violation. Corvus cornixtalk 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the situation. Improvements to the text were being made. QuackGuru 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the situation. The user's purpose is to prove a point through inference - guilt by association - McCarthyistic tactics. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please stop. QuackGuru 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The thesis itself is bogus. It is an attempt to claim that Palin believes in the secession of Alaska, and hence that she's guilty of sedition or treason. That's what it's about. There is no other reason for pushing this stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your not making any sense. What specific sentence was a BLP problem? QuackGuru 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corvus cornix: There was no consensus on including the material or on not including it. Even if there were, consensus can change. There was also no BPL violation, nor was one cited as the reason for the deletion. The use of user space to draft an article is not only permitted, it is encouraged, and the deletion of a draft article in user space is a clear violation of wikipedia procedures. Pulsifer (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, have you even read WP:BLP? I'll quote it again just in case: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. What you want to add is contentious, it's questionable, and it doesn't matter where you were writing it, it will be removed immediately, even from user pages. Consensus isn't needed to remove it. --Kbdank71 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, what specifically was your WP:BLP problem? QuackGuru 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Negative material about a public figure that was adequately sourced does not fail BLP. & national major news coverage is adequate sourcing. That is may be wrong or misleading does not matter if the sourcing is sufficient. Even if "contentious", or "questionable," we include it, with appropriate quotation and attribution. Verifiability, not truth, applies to blp also. Our job is not to judge the ultimate validity of charges. DGG (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
quite true. But I don't see the relevance here. It would make an interesting discussion on the talk page whether this issue was major enough. I have no idea whatthe conclusion would be, but it shouldnt be settled by admin fiat. DGG (talk)
Baseball Bugs: You are repeately violating WP:AGF by questioning the motives of the editor. I would be happy to both defend my motives and question yours, but that is both irrelevant and inappropriate. The only issue is the material itself. Please restrict your comments to the material. You yourself have stated that the factual correctness in not in question, and that is all you need to say. There is no basis for deleting a draft article in user space that contains well-sourced, factually correct information. Pulsifer (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a clue what your actual motives are, I can only go by the material you're trying to push, which is an attempt to lead the reader to a false conclusion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein: the importance of the reliability of the sources is to ensure that the material is factually accurate. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE MATERIAL IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE. That not withstanding, I am happy to change the sourcing to the NY Times, the Washington Post or other sources. Pulsifer (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many cases where technically correct individual facts are strung together in such a way as to draw the reader to a false conclusion. That's what you're up to here, and that's why your essay can't be allowed in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you mean WP:MFD, AFAIK userpages are not AFD'ed.— Ѕandahl ♥ 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that place. Thanks for the correction! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We don't use user pages for qestionable forks of controversial articles wherepotential BLP vios can be hosted through the back door. Since there is an existing article teh contributor should be seeking consensus on the talk page for edits not working up their own version of the article somewhere outside the attention of the community. Good deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Soundly justified, the substantive material is nothing but a WP:BLP violation. I wouldn't object to restoring the first version; it was harmless - but it was onyl around for an hour, so I doubt the user really ever wanted that. GRBerry 02:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A major point of user space is to serve as a sandbox for articles that do not yet satisfy Wikipedia inclusion standards. Give them a while to work on the article, and if it becomes obvious that no work is being done/it has no chance of ever surviving as an article, send it to MfD. Palin is a (very) public figure, so the argument that the whole article would constitute a BLP violation is unconvincing. If particular claims are unsupported, they can be excised without deleting the whole page. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The material in the userspace was a copy of material that had been removed from the main article, and declined to be re-added after the BLP protection. There was nothing new or orignial. Also as has been stated MANY times before, the sources included a link to ABC blogs, you tube and some website tpc.muckracker or something like that. The content was extremley controversial and the sources were unreliable. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I trust DGG's assertion of adequate sourcing, and Pulsifer's statement that there is no accuracy dispute is unchallenged, perhaps even supported by Baseball Bugs' "Only the fact of why you're pushing it". This obviates any BLP concerns, and removes any reason for deletion. It is then a content issue for the talk page, not an administrative one.John Z (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has been extensively discussed on the Palin talk page. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] —Travistalk 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if the talk page was not deleted, why should this be?John Z (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors have every right to edit a sandbox on a subpage or a personal sandbox. It should be given a chance. After enough time has passed the sandbox can be blanked or deleted. This is normal practice on Wikipedia to have sandboxes. The Pulsifer's article creation was never given a chance. Pulsifer was in the beginning of making improvements. QuackGuru 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The content was mainly about Todd Palin, and made some pretty big insinuations based on unreliable sources. Pulsifer stated many times that he had reliable source, and even drafted copies on the sarah palin talk page. Pulsifer has a.) yet to provide reliable source (i.e. not tpc.muckracker.., youtube and ABC blogs). Pulsifer also failed to signify why the content about Todd palins involvement with the AIP was directly related to the BLP of Sarah Palin. Have you even read the material that was deleted as it has not yet been requested that it be undeleted. This is more than just a simple case of me randomly deciding to delete content from his userspace. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I explained before, improvements were being made, so that makes your argument irrelevant. QuackGuru 21:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I took a look and I see nothing worth a BLP-invoked deletion. The writing is not as balanced as it would need to be in an article, but that's an editorial question for proper evaluation of NPOV. Every (potentially) contentious claim is directly attributed to an exterior source (all WP:RS-appropriate or debatedly so). Undelete and let it be worked on. — Scientizzle 02:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that Sarah Palin does, in fact, endorse the secession of Alaska? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • BB, I took no stance on the claims within the deleted revisions, just the sources. A "RS" (ABC blog) stated that AIP officials claimed then retracted that Palin was a member, but that her husband was a definite member. That's what the sources say, right? Therefore, such material is perfectly appropriate to consider for inclusion within a relevant article; editorial discretion weighing NPOV/NOR/UNDUE policy and any further adequate sources should determine if & how such information is ultimately included. In the mean time, working on said information in userspace seems reasonable (and work it needs--it's not unbiased in presentation). I just don't see how attributable claims regarding a public figure in this middling "scandal" necessitates a BLP deletion 93 minutes post-creation. If no further work is actually done, I would likely support an MfD. — Scientizzle 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that the specific "facts" themselves don't matter, only the user's attempt to infer that she supports Alaskan secession. Meanwhile, the article is no longer fully protected, so there's nothing stopping the user from trying to post it - other than the sure knowledge it will get shot down, which is why he's keeping it on a separate page, as a content fork. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you telling me blogs (even it is from a reliable site such as ABC) count as reliable sources? Blogs as far as I know are not reliable. Similarly, have you other than a brief overview of the material, reviewed the sources? youtube is cited as well as other sites that are unreliable. On top of this, it is a synthesis that uses many unreliable source to assert what bugs is saying. I find it hard to believe you have reviewed the content in depth if you are claiming it is cited by mainly reliable sources. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to MfD. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 11 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Up North (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

None of the earlier delete opinions made any arguments beyond bare assertions of unnotability, and the one given after references had been added to the article admitted that the editor hadn't looked at the sources, and gave the completely out-of-policy reason "article is ordinary". This should at least be relisted as there were no valid delete !votes after article improvement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn & relist depending on the state of the improved article (I can't see it). It seems that the improved article did not get a fair shake here, the only delete voter after the improvements thankfully admitted that they didn't check the refs. --Rividian (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Sources added were not properly considered at the AFD so the article should be relisted to allow the community to form a view on whether they are sufficient for notability or not. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. The improvement was considered not to have brought the article to keeping standard. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody even looked at the sources after they were added. If it was your opinion that they didn't meet the standard then you should have commented rather than closed the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a reading of the AFD, there's no evidence that anyone actually looked at the improvements (except Mr. Bridger obviously). Who exactly did this post-improvement considering? The AFD provides no indication. --Rividian (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - it would appear that none of the delete votes actually considered the new reference and so the consensus was based on out-of-date information. As per Phil Bridger if the reviewing admin thought the sources were still not adequate this should have been stated in the discussion rather than used as part of the reasoning to close it. Dpmuk (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Stifle's contention above that he closed the discussion based on the fact that the provided sources were not sufficient. Where does it say "Wait til the last second to improve the article then demand it be reopened even though the proper discussion had already occurred?" That's gaming the system. Corvus cornixtalk 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we should assume good faith and assume that the author that added the references only found out about the AfD at the later date and so they weren't attempting to 'game the system' but rather improving the article as soon as they knew it needed improving. As a non-admin I have no way of knowing whether the edit log refutes this assumption. Dpmuk (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist*Restore and optionally relist Stifle closed without considering whether the arguments were based on policy or were a fair representation. The person who said it wasn't sufficient admitted to not having read it: " didn't check new refs, but article is ordinary. " A careless nomination and comments; the role of admins in closing is to prevent such from occurring. DGG (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed my !vote to make relisting optional. I have now checked the very obvious refs GS found by Phil and given in the AfD. There are clearly enough very pertinent ones to support an article, and I thing an article incorporating them would easily withstand afd. It should be required to do and cite t least a rough preliminary searches before nominating for deletion. 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Relist The argument of the "article is ordinary" delete could even be read as a keep, unless we think all ordinary articles should be deleted. ;-) Just not enough evidence of serious inspection of the article to say a consensus was formed.John Z (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentn. 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion, the sources added to the article are passing mentions, not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," they do not address the nominator and delete voters' point that the book is non-notable. --Stormie (talk) 01:04, 13 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This debate appears to have been closed abruptly, while the vote was still an even one, and the article pencil-whipped through deletion, before I even had a chance to obtain sources as requested, by the last voter. Meanwhile Lots42 appeared willing to vote, but the article was already gone. (Please see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Enemies_of_the_Secret_Hide-Out.) I think Stifle acted just a little too hastily on this deletion, not to mention unfairly. I cry FOUL. Undelete this article, I say, and let the debate continue. (At least until I can visit a couple libraries?!) Zephyrad (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there are sources, let's see 'em. Wikipedia takes a pretty dim view of ye olde "I swear I left the sources in my other pants!" gambit, as we've all seen it before. The AfD was also a total mess, with at least one very likely sockpuppet and both Zephyrad and the nominator taking amusing but highly uncivil pot-shots at each other. Despite all the bad behaviour I'm inclined to think there's hope that an article on this book could exist, but we'll see. Consider this a vote for endorse deletion if no reliable sources show up by the end of DRV (without sources a delete result is inevitable no matter how many times the debate runs), and relist with a fresh start if sources do show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: links added. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion per Andrew Lenahan. The deletion was hardly abrupt — AFDs normally only stay open for 5 days — and it's not a vote anyway. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was not closed excessively early and with no reliable sources found during the AFD which was pointed out by those who supported deletion, see no other closure could have been appropriate as AFD discussions are based on policy. Of course if some good sources are produced at any time would be pleased to reconsider. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No problem with how the deltion policy or the deletion guilines for administators were followed. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy solution Undelete and merge to The Secret Hide Out This is the sequel, and is admitted to be less important. This shouldhave been considerd atthe afd., It's part of the job of the closing admin to make sure all of the options are at least considered.DGG (talk) 18:44, 8 September 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 September 2008

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

Jonathan Sammeroff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Closing administrator seemed to overlook the fact that, after editing the original article somewhat, notability requirements had been more than met. This was CLEARLY PROVEN by myself in the debate. Peenapplay (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

  • Endorse as closing administrator. Notability requirements were not close to being met and there was a clear consensus to delete as well as a clear consensus that the subject did not meet WP:MUSIC. In addition - and perhaps more importantly - no nontrivial mentions in reliable sources were to be found. It's impossible to meet WP:MUSIC if you can't meet WP:V. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This artist looks to have the possibility of a future successful career. When and if that occurs, it will be no problem to find independent, reliable sources that say so. Until that time, the consensus of the deletion discussion was correct, and the deletion of the article was also correct. Youtube videos, scans of pictures in a newspaper, and autobiographical information do not qualify as independent, reliable sources and/or significant coverage.  Frank  |  talk  20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. I can't see whether or not Peenapplay or Theresa Knott (who seemed to think there was some chance reliable sources could be found) did in fact improve the references after the initial two delete votes, but in either case 3 delete votes, two of which articulated no argument other than a generic appeal to WP:MUSIC, doesn't blow me away as "clear consensus." TotientDragooned (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse not!! :o) The DELETE votes were posted BEFORE I edited the article to meet WP:MUSIC. Once I edited it, the wikipedia article referenced newspaper articles in The Sun Newspaper, in the Jewish Telegraph and The Sunday Herald. None of these were trivial as defined by Wikipedia, and trivial is defined as, I quote, "newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories".
These are big publications how can you suggest they are not reliable? That qualifies it for section 1 of notability, "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" with three reliable, non-trivial articles.
During the debate I also proved that section 4 of notability, "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" had also been met, by linking to photographs of Jono inside numerous BBC Radio Stations with BBC Radio DJs all across the UK.
How can you defend the position that the article did not meet notability requirements when it is only necessary to meet one out of the twelve of them while I demonstrated that the wikipedia article met two of them? It would be of great assistance if you could make reference directly to sections 1 and 4 of WP:MUSIC notability when replying, and explain why you believe the article does not meet them. Thanks from Peenapplay (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

  • I think you've summarized it better than I could. Not to mention that the articles themselves essentially aren't necessarily anything more than rewritten PR. (Other than the review, which was pretty harsh) --SmashvilleBONK! 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I've read the review in the Sunday Herald, and ... I don't see that as evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N, or WP:BIO, or amounting to the coverage required to meet criterion #1 in WP:MUSIC. Equating being photographed in different radio station studios with "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour" is pretty desperate. I see no evidence of an improperly closed deletion, but I do see lots of lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and proceedures on the part of the COI SPA Peenapply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well thanks a lot Pete... what evidence do you have that I am a COI? Don't you even think I am a good debater? :D You can still see it's articles from those reliable publications, and not meeting wikipedia's definition of "trivial" as I quoted above. Only one criteria must be met for WP:MUSIC and you have not eliminated the article from section4. It might be your personal opinion that he did not do a national tour of the UK appearing at loads of radio stations, but he did. A little bit more proof? I just found this. Have a listen: http://www.meandmyguitar.com/radio_wales.htm http://www.meandmyguitar.com/radio_wm.htm Peenapplay (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]
Criteria #4 is "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." The only evidence you've provided is from the artist's own page. You haven't shown any evidence that he does pass criteria 4. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The link to the BBC radio interviews were not intended for inclusion in the article, but to prove that Jono did in fact tour the UK, as this topic is covered in the actual BBC interviews. An audio recording like this cannot be faked, so regardless of where it is posted it does prove that fact. If this does not satisfy administrators, I shall take this no further, even though it is indisputable evidence. Thanks to everyone again! Peenapplay (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

A mere mention in an audio recording is not a non-trivial mention in a reliable secondary source. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, correct interpretation of policy basis of debate, equally correct de-weighting of WP:SPA / WP:COI accounts but as it happened even if those arguments had been made by Jimbo himself they would still have failed as the sources turn out to be trivial or to lack independence. This all reminds me very strongly of Robbie Glover. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JzG. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The cached version seems to lack sufficient independent secondry sourcing to demonstrate notability. Perhaps the interested editor would like to consider userfication, where he can work on the article, ensuring that all content is already written about in third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mere mention? You didn't even listen to the evidence. It's most of the half hour interview he did on BBC WALES that broadcasts across the entire country!! (WP:MUSIC #12) Peenapplay (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)peenapplay[reply]

You clearly misunderstand what a national broadcast is. The fact that the UK is small enough that a radio signal from BBC Wales can reach across the country does not make it a national broadcast. And again, a mere mention of a tour on a radio show is not a non trivial mention of the tour in a reliable secondary source. --SmashvilleBONK! 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you wouldn't mind, would you read WP:TALK so that we can follow your comments better? It's a little harder to read when you don't post below the thing you are responding to. --SmashvilleBONK! 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smashville, have a look at BBC Radio Wales#Transmission - I think your confusion stems from not realizing that Wales is a country. However, for the purposes of WP:MUSIC a UK-wide broadcast would probably be required. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - as a participant in the AFD, I endorse deletion to indicate that I don't personally feel an article being rewritten increases the notability of its subject at all. So if "Jono" was not notable before the SPA rewrote it, he was still not notable after the SPA rewrote it. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - competently closed. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 9 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wasilla Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This page seems to have been the subject of a premature closure, perhaps for bad faith political reasons connected with the Vice-Presidential candidature of Sarah Palin. The rightness of this decision is is being actively discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God, an improper forum for it. In my view the right answer for NN churches, Bible and AoG churches proabbly are is for them, to be mereged with the article on theri town. This issue regularly comes up on articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity, and is in my view normally the best answer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close due to bad faith nomination. I also don't see where you notified the deleting admin is as required in the DRV process. Corvus cornixtalk 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I dislike the suggestion that the motivation might be "bad faith political reasons...blah...blah", which to me shows more about the motivation for this deletion review than anything. It may well be true, but what happened to assuming good faith? I have already expressed a delete opinion at the AfD referenced above, and as such will not render any opinion on the merits of this DRV, but my comment here stands. (Also, I understand there is some question as to whether or not the two refer to the same topic.)  Frank  |  talk  20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the two are definitely different churches. One is of the Assemblies of God denomination (a large Pentecostal denomination), the other is non-denominational. Unfortuantely, some sources, such as this one, that are really about Palin, talk about both churches in a way that requires very close reading to sort out what lines are about which church. In this case, from the last paragraph of the first page to the end of the second page is generally about the church still at AFD while the first, second and fourth paragraph are generally about this church. GRBerry 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AfD. There is absolutely no reason this AfD shouldn't have lasted the full 5 days. Similiar AfDs have lasted 5 days in the past. Perhaps the closing Admin can explain whatever possessed him to close early? Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Yeh, it could have stuck around for a while and it might have been the safer choice to hold off on closing it just yet, but I can't see any alternative outcome and thus cannot justify overturning the closure for any reason other than blind obedience to procedure. Shereth 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, while it would have been more ideal to hold it open for the full duration, this is generating BLP issues. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The outcome was probably correct, but the application of WP:SNOW was wrong here. This is a topic currently in the news in the US. It's not unrealistic to expect that something that indicates notability could surface during the full five days an AfD normally runs. Generally, AfDs should only be closed early in exceptional cases. If any BLP issues surface during the AfD, the article can be protected as necessary.  Sandstein  09:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as redirect to Sarah Palin, as already done. At the subject was noted as only being notable for a single person (Palin), there is an obvious merge or redirect target, which means that deletion is not the preferred action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore, and keep. It may well be that the fact that a US vice-presidential candidate's membership is the event that promoted a church that would not have been otherwise notable into the subject of intense nationwide attention. So what? It nevertheless means that this particular church and its teaching are going to receive extended attention in third party reliable sources, and that it easily meets all notability guidelines now even if it would have failed them last year. Nor should this simply be redirected to Sarah Palin, as it currently stands; her article is quite long enough, and does not benefit from the history of the church she now attends. That belongs in its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist just a poor application of WP:SNOW and consensus-building in general. We don't only keep articles if there is a clear consensus to keep, rather, AFD only deletes them if there is a clear consensus to delete. The closer seems to have concluded since a "keep" closure was unlikely, that deletion was necessary, after under 2 days no less. This just isn't how deletion policy is supposed to work at all. I accept that it was a good faith mistake but it still was a mistake. --Rividian (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD multiple users gave reasonable reasons as to why the article should be kept so I don't think snowing it after a day was appropriate. Guest9999 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Bad close-- "It has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping with any clear consensus" is a total misunderstanding of deletion criteria. It doesn't need a consensus for keeping. It just needs the absence of a consensus for deletion. Let alone whatever may be meant by a clear consensus--the implication is that if there had been a consensus for keeping, but not an overwhelming one, the admin would nonetheless have closed as delete! DGG (talk) 03:28, 6 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rolando Gomez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

72.191.15.133 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) The page on Rolando Gomez, a noted author, speaker, photographer and instructor in various genres of photography is based on a bonafide photographer and he was not informed on why his page was deleted, hence he and others could not contribute to the discussion to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies were met. The page went through extensive review, and passed, during it's original creation. Simply doing a "Google" under Rolando Gomez, brings up over 900,000 results, including other pages on Wikipedia. There are numerous photographers on Wikipedia, including Jerry Avenaim, David Mecey, Joe Martinez, etc., who have not authored photography books. Gomez is the author of three photography books, carried by every major book seller on line and is featured in two other books, by Amherst Media. Gomez is the contributing editor to Studio Photography magazine, a noted speaker at national events including Photo Plus Expo, Photo Imaging and Design Expo, FotoFusion, Julia Dean Photo School, Samy's Digital Photography Institute, and has taught over 300 photography workshops worldwide, including a 3-country tour for Calumet Photographic in 2007. This page should be undeleted and discussed if necessary.[reply]

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

Template:Kinston Indians roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) The Baseball WikiProject was not informed these were up for deletion and could not contribute to the discussion on ideas on how to replace them. These should be recreated and then discussed, we now have articles without rosters because of this deletion. Link to discussion. —Borgardetalk 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Also included in review: Template:Winston-Salem Warthogs roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) Template:Myrtle Beach Pelicans roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) Template:Salem Avalanche roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s – Although it has been acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with the closing decision, it is apparent that consensus change has occurred based on the related article AfD's. Normally we don't reconsider new viewpoints that are unrelated to the AfD itself, other than new information relative to notability, etc. But in this case we evidently prove we are not a bureaucracy, and have decided as a group to IAR. Accordingly, Deletion endorsed, but Overturn and restore anyway is the outcome of this DRV, with no discredit upon the closing administrator. Renomination at AfD is left to editor discretion. – Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) The Afd closed as a unanimous Delete. Since then however several sister articles have also been to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s and closed as Keep. The creator is understandably upset and would like to reinstate the said 1960s list for further work as a set. As the arguments are identical, I propose that the 1960s article be reinstated per consensus can change. Moondyne 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection as closing administrator. If there is a consensus to overturn the deletion, that would resolve this anomaly. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the consensus seems quite clear, merely declaring consensus can change as a reason for overturning when the consensus was only reached a week ago somehow seems wrong, we always know that AfD discussions can produce inconsistent results and it's not WP:DRVs purpose to try and resolve that. Nor is the author being upset a particularly strong reason we'd never delete anything. The other AfD is perhaps worth considering, I'd quite possibly see this as a no-consensus anyway, with many of the keep opinions being WP:NOHARM and WP:USEFUL. Perhaps the better outcome of this would be a relist of all 4 articles in a single nomination. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would a 3rd discussion achieve that a second one didn't? Which consensus applies? No consensus to delete is still a consensus. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. Moondyne 07:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No consensus is just that, it isn't a consensus to keep it's just not a consensus to do anything else. It could be argued that the stronger consensus was on the deleted one and so we should "to be fair" apply that stronger consensus across all of them... I'm not advocating that and this is why I don't see it as a useful function of DRV to try and directly push a consistency, since it then becomes about what is the consistent result, not always clear cut. Take the strongest consensus (which I'm sure would be argued about anyway) or something else? The point about a subsequent nom would be that all 4 would hopefully be treated evenly. If a consensus to keep or delete is made, then great the consistency desired will be met, if the result is no-consensus then maybe there will be someone happy that this one was "rescued", but it will again mean they are treated evenly which may help in gaining a real consensus at some point in the future. And finally what if we relist just this one and again the consensus is to delete, where would that leave us? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It was a good close and DRV is seemingly the wrong place to deal with this. However there really isn't anyplace else to go. If the article is recreated, it can (and likely will) be speedied. It's not like a new article can be an improvement over the old one. So due to a lack of other options, I think DRV is where this has to go and the right result here is to be consistant. Hobit (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist. IT's tim we had some reasonable degree of consistency. Different closings on essentially identical articles are a defect of our system. Though we do not actually follow precedent, that does not mean we should glorify random error. Random=the people who happen to show up and the administrator who happens to close. A system with a voluntary jury and a voluntary judge, who can each pick their own cases, is about the least coherent way for deciding cases that I can imagine. I know of no RW system that works this way. DGG (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not intending to perpetuate the debate, just a side thought. I also don't know of any RW system which allows for a different random group (with the same inconsitency issues, same random participants same random closing) to force a retrial. In this case it's pretty clear that the article are so similar that consistency is "good", others many of the issues about DRV randomly deciding these 2 (or more) articles should have been treated consistently, whilst these others needn't. If they had been a set of 4 unconnected in any way other than being arguably marginally notable companies, how do we weigh that the 4 truly are similar and need consistency (and vice versa)? Maybe my example is poor and we all say that's totally different to this situation and we're only interested in ones like this where it's so crystal clear, same thing though the clarity is not easily definable and different random participants here would things quite differently. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and Relist without prejudice to the original closing administrator, who clearly made the correct decision given the arguments and information presented in the AfD discussion. However, the two decisions seem to be inconsistent, and having a second look at this couldn't hurt. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Restore and list all in one AfD as suggested above. The argument that "no consensus to delete is still a consensus" strikes me as not quite true. "No consensus" means "institute the default action", which is to keep an article. That is not the same as achieving consensus. To that end, relisting might well have the impact of actually gaining consensus where none was achieved before. Also, a subsequent discussion will have a broader scope, as it will apply to ALL the articles, not individual ones. That would have the de facto result of causing a uniform decision across the articles, which is ultimately the result we would (should?) want.  Frank  |  talk  16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think restoring, and then relisting all of them, as Frank suggests, is probably the best approach. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 4 September 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 September 2008

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

Larry Kroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) I created an article about Sarah Palin's pastor at Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon on Sept. 2. It was proposed for speedy deletion on Sept. 3 and immediately deleted by Keeper76 despite the "hangon" tag. And in spite of the fact that the article was well sourced form major daily newspapers. Aong the well-sources facts in the article: Kroon is the pastor of a large church. He has been interviewed in the national media. Six years ago was widely quoted in the press on the subject of the efficacyo of prayer and his daughter's need fo ra liver transplant. Several national sources recently picked up his introduciton of a controversial speaker (David Brickner of Jews for Jesus) on a Sunday when Palin was in the congregation, Bricker said that terror attacks on Israelis are God's punishment of the Jews for failing to accept Jesus. I do not think that this was a reasonable deletion. The deletion in the face of the "hangon" tag without the courtesy of an AFD discussion is a violation of policy.Elan26 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

  • You might want to review WP:COATRACK. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore but stubify. This was an invalid WP:CSD#A7 deletion. The article contained assertions such as "Kroon drew national attention when he..." and "Kroon's profound faith in the efficacy of prayer drew wide attention...", which are assertions of notability. Yes, the article has an air of coatrack to it and was incompetently referenced, but these are not among the criteria for speedy deletion. However, the article was not sourced to the level required by WP:BLP, containing mostly references to blogs and such. If restored, it should be stubbed and AfD'ed and/or protected if it goes coatrack again.  Sandstein  17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see the past revision, but I agree that A7 might not have been the right choice. Maybe a coatrack g10, which was where I was hinting above. I don't see a significant problem with stubbing it and restoring it (well, except the technical problem of not being able to do that in that order). I'll let keeper know this discussion is going on and see what he thinks. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator is just plain wrong in his assertion that the hangon tag meant the page could not be speedily deleted; it merely is a flag to reviewing admins that there is an argument on the talk page against such deletion; it doesn't prove that the argument is valid or even close to it. Indeed, the talk page argument was in this case irrelevant. The mostrelevant claim in the article was the "drew national attention" one in the J4J section. But that section is the one that doesn't use a reliable source. So in proper editing, step one was to rip out that section. That leaves only the claim about his daughter's liver transplant - and the source there would support an article on his daughter, not him. But since it is a claim, it does merit an AFD. Absent significantly better sourcing, I doubt it will survive that AFD. GRBerry 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in the process of adding to the article. New interviews with thes Pastor and articles about both church and pastor are soming out daily. the article on his church also had an AFD. Many of the early editors there voted to delete, but have now reversed their votes. I am not claiming that thr article was perfect. it was, at best, a work in progress. However, it did not not qualify in any way for a speedy deletion. I willimporve it, with, I hope, the help of other, more experienced editors.Elan26 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
sourcing, Signed articles by respected journalists posted online in the election section of reliable news sources are not the same as "blogs." Ben Harris at Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Ben Smith at Politico.com have articles up on Kroon. Calling them blogs is misleading. Political stories move fast. Signed articles at JTA online are a reliable source. So is Ben Smith. Some of the Jewish papers will have print articles when they come out late on Thursday. This is why articles on breaking stories merit AFD while they develop, not arbitrary deletion.Elan26 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • I created the disambiguation article for the expression "Sarah Palin's Pastor". It was deleted within SECONDS, being called an "attack article". This happened all day yesterday, with the reasons being a string of irrelevant OR conditions with no specificity. If the following is NOT an attack article, please let me know how I can complain about two administrators, who delete postings in seconds, and have been calling me a vandal for such postings. Judge for yourselves if this is an attack article, or if there are administrators who should lose their authority to delete an article in seconds: ”Sarah Palin’s Pastor” - The expression “Sarah Palin’s Pastor” may refer to either Ed Kalnins of Wasilla Assembly of God, or Larry Kroon (the page with sources for him was deleted, please help with sources) of Wasilla Bible Church or (other pastors referred to by expression in media). Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, Larry Kroon.EricDiesel (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sarah Palin Wikipedia Page has an incorrect link to Wasilla Assembly of God, and no one will fix it. Wasilla Assembly of God, under the name WasillaAG is editing and deleting information on itself. I am new to Wikipedia and if anyone knows how I can stop a few politically oriented administrators from calling me a vandal and accusing me of writing attack articles and coat hanger articles (like the completely neutral one above), please leave message on my talk page.EricDiesel (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored. I restored the article as a contested speedy (similar to a contested prod). He is not notable, and qualifies for A7, but that's one admin's opinion. I have no problem being wrong, I strongly recommend an AFD (or perhaps joining it with the church's AFD) to determine by consensus whether he (and it) are notable enough for inclusion. I agree with protonk that it is likely a violation of WP:COATRACK and could be accomplished in one or two sentences in the Palin article. Someone close this DRV please and open an AFD? I'll be offline momentarily, and likely offline until Friday (36 hours from now). Keeper ǀ 76 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update, it is now at afd, located here. Keeper ǀ 76 19:33, 3 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Intention Craft (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) The discussion, which did not achieve concensus to keep, did not address the question of notability of this song, except for the delete voters. This song, simply put, has NO notability whatsoever WP:MUS and its' page should be therefore deleted. I have mailed the deleting admin asking why it was kept, but have had no reply Spoilydoily (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I gave you permission to re-afd it a month ago, just do that. This is a waste of time. Looks like you never received my reply though. (Connection's been sub-par the past week) Just close this DRV and re-nom it. Wizardman 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain the point in re-AfD? If this page had been deleted then this exercise ( or as you call it 'waste of time') would not be necessary. I thought the whole point of the deletion review was to correct administrative mistakes.Spoilydoily (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But in the case of that AfD, there wasn't a consensus one way or the other. You even say "the discussion did not achieve consensus to keep", and you're right. That's why i closed it as no consensus. Wizardman 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There was no consensus to delete. The debate was properly closed as not having a consensus. GRBerry 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • if you don't mind my saying so, that is a very cosy argument for never deleting anything of no notability. To quote (from Wiki) the process of concensus "These processes are NOT decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy" i.e concensus, as quoted in Wiki guidelines is NOT A VOTE. In AfD'ing the article I quoted "no relevance" under WP:MUS; No-one, other than deletes, quoted any concrete case for notability of the song, and therefore no case for retention. So, a concrete case for deletion versus NO case for retention? That's why this deletion review. The deleting admin has wrongly interpreted Wiki guidelines; this article clearly does not have a place on Wiki.Spoilydoily (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, both the nomination and the sole delete vote were based on a completely incorrect reading of WP:MUSIC#Songs, which in no way states that articles on non-notable songs should be deleted: they "should be merged to articles about an artist or album," which is an editorial matter, not a deletion matter. --Stormie (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DEL#REASON Reasons for deletion: "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". Doesn't sound like "no way states that articles on non-notable songs should be deleted:" In fact, quite the opposite. It demands that non notable articles are deletedSpoilydoily (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your sole comment upon nominating this article at AfD was "WP:MUSIC". WP:MUSIC states that non-notable songs should be redirected to an appropriate article, not deleted. End of story. --Stormie (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NM establishes notability, and WP:DP advises what to do with non-notable articles. WP:NM in this case establishes that the song is non-notable, and WP:DP establishes that non-notable articles be deleted.I do feel you are merely playing with my words and taking a pedantic line here. I was hoping that this appeal would save me the trouble of re-AfD'ing but it appears not. However, looking on the bright side, it has lucidated my argumentSpoilydoily (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, just relist it as Wizardman suggested. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 4 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Donkpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This afternoon, I created this article, about a wiki page about poker, which is the biggest of its kind with almost 2,000 articles. The article was deleted after a short time; the reasoning was "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance". I think Donkpedia deserves its own article, simply because it is the biggest lexicon which deals with poker worldwide.
Nintendere 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nintendere, if you have a reliable source that explicitly states that it is the biggest of its kind, then that's certainly an indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
That's pretty tough to prove in my opinion. As far as I know, the biggest poker lexicon before was the English language Wikipedia with a maximum of 1,000 articles I would guess. The Poker Wiki has just 700. If you google for "Poker Wiki", "Poker encyclopedia", "Poker lexicon" or something, you won't find as big pages as Donkpedia.
Nintendere 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
See WP:NOR. Our own research does not count - you need an already published reliable and independent source that 1) found it out and 2) thought it was worth publishing. GRBerry 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be ed where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I followed an interwiki link from the German language Wikipedia, where every deleted article can be listed.
    Since I trusted this interwiki link i thought this would certainly be the right place for my complainment, but it doesn't seem to be.
    Feel free to deleted this section, I understand the point of view of the administrator who deleted my article.
    Nintendere 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Not a big problem, just there are instructions here (and you certainly managed to follow some of them), so I was wondering why you hadn't followed them all. Endorse deletion due to lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctantly overturn as the article did assert notability. I will be the first to nominate it at AfD or support deletion, as it is not notable, but there is an assertion, which disqualifies it for WP:CSD.  Frank  |  talk  16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, fie on process. This wiki has fewer page views than my personal site! It stands absolutely no chance at AfD, at least in the form speedied. Userfication might be appropriate, but this unsourced article has no real place on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as inappropriate use of speedy deletion. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of "indicate importance" is that the contributor must at least show rather than just tell. Otherwise any editor may circumvent A7 by merely sappending "...and it's the largest site of its kind." Marasmusine (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And, indeed, that is the case according to the policy, which reads in small part: "...an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." (Also, see Dave's response below.)  Frank  |  talk  02:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and list at AFD There was an indication of importance made, the only requirement to avoid A7 speedy deletion is that an assertion of importance should be made (of course this must be reasonably credible, "such and such is the ruler of the world" is an indication of a ridiculous claim that would be fine for speedy deletion), we do not require that sources be provided to avoid speedy deletion. Sending it through AFD gives the oppurtunity for more eyes on the article and to search and see if sources are available to establish notability. Having said this I searched a couple of days ago to see if I could find any coverage in reliable sources and could not find any. Still support overturning however as we should not encourage admins to circumvate the speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy is not for deciding if the assertion is sufficient for notability. Only the community can do that. The argument "endorse deletion due to lack of reliable sources" is a total misunderstanding of speedy criteria. I'm amazed to hear it from an admin., especially one who is a stickler for following exact recommended sequence of procedure. DGG (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed DGG that some of your recent contributions to DR have been, how can I put it, a little too snarky about other users. I always thought you were better then that. Concerning this deletion, I'd say that the process was defective but that an unsourced wiki with less articles then Guy's is never going to survice AFD. Therefore endorse with small application of trout to deleting admin. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 7 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dhalla Mahamatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This page was originally posted by a troll,Courttitle, who also contributed to the AfD debate as Eliza Dolots. Once the troll's vote is removed there's a clear consensus to delete. My reasons for claiming there's a troll at work are that Eliza Dolots and Ich bin furzen both created broadly similar articles which have been deleted as vandalism and both of which refered to "Nalanda University". See also here. These fake articles follow a standard pattern:

The articles are about an influential religious scholar who lived a long time ago
There are obvious anachronisms (e.g. Dhalla Mahamatra was supposedly born in 215BC but followed the Hinayana sect which was founded around the 1st or 2nd century CE and preached at Nalanda University which was established around 450 CE)
The subject's religious beliefs are obviously inconsistent (e.g. Dhalla Mahamatra was supposedly a Buddhist who followed the Hindu practice of Bhakti)
The subject dies unpleasantly
Needless to say, zero ghits

andy (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral on this, the close could have gone either way. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete no sources provided during AFD which was relisted for a further 5 days giving more time for such sources to be found. Without sources (or even an indication of where those sources do exist) the article appears to fail the core policy of verifiability. Consensus was leaning towards deletion as well. Davewild (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I find that editors are very often hesitant to make an uninformed decision about foreign language subjects or sources. Likewise editors are hesitant to make sweeping judgments about offline sources. Combine the two and it is very likely that an AfD might see very few participants over even a 10 day period. However, the subject hits almost all the flags for a hoax--odd personal details, anachronistic elements, no sources, etc. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete More thorough review indicates that a set earmarks of hoaxdom are indeed present, and history review reveals that they were put there by the original article creator. That nobody else opined in the relist period is not sufficient reason to close as no consensus, but that it was relisted makes the close understandable. Thorough review, however, should have led to a delete outcome. GRBerry 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete -- an extremely disruptive AFD closure by Stifle which utterly failed to protect the encyclopedia against entirely unsourced suspected hoax material. John254 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also respectfully disagree with Stifle's implicit contention that a "keep" comment by Eliza Dolots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had a total of nine edits at the time of the AFD closure, carried sufficient weight to support a "no consensus" AFD closure. John254 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that this looks likely to be a hoax, it is most unfair to say that Stifle "utterly failed to protect the encyclopedia against entirely unsourced suspected hoax material" by closing the AfD as no consensus, when nobody in the AfD discussion actually stated that they believed the article was a hoax. --Stormie (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I commented that a Sanskrit poet may be difficult to research, especially in Latin alphabet searches. But reviewing the history of similar hoaxes makes this less and less credible. Expert input would have been helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I think that User:Stifle made an understandable decision given the information at the time. Now that we have the additional information at our disposa, its clear with the benefit of hindsight that the article should have been deleted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 4 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

C9orf3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This AfD was closed in just three hours by a non-admin with no reason given despite only two keep votes - one of which gave no reason beyond 'notable' and the other of which was by a major contributor to the page. Following discussion with the closer I still thik this was done too quickly and out of process although I do understand, but disagree, with their reasons. Source one is clearly trivial coverage while source three is verging on it (search several thousand genes and this is one that correlates) leaving only source two as non-trivial coverage and so failining "multiple non trivial coverage". I'd also suggest that all three references are closer to primary sources than secondary (although reference 2 may just pass this thrsehold) as they were written by people who actually discovered, or discovered the function of, this genes. I accept that maybe I was a bit niave in my reason given in that assuming editors would think about it more deeply, therefore if the closure is endorsed I'd ask for permission to open a new AfD with the more detailed explanation given below. I'm asking fot this permission first as I'm sure that if I just opened another AfD someone would close it as 'too soon' and we'd end up back here. "This article comes very close to meeting notability guidelines - many will think it does, although I'd argue that all the references are too close to the subject and are more like primary than secondary sources. Additionally source one is clearly trivial coverage while source three is verging on it (search several thousand genes and this is one that correlates) which leaves just source two which is not enough, IMO, to establish notability. If you feel it meets the notability guidelines I think we need to apply a little bit of WP:Common Sense when considering genes. There are somewhere in the region of 25,000 human genes - if were to have an article on each one that would be 1% of all articles, and that's not to mention non-human genes. The structure, function snd other basic properties of all the human genes and many genes for many other species (especially 'model' species) is likely to be discovered in an attempt to understand the genome and what each gene does and these will undoubtly be published in peer-reviewed journals. To me this does not make an individual gene notable as even those in the field may pay it little attention to it. Therefore I think genes should only be included when they have wider notability for example mention in the popular press or non-trivial mention in the scientific literature beyond it's form and function, e.g. it's the target for a succesful drug and there are many studies on it as a drug target. Else I think we run the danger of wikipedia becoming a directory and duplicating the many scientific databases that already hold this data. I would argue that even if the gene meets general notabilty guidelines (which I don't think it does) this gene falls in to this category and so is un-notable." To me I think a precedent needs to start to be formed on this as this is clearly different to, to use John254's example, Technicolor (physics) as I doubt we could ever end up with 25,000 or more articles on different Physics's theories. This is not an attempt to be disruptive as John254 seems to think it is but rather an attempt to discuss what, in my opinion, is an important issue for wikipedia. Dpmuk (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent negative interactions" to which Stifle refers is my criticism of his own disruptive AFD nomination which was itself speedily closed. John254 11:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure -- this is a disruptive, anti-science AFD nomination. The nominator's claim that the gene was non-notable because he "Could find no references outside scientific literature" is directly contrary to our general notability guideline, which expressly provides that

    If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

    Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship clearly states that

    Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science...

    Thus, his argument that subjects which have received no coverage "outside [of] scientific literature" are non-notable is directly contrary to policy, which provides that significant coverage in scientific literature establishes a presumption of notability. His argument is also unsupported by practice on Wikipedia -- claims that subjects which meet the general notability guideline still aren't "notable in a wider sense"[76] are almost never levied against math, natural science, engineering, and social science articles. Though the nominator claims that "all the references are too close to the subject and are more like primary than secondary sources", studies published in peer-reviewed scientific literature are quite clearly secondary sources, as defined by Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, since they include not only the raw experimental data sets, but also interpretation, and conclusions, which constitute "analytic or synthetic claims". "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" means just what it says -- it refers to material self-published by researchers, not research published in peer-reviewed journals. Since the nominator has obviously read the relevant policy, the fact that he has described studies published in peer-reviewed journals as primary sources strongly suggests that he has not actually read the studies cited in the article, or that he has deliberately misrepresented the policy. It is quite disruptive to bring an article to AFD on poor sourcing grounds without reading the sources, or on the basis of a gross misrepresentation of policy. Given the serious deficiencies in his AFD nomination, speedy closure is in no sense "controversial", but merely amounts to the removal of a highly inappropriate AFD listing. John254 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the AFD closure should be evaluated in light of the AFD nomination presented, not the nominator's new, ad hoc arguments against articles concerning human genes (though, of course, we shouldn't decimate well-referenced, informative coverage of this subject simply because the nominator deems the articles to be unimportant, or fears that we might have too many of them). The nominator's claim that the gene was non-notable because he "Could find no references outside scientific literature" was bizarre, and fully justified speedy closure at the time it was effectuated. John254 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you read my request you'll see that I'm not trying to overturn the decision based on my enchanced reasoning rather just pre-empting the obvious 'too soon' closure if I was to re-list with the enchanced arguement. I don't agree with your closure on procedural grounds although I'm happy to accept others may disagree as I think your arguement is a valid one (although one I can't agree with) and so consensus may be the closure was correct - hence the request to open a new AfD with a longer and better arguement if the closure decision on the first is deemed to be correct. I'm also in no way saying that we should decimate the article just because I say so - this only happens if there is consensus and for the reasons I give I think this needs to be established. If the consensus is that we should have an article on every single gene then I'm happy to accept that. No editor is bigger than the community at large hence why things are done by consensus and in this case, IMO, we don't have that. I'm also finding John254's language extremely unhelpful and verging on an attack on me - he's certainly being sarcastic and dismissive about my views as well as threatening me ('grounds for a block' on his talk page) purely because we intpret policy differently. Dpmuk (talk) 13:37, 3 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

After discussion on the "pro se" page, administrator Arthur Rubin, agreed that I could quote both a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2007 quoting the U.S. code and a State of WI case that is quoted in the WI annotated constitution. Without any discussion, "Steven J. Anderson" removed these quotations. Before they were removed, Mr. Rubin helped me with a typo (I had inadvertently posted my tag line) so he obviously agreed that what I had posted was O.K. What Steven J. Anderson removed included: "The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 2007 that “there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 ("In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel)” WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (U.S. 05/21/2007)" His message was that I had a personal issue. I think that whether or not I have a personal interest is irrelevant to whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on self-representation and the U.S. code on self-representation can be quoted in an article on self-representation. Prior to my contributing to the article, what was posted was contrary to both the Supreme Court statement and the U.S. code. The article requests "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications." In the talk section, I provided links to three different publications of the Supreme Court ruling and a law review article about it. I also provided a link to the U.S. House of Representatives search function of the U.S. code showing the quote from the U.S. code that the Supreme Court quoted. And I provided quotes of 14 federal circuit court decisions since 2002 quoting the same portion of the U.S. code. I would also like to reinstall my quote from the Wisconsin court of appeals, which is quoted in the WI annotated constitution, and I would like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

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


2 September 2008

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

List of films depicting the future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This page was speedily deleted and when I asked the admin who deleted it for more information his only response was to direct me to post it for review here. Below please find my original argument for the restoration of this article: "Hi, you deleted the page I created "List of films depicting the future," and I had a few questions. I assume based on Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and your brief explanation that my article was a "speedy deletion." The same page provides the guidelines for speedy deletion: "pages that contain nonsense, copyright violations and articles that do not satisfy notability guidelines." The article clearly wasn't nonsense as it had a coherent theme and was scrupulously researched, and no copyrighted material was reproduced in the article. I assume therefore you based the deletion on failure to meet notability requirements. The Wikipedia:Notability page lists the general guideline for notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." I would argue that "future noir" and films depicting the future are a major theme in science fiction, which is itself a very notable topic. Additionally, "films depicting the future" fits in nicely with several other similar lists that have been made and maintained on Wikipedia including List of films featuring extraterrestrials, List of films about outer space, List of comedy science fiction films, etc. Movies taking place in the future is as venerable a sub genre as alien movies or space operas and equally notable and deserving of recordation. Given the preceding I fail to see your grounds for speedy deletion.

Your summary did indicate two other arguments, subjective and unmaintainable. I assume that if this article had been deleted in a manner other than "speedy" these arguments would be relevant. In the interest of addressing those claims however I submit the following. One, that there is a clear and objective standard for determining whether a film depicts the future or not; namely, it must be set in a time period either stated to occur in the future (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey is set in 2001, and X-Men is set in "the near future") or must bear the indicia of same. Such indicia include technology far beyond he capabilities of those available when the film was produced (e.g. human-like artificial intelligence, interstellar spaceflight, ubiquitous robotics, etc.). Certainly there is a degree of subjectivity in determining what qualifies as indicia of advanced technology, and if deemed too subjective the list could be culled to include only films with stated settings, but I believe doing so would unnecessarily narrow the scope of applicable films. Movies like Star Wars for example which is stated to be set "a long time ago" would needlessly be excluded when it is among the hallmarks of what a film about the future is and has shaped the idea of what the future will look like for millions.

Your second summary statement of unmaintainable is unclear to me and I would welcome the opportunity to respond to it if you would provide further information. In sum this is an article I put a lot of thought into and believe is a good addition to Wikipedia and is within all relevant guidelines. Thank you." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth (talk • contribs)

  • This seems like it would be a notable topic. I also can't really see how this would be indiscriminate. I have a few suggestions:
  1. Check to see if there are any existing wikipedia pages that cover the subject you are looking for. I would look at WikiProject Films, WikiProject Science Fiction and WikiProject Lists. There is a possibility that your work might have been duplicating work elsewhere. That isn't strictly a cause for deletion but it is a sign that perhaps you might be better off putting effort into improving that other article.
  2. Ask any admin (or the deleting admin) to "userify" this article, or place a copy of it in your userpage. This will allow other editors (who aren't admins) to review the deletion) and it will also allow you to improve your article without worrying about meeting Wikipedia article standards.
  3. Consider thinking up a narrower title and concept for the list. While I don't see this as too indiscriminate, some other editors might note that a list of films about the future could be close to what wikipedia is not. We aren't a directory of different links and concepts without limit. I can't tell if your article runs afoul of this core community policy, but it may.
  4. How many sources did you cite in your article? Did you use reliable sources that covered the material in the article? While the speedy deletion criteria for articles doesn't include mention of sourcing (the only two that your article could have been deleted under are "no context" and "no notability asserted"), it is required to have consistent and germane sources cited in articles.
There is also the fact that WP:CSD lists Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. as a noncriteria for speedy deletion meaning failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not a vaild rational for speedy deletion in the first place. --76.66.181.133 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 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:Sarre86.jpg – Deletion endorsed. Nominator was not familiar with WP:BUNDLE, and the deletion discussion did in fact occur, and properly resulted in delete outcome. There is no requirement for individual discussions, and there was nothing presented here that would indicate that an individual discussion for either image would come to a different outcome. – Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Sarre86.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| | article)
File:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| | article)

Image deleted without being nominated for deletion, no IfD debate was possible Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Two DRVs of two identical cases refactored into one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaffirm own deletion. These two cases were secondary additions to a regular nomination and were discussed together with the original candidate in a regular fashion. All participants in the IfD agreed that they all three represented the same case. It was clear that all arguments pertaining to the one automatically pertained to the others. This was therefore a regular, process-conformant IfD closure of all three images together. – As for the substance of the matter, the nominator convincingly argued that all three images were part of a quasi-encyclopedic (private) website about windmills, with which our coverage would stand in direct competition. The owner of that website may well have a commercial interest in his photographs. (If he hasn't, and is just a private enthusiast, why isn't anybody asking him for a free license?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Fut.Perf said, these images were discussed together with Image:Chislet mill.jpg in its nomination, since they were exactly the same case. Indeed, I didn't explicitly notified the uploader, since he was aware of (and active at) the original nomination where these images were listed. I believe it would be too much bureaucracy too undelete these images now, just to have them "properly" nominated at IFD and ultimately deleted. If we're really to be so draconian in following the process, why didn't the uploaded discussed the issue with Fut.Perf before posting to DRV (and to an RFC)? That's a waste of everyone's time. --Damiens.rf 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I listed these is because I didn't realise that any number of images could be added to one IfD nomination and then deleted (can this really be done?). I posted the item to the talk page of the RFC because it is similar to behaviour raised at the RFC. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, group IfDs happen, just like group AfDs. Since "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", how to deal with such cases is more or less a matter of common sense and not strictly regulated. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of them being at stake together with the other one, but I think Damiens' intention of nominating them was fairly clear. It would of course have been clearer if they had been listed more formally at the top too. But in any case, on the merits of the case, you have to agree that they all fall under the same arguments, so if the closure was that one of them had to go, it's only logical that the others must go to, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from the IfD on the Chislet photo)
What Damiens.rf said about them was "The images Image:Sarre86.jpg and Image:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg are almost the same case, unless the mills still exist, but completely modified."
Which I interpreted to mean "The images Image:Sarre86.jpg and Image:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg are almost the same case, unless the mills still exist, but completely modified.
In this case, the mills do still exist, but have both been completely modified, which is why the photos were used - to show how bad the mills were before restoration. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but could you have made a case that the reasons for keeping those two were stronger than those for keeping the first? If anything, they'd be in an even weaker position. (By the way, I have the feeling now that Damiens didn't express himself very well at one point. He seems to have meant not unless, but except that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not that wrong! --Damiens.rf 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, obviously he felt relations with me were past the stage of normal diplomatic relations and AGF. He did post a notice at my RfC describing the deletion as an obvious case of "gross abuse of privilege", and speculating I was again committing that grave sin of combing through his upload logs. (I wasn't, I was just processing the IfD page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply to Stifle, Perhaps I should have asked FutPerf for a review before I posted here. At the time there had been a ANI raised and a RFC was ongoing. I've learnt from the IfD processes and the RFC too, for further comments see the talk page of the RFC. Mjroots (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Two problems. #1 I'm not an IfD guy, but I'm seeing a single argument for deletion (by nom) and one to keep. The nom's argument seems to be that the image is valuable and thus doesn't meet our fair use rules. Again, not a IfD person, but I'm unclear where that argument is coming from. The image clearly illustrates something that no new picture could manage (mill has changed) which to me would indicate we should have it. #2 It wasn't plain from the IfD that all three images were up for deletion. Maybe that's a standard way to bundle images in IfD, but I don't think such a thing would stand in an AfD or MfD. Hobit (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - concerns about respect for commercial opportunities. PhilKnight (talk) 12:45, 4 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Talk:1906 (film) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) article was recreated —scarecroe (talk) 15:10, 2 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

VPILF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Redirection of VPILF to Sarah Palin was deleted because it was unsourced and had possible negative BLP issues.

I agree that there should not be a page titled VPILF for these reasons, which is why I created the redirect in the first place. Better that people be redirected to a non-POV page searching for VPILF than stonewalling them because of such issues.

I understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for original research, and can find plenty of reasonable sources from many different parties referring to Palin as a VPILF. Just google the term and you'll find all the hits from the front page refer to her and her alone. People are using this term and some getting interested in politics for the first time because of it.

However offensive it may be, the term is notable. While inclusion in the Palin article may be a bit much, I feel my redirect was a reasonable compromise. Wikipedia does not censor itself, and it contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive or pornographic. Some may find the term offensive, but people will be searching for it, and they deserve to be taken to the right place.

Therefore I request the decision be reversed, or at least backed up in further detail in this discussion. Thanks. Buttle (talk) 11:15, 2 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Carpent tua poma nepotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Please undelete so that the article can be corrected rather than blown away. Please note that this comment was originally from User:Petercorless but the formatting was not correct so I tried to fix. Please direct questions/inquiries to him.

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

Newscred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Initial article was created before official Public Launch of the company's product. Site should now meet notability criteria based on coverage in notable, mainstream press (BBC, Reuters, BusinessWeek) and widespread user acceptance by mainstream news readers. Also, traffic of the site competes with other similar companies with Wikipedia pages such as Topix and Mixx and Daylife. However, understand that traffic itself is not a notability criterion, but am sure BBC and two articles in Reuters should justify a review. Will improve the article with links and references to these press articles once restored. Shafqatislam (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only included notable mainstream press coverage, but it has also been covered on the biggest Technology blogs such as TechCrunch multiple times. For the purposes of full disclosure, I am involved with NewsCred and have read the guidelines regarding conflict of interest. As such, if the article is restored, I will let those familiar with Newscred, our users, and the general community do the improvements to the article, including citations.

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


1 September 2008

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

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

I haven't had a chance to complete the page, which will be conformant when done. Could this be restored to my Talk page for completion, please?

Mike Maughan (talk) 22:48, 1 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:2000 AD creators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

Overturn and Delete - I should've picked up on this a long time ago, obviously. I have no idea how the closing admin can possibly have interpreted this CFD as no consensus. Dozens of other similar categories were nominated the same day and this one, the only one closed by this particular admin, was the only one to survive. Four editors put forth solid reasons as to why this type of categorization is suspect, while a single editor argued for it's retention by calling it WP:USEFUL. Consensus to delete is clear and the closing admin ignored it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Otto, please remember to discuss with the closer before bringing to deletion review. Recommend speedy closure and relisting at CFD as 18 months have passed since closure. Tim! (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, be serious. When is the last time you and I had productive communication? Rather than speedy close and relist, how about taking another look at your decision and reversing yourself sua sponte? Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot be held responsible for your inability to hold courteous discussion with people who disagree with you. And no, I will not reverse a decision as I disagree with your rationale quoted above, a couple of "me too" votes do not form "solid reasons" as you seem to think, or your misrepresentation of the opposer's vote as WP:USEFUL. Tim! (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about, Tim. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I was the one dissenting voice I have to say I was surprised at the result too. As I realised it would be inevitable that it would be deleted I started work on a replacement in my sandbox a while ago. It looks like I should get it finished. (Emperor (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Most of the individuals currently listed in this category are a) Notable creators and b) first and foremost associated with 2000AD. As Emperor said the first time around, it takes the place of an unwieldly list. It's not the same thing to say "An English comics writer" or "An Argentinian comics artist" - it's notable that they worked for 2000AD. Very, very few individuals move to 2000AD from elsewhere, most are nurtured and either stay there, or move on to bigger and better things. There's no link between "Aquaman" (a DC title), "Justice League" (a DC title) or "Iron Man" (a Marvel title) and "2000AD," which is an anthology. Comparable to the other mass-removed/merged categories on the linked page would be "Judge Dredd artists" or "ABC Warriors artists" - those would serve no purpose; THIS does.
Similarly, there's a large degree of interchangability between the major companies (who in any case have had many hundreds more people work for them down the years), so a "DC artists" or "Marvel artists" would be inaccurate, tend to be tautological (with both listed on most pages) and bloated; 2000AD is different. 2000AD is a UK publication - a comparable analogy would be "Beano artists" or "DC Thompson artists" - both of which should exist and would be very helpful (and complement the Beano-bar infobox, which currently has no creator information), albeit little information is known. Similarly, the comment raised last time regarding Stan Lee and John Byrne is partially well-made, but also again a separate issue - comparing predominantly UK and predominantly US individuals. (Added to which Stan Lee IS a "Marvel creator," who merely happens to have also worked for a small number of other companies.) Alan Moore might be a stratch as "a 2000AD creator," but he certainly came to prominence thanks to that title. It's a helpful - perhaps unique - category. Keep it. ntnon (talk) 18:49, 1 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

The Slowrun article was originally deleted and made a redirect to Speedrun, although after a contested deletion discussion, because "no reliable sources to assert notability." There were multiple Keeps and Merges (to merge the article with the Speedrun article) as well. Since the final decision by the administrator though, new evidence has come up in the current Longplay article. Longplays and Slowruns are almost completely the same besides the term used to describe them. If the article for deletion is relisted this new evidence can be discussed and eventually lead to a encyclopedic article detailing both Longplays and Slowruns in a merged article. Banime (talk) 14:36, 1 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ruthless Rap Assassins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Reason given for deletion: Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Does not show any notability, never had any hit records, lots of POV and generally breaches WP:N. Correction: They had 2 singles which hit #75 in the charts, and they had 2 notable members in Paul "Kermit" Leveridge and Jed Lynch, who both joined Black Grape and Jed Lynch became a prolific sessionman. SpecialK 13:57, 1 September 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Damh the bard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I declined the speedy on this page, but another admin has seen fit to delete it citing CSD A7. I think a claim to have "performs live around the United Kingdom" is sufficient assertion of notability, so I'm undeleting and listing the page here. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the author: I apologize, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have previously only made small edits to other articles, rather than entering a new one. I can try again with more exhaustive research -- I did not realize the subject's own site and biographical material taken from it would not be suitable as a primary source, although I can appreciate the reasons for thinking so. For the record, I have no personal connection to the article subject, other than being a fan of his work and believing he is gaining stature in folk music circles, enough so to warrant a brief entry. Mhardy63 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite helpful to establish notability if you could provide references to significant coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources, such as magazines, newspapers, etc. Nonetheless, the question of this person's notability (or lack thereof) should still receive full consideration at AFD. John254 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that there is consensus that this article would not survive an AfD per WP:SNOWBALL. — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors here apparently disagree with that assertion. Suppose that we actually have the AFD discussion, rather than attempting to divine its results? John254 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur ... changing to Restore and send to AfD. — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to afd which is the place to find out if it would survive AfD. This is not AfD 1. Any reasonable indication of notability is enough. What's the point of having restrictions on speedy if we do not follow them. And I think deliberately re-speedying a declined speedy on the same or similar grounds without prior discussion might amount to wheel-warring, tho most such conflicts are just inadvertent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply delete the article and let me try again? 68.50.86.215 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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