Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March

Madras Bulls (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article had passed an AFD after I cleaned it up, but an admin speedy deleted it a year later with no discussion. I think this should be restored to the version before the deletion by User:DJ Clayworth Corpx (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Restore and fish slap for not talking with the admin first (unless I missed it, in which case I apologize). It is likely (though not certain) the admin missed the previous DrV and might have restored and relisted on request. In general speedying something that survived DrV seems unwise. I can't see the article and the DrV result back in 2007 was a relist (which never happened?). But something that the community let survive a DrV (even this weakly) should have been sent to AfD rather than undergone speedy deletion in my opinion. Speedy should be reserved for things that clearly don't meet our guidelines and that others felt it _might_ in the past should be enough to cause an AfD rather than speedy. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at AFD is here. The XFD link above also goes to the relisted AFD Corpx (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a fishwack for me too, I missed that. IMO this is now a speedy restore. Changed it above. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been made more complicated by the fact that an article has now been created at Madras Bulls. I recommend restore on the grounds that an AfD was passed which makes CSD invalid but first the current content needs to be merged in a way which works with the GFDL, for example moving the history to Madras Bulls (biking group) and then merging the content manually. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought there as a policy on CSD that prevents speedies of something that passed at AfD but I couldn't find it. Any pointer? Hobit (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Exalted comics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created this as a new article today. Someone placed a "CSD" tag. I placed a "hangon" tag, expanded the content, and asked for some more time on the Talk page. Despite this, Nihonjoe deleted the article. Discussion with Nihonjoe was unhelpful. I am particularly concerned that Nihonjoe is speedy deleting articles when in fact he does not understand the principles of "CSD" and "hangon". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unsure why Axl says the discussion was unhelpful. I suggested he create the article in his userspace and then move it to the mainspace once it was ready. The article which was deleted had almost no content at all. If he wants, I'll even userfy it for him. As for my understanding of "CSD" and "hangon", it's apparent Axl doesn't understand how they work as the "hangon" tag specifically says that the article might still be deleted even when tagged with {{hangon}}. I've been doing CSD for years now, so I think I have a handle on how it works. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now userfied the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkillStorm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have reached out to the administrator that deleted this page and his suggestion was to opt for a deletion review. I would like to suggest an Overturn of this deletion. I think that with several improvements, this article is a good addition to WP. After doing some research in the consulting industry, I think this is a notable enough company that had a poorly written article. If overturned, I will definitely be contributing to make this article meet WP standards. Adiaza2181 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to correct cases where the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a de novo examination of the article, nor a chance to get a second bite at the cherry and convince different people of the article's merits. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. The article was deleted due to a lack of third-party coverage, not writing style. For the community to consider revising the original decision, the time to present any new sources is now so they may be considered. Restoring based on "I will definitely be contributing to make this article meet WP standards," while noble, does not justify the subject's notability. Spring12 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This company has third-party coverage ranging from Entrepreneur Magazine (see here) and Staffing Industry Analyst (see here), both highly regarded publications in the staffing/consulting industry, not to mention extensive coverage in bizjournal publications in San Diego, Tampa, Orlando, Dallas, Charlotte, South Florida and Indianapolis. I don't understand.Adiaza2181 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the links to the rest of the coverage so we can review? The problem is those two links you gave are merely passing mentions, they're not in depth enough for Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Spring12 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At this point you need to show significant coverage per WP:N. If you can do so, it is likely the article would come back. Trivial coverage (just a passing reference to the name) won't help much. A detailed bit of coverage by reliable sources would help a lot! Hobit (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That SkillStorm,, received the San Diego Better Business Bureau's 2008 Torch Award for marketplace ethics might also help a bit. No idea how notable that award is. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found several articles regarding SkillStorm in bizjournal publications here:

• Tampa Bay Business Journal
• Orlando Business Journal
• Orlando Business Journal

I have a few more notable articles but unfortunately they are in the print edition only. Is there any way to submit PDFs into consideration? Also, the company was featured on the radio on an AM business talk radio show see here.In regard to the awards that the company in question has been awarded, there was an extensive list on the deleted article. For example, for the Better Business Bureau award, I found mention of the company on the BBB site. How can that be submitted for consideration? I'd also like to thank all of you for your help.Adiaza2181 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A posted scan of the articles in question (posted on some other website) is generally acceptable unless someone has reason to believe the sources are forged. Quotes from the sources on the talk page of this AfD could also be posted. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and userfy to the author's userspace for improvement. Proper AFD closure. Move deleted article to User:Adiaza2181/SkillStorm for the user to improve. Can move back into the mainspace once suitable. MuZemike 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more articles for consideration:

• South Florida Business Journal 2008 article
• South Florida Business Journal 2009 article
• Online Business Week article

Thanks again.Adiaza2181 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow restoration South Florida Business Journal appears to be reliable and coverage is certainly significant. entrepreneur's ranking of the company gives us more than just local coverage. I will note that the nom is a (the?) primary author of the South Florida Business Journal article. I would like to hear any WP:COI disclosures. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion even considering the above, the article does not appear to pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse all the above are incidental or local., or,. in the case of Online Business Week, a directory listing. The only keeps at the afds were from spas or people with COI. DGG (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think local awards are generally notable. In any case, WP:N doesn't restrict local sources in any way. WP:ORG does, but it isn't clear that that SNG can restrict the sources for the GNG. Hobit (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the closing statement and DGG's insightful remarks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SSDJafarSwingsTowardSpaid.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The image was deleted for CSD I5 (non-free image not used for 7 days) because the reference to it was removed in a vandalization of the article. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used. Also, there is question as to whether the image is even non-free. This obviously goes against the letter of the law and the spirit of Wikipedia. See article history for the multiple vandalisms by Norcal44. Int21h (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done so (as the instructions indicate), and I am still in the process of doing so. I do not believe such action precludes this request for an undelete; they can happen simultaneously as to allow anyone to undelete the article. I do not believe Wikipedia follows a strict exhaustion of remedies doctrine. For example, I should not have to ask a vandal to undo his vandalism, then wait for a period, then open a request for undo of vandalism before I can undo vandalism. All this touches on the Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY rule, which I think is all to often forgotten. What if the page got speedily deleted? You are saying I would have to request he undelete it, wait, request for an undelete of the page, wait, after that is done request the deleter undelete the image, wait, request for an undelete of the image, wait more, etc. If I add a few more causal deletes in there, that's weeks of undelete requests due to simple vandalism, with very real effects on the comity of Wikipedia. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see where that request took place; can you please point it out to me? Stifle (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per your suggestion, I specifically asked East718 on his talk page to undelete the page for the reasons given above. This is on top of the standard notification that I gave referencing my arguments above for an undelete. There has been no reply. Int21h (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You left him a message after making a listing here; the instructions suggest doing so beforehand, as it tends to result in things working out much more quickly. In any case, restore assuming it will be used in an article now; if the use is inappropriate that can be addressed through the proper channels. tfeSil (aktl) 08:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Restore this is a photo from a police camera in a police station recording an arrest, being used in the article to document the abuse. The entire section of various sourced alleged incidents of abuse was removed from the article repeatedly by the single purpose account User:Norcal44, as part of a continuing edit war without apparent effort at discussion over whether the material is acceptable content. It was deleted by East718 during an interval when the material was absent from the article. It had previously been marked for deletion by a bot during a previous interval when the material was absent. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used, and thus the deletion reason is invalid. As for the edit warring, it must stop and the matter be resolved by proper dispute resolution. I have notified the other party to the edit war. DGG (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment technically should be restored, but I see no reason for this collection of non-free images in this article per WP:NFCC (quite apart from the fact that they're of dire quality, add little to the article anyway, and are illustrating sections that clearly fail WP:UNDUE), and should they be restored should be sent straight to IfD. Black Kite 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as far as I can tell, the images are public domain as a result of a California Public Records Act request. I have not had time to update the image description pages, but will at the next opportunity. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, then no problem. Black Kite 06:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on File:MihaitaConstantinResistingArrest.png. They're not public domain. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a redlink at the moment. Hobit (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment below on why they are not copyright-able. I will put even more details on the page when it comes back up. Int21h (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to the DRV on said image below this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would be much obliged if an Administrator could please temporarily undelete these images so I can save it locally, or email them to my email listed under my account. I spent a good amount of time obtaining these videos and extracting images out of them, and I have since lost the original media. (The account that created them was mine, just in case you were wondering, but I forgot the password. :() Int21h (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any admin can directly access the files (without the need for undelete) and save them locally. I would ask you to email me and I could respond with them, but I don't really have any indication that you are in fact User:WarIsPeace, I guess it would be. I would suggest just waiting until it is restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore I can't evaluate the value of the image as I can't see it. But given the reasons it was deleted, it should be restored. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MihaitaConstantinResistingArrest.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The image was deleted for CSD I5 (non-free image not used for 7 days) because the reference to it was removed in a vandalization of the article. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used. Also, there is question as to whether the image is even non-free. This obviously goes against the letter of the law and the spirit of Wikipedia. See article history for the multiple vandalisms by Norcal44. Int21h (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done so (as the instructions indicate), and I am still in the process of doing so. I do not believe such action precludes this request for an undelete; they can happen simultaneously as to allow anyone to undelete the article. I do not believe Wikipedia follows a strict exhaustion of remedies doctrine. For example, I should not have to ask a vandal to undo his vandalism, then wait for a period, then open a request for undo of vandalism before I can undo vandalism. All this touches on the Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY rule, which I think is all to often forgotten. What if the page got speedily deleted? You are saying I would have to request he undelete it, wait, request for an undelete of the page, wait, after that is done request the deleter undelete the image, wait, request for an undelete of the image, wait more, etc. If I add a few more causal deletes in there, that's weeks of undelete requests due to simple vandalism, with very real effects on the comity of Wikipedia. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Restore this is a photo from a police camera in a police station recording an arrest, being used in the article to document the abuse. The entire section of various sourced alleged incidents of abuse was removed from the article repeatedly by the single purpose account User:Norcal44, as part of a continuing edit war without apparent effort at discussion over whether the material is acceptable content. It was deleted by East718 during an interval when the material was absent from the article. It had previously been marked for deletion by a bot during a previous interval when the material was absent. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used, and thus the deletion reason is invalid. As for the edit warring, it must stop and the matter be resolved by proper dispute resolution. I have notified the other party to the edit war. DGG (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment technically should be restored, but I see no reason for this collection of non-free images in this article per WP:NFCC (quite apart from the fact that they're of dire quality, add little to the article anyway, and are illustrating sections that clearly fail WP:UNDUE), and should they be restored should be sent straight to IfD. Black Kite 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as far as I can tell, the images are public domain as a result of a California Public Records Act request. I have not had time to update the image description pages, but will at the next opportunity. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the images are not public domain. (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270) 1) That law only governs access to information, it does not put information into the public domain or transfer any rights. 2) The law only applies to California and does not apply to anyone outside the state, meaning that copyright can't be satisfied even for the majority of Americans. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL. But doesn't "6253.3. A state or local agency may not allow another party to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure pursuant to this chapter." effectively mean that anyone has permission to post material subject to this rule? Hobit (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disclosure" does not equal "republish." Basically, it's saying that they can't prevent anyone from seeing the evidence, but it doesn't have any wording to release the copyright of the evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree copyright isn't released. Rather they legally may not prevent disclosure, and preventing publication would be preventing disclosure (as I read it). Eh, as this law could be changed at any time, I suppose it doesn't matter how you read it, it probably isn't a "free" image. Ah well. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is already published elsewhere, then preventing republishing does not put up any restrictions that would lead to people not being able to see the evidence. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disclosure" simply means that, upon request, they must provide access to the material. That doesn't mean they have to put it online, just that it must be available for people to see it. Which may mean physically going to wherever it's stored and seeing the original there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. (This idscussion shouldn't be here, but oh well.) In County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, No. H031658 (2009), the County says exactly that, that they have Copyright. It is the first case dealing with the issue.^[1] The court of appeals decided (with jurisdiction throughout California, not just in the 6th. Appellate District) that the county cannot copyright records unless explicitly allowed to do so by law.^[2][3] The operative conclusion was "The same persuasive reasoning applies to the interplay between copyright law and California’s public records law, with the result that unrestricted disclosure is required." (County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, No. H031658 (2009), at 35.) As far as I can tell, the decision means (and, like it says, it is the first case on the subject) that records obtained through the act cannot be copyrighted, as this would allow limitations on disclosure (which is what copyright is), or limitation on uses of the material (which is what copyright can be), which under the act and the Constitution (see California Proposition 59 (2004)) are clearly a no-no. Int21h (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would be much obliged if an Administrator could please temporarily undelete these images so I can save it locally, or email them to my email listed under my account. I spent a good amount of time obtaining these videos and extracting images out of them, and I have since lost the original media. (The account that created them was mine, just in case you were wondering, but I forgot the password. :() Int21h (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore I can't evaluate the value of the image as I can't see it. But given the reasons it was deleted, it should be restored. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Procedural nom. Page was deleted at AfD (here), but re-written in userspace and then moved to mainspace. It was then deleted as a G4 recreation. The version of the page deleted at AFD is here, and the new version is here. I am neutral. Black Kite 12:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - history-only undelete performed by request. Black Kite 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of 2 weeks ago. While the two versions Black Kite shows above are different, past iterations of this article have had all of the soruces in schmidt's current draft. They are passant, largely, ("garbled uplink is the guitarist and he loves to party"), and do nothing to establish him as notable and passing WP:BIO (no one disputes that he was once in a band or that he contributed frequently to the New York Press for a number of years -- it's just that those things on their own are insufficient to establish notability). As Cabal no longer is involved in anything notable (he builds stage sets, apparently; an IP who claims to be him always pops up at his AfD's) there is nothing "new" that would have or could have changed to enhance his notability. In short, the problem remains what it has been all along; there are no non-trivial works about him in any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability or otherwise support a reliably sourced and verifiable BLP.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse until such time as new sources are presented that represent significant independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources and support a claim to notability (the Jewish Press article that just quotes Cabal's email message to the editor doesn't really cut it, nor does someone writing about their own band which happened to include Cabal as a member).--Michig (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see detail of the additional sources that are claimed address the AFD issues. If User:MichaelQSchmidt could supply the passages of text from the new sources that discuss Cabal it would help to see if there's any reason to believe these issues have been addressed. If this review results in the speedy being overturned and, inevitably, another AFD, I would suggest that if the subsequent AFD resulted in deletion, evidence of decent new sources be required before any subsequent recreation of the article. We've already wasted far too much time and effort on this article.--Michig (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MQS was kind enough to supply the relevant passages of text from the sources for me to take a look at, and with all due respect to his efforts here, I still believe the deletion should not be overturned as the notability concerns have not in my view been addressed.--Michig (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Overturn Deletion as article was deleted AFTER the speedy tag was in good faith itself removed by an admin. The deleting admin must have at the very least run into an EC and realized the tag was removed and then read the reasons for it. Despite this, he deleted it anyway. So I support return to NEW VERSION as an as an example of what any editor can do when looking beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT to actually dig for sources and present infornation properly when doing the required WP:CLEANUP of an article thought meritless by others. Cabal is no angel and has far more detractors than admirers... hell, I don't like him myself... but personal animis toward a subject should have no place at an AfD nor at in bringing any article into line with policy and guideline to be then worthy of Wikipedia. Consensus can change with a neutral review of old and past articles, and whatever Cabal might be doing today or tomorrow or next year does not diminish past notability, no matter how one might feel about the individual as a person. Yes, many facts in the present article are the same as facts in the earlier ones. World history does not change, nor can it be re-written, simply because one does not like events or those behind such events. Any properly encyclopedic article will then include as much properly sourced material as is relevent. So naturally, the only thing that then "could change" is in how the assertions of notability are presented and how they are sourced. Proper sourcing per WP:RS and WP:V and proper presentation of such is exactly as guideline and policy instruct. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection There was no edit conflict. Please stop making these accusations. I deleted in good faith, I had no idea that the speedy had been removed. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection noted, with my aplogies for my misunderstanding. He removed the tag in good faith after himself spending time reviewin the article just as had you. Because he finished his evaluation firts, does that mean it is of no consequence? The request for procedural reversal is still applicable. At Bali's ANI, you said "Before the removal of the tag from my point of view - yes, technically the tag was removed just slightly before I deleted, but I was in the process of deletion when the tag was removed, the version I saw before I clicked delete had the tag. I looked at the old and new articles, I looked at the talk page, and made a judgement call. DRV is the way to go now and in my opinion would have been a better option than recreating it two weeks after the AfD." I do not indertand how if the tag was there, and you went to edit, and the tag was removed before you hit "submit", that there would not have been an edit conflict. Since the tag WAS removed before you deleted, and even you grant this, the events of you "missing" it being removed are moot. It was removed for cause before you deleted. That you missed is not germaine. Guideline and policy do not state that a removal of such tag in response to a hangon only counts if there is 60 minutes, 60 seconds, or 60 nano-seconds before someone wishes to delete per speedy. Then indicatingthat it should go to DRV does not acknowledge another admin's opinion that the artricle was substantially different enough from the one that was deleted to deserve a fair review. DRV is not the way to go as it acts to validate an error in action, however "well intentioned". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, there were seconds between the two edits - I removed the speedy and by the time the edit came up on my screen (on our incredibly slow network!) the article was red-linked; there was no way that the deleting admin could have seen my edit. Black Kite 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair. Yes. I think it is safe to say that the two of you were reviewing the article at the same time. You reached different conclusions, and you in good faith removed the tag... seconds before he in good faith deleted the article. Is it established procedure to err on the side of deletion in all such cases? Or to hold an preliminary AfD before having to retry it at another AfD? I have not been able to find anything in guideline or policy that indicates that this later is the proper procedure, just as I have not been able to find other instances where the tag removal preceded a deletion by such a short margin. Had you been faster or he been slower by perhaps another 30 or 60 seconds... it would be a different story. Just how close were the timemarks? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt it's worth noting that schmidt, the article creator, removed an earlier speedy tag, which he well knows is against the process. Just since we're being such sticklers for "procedure." As it is, Black Kite and Dougweller were the two admins who looked at this. And judging by their comments here and elsewhere, they appear to be in agreement that DRV is the best venue.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also worth noting that I was informed by bali after my own good faith (erronous) removal of the tag with the statement: "And do not remove speedy tags from pages that you created. Read the tag if you don't understand that's not allowed (though of course you should at this point)." I immediately explained my lack of knowledge and requested he return it as I had never removed one before. I did not take issue with his assumption that someone who had never done something of that nature should automatically somehow know that they should not. I certainly KNOW it NOW... and will take issue with any futher implication of bad faith such as made in the above statement "which he well knows is against the process"... when earlier he was specifically told in an aplogy that I did NOT know it as agaianst process. And again, all that is needed is to take a look at the timestamps of the two editors who were diligently evaluating the article. If Black Kite was the first to complete his evaluation and remove that tag... even if ny nano-seconds, honor would indicate that his removal be respected. If Dougweller was first in completing his evalauation then his deletion was per the book. If he was late, he was late. Period. Else I'd have to wonder if a decision to delete 3 seconds after one to keep is allowed.... maybe next time a delete will be accepted if made 3 minutes or 3 hours or 3 days after a decision to keep. If good faith is to be shown on all sides, they were nearly neck and neck in their evaluations of the article. Black Kite was faster. Is his good faith decision to remove the tag to now be discounted simply because his decision was reached sooner that of the deleting admin?? Anything resulting from this premature deletion is a result of that premature deletion. Procedural overturn of speedy and return of newer article IS the proper following of procedure. The rules do not exist so thay may be ignored when it suits one's purpose, do they? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the "new" version is slightly different than the AfD version, but isn't actually better (in fact it could be argued that it's actually a little worse as it's more "puffy" than the relatively lean AfD'd one) and it doesn't address the core issue here, which is notability. The bottom line is that this guy just plain hasn't gotten any more notable in the two weeks since the AfD, and no amount of rewriting and wrangling could fix that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But I believe different enough... as the earlier versions were poorly asserted and poorly sourced. What has changed is in how it is now presented... with 5 new sources, 2 of which were discussed at the most recent AfD but that had never previously been sources in the article. Same puzzle. Different pieces. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, in my (and one other's opinion) the presentation is worse, more puffery and uncited stuff. But that doesn't really matter. No one argued delete because of poor presentation. They argued delete because reliable sources independent of the subject didn't establish him as notable. Cleanup? That's lipstick on a pig (a phrase we can safely use again).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the previous version had sources and presentation of assertions that did not meet the approval of editors at the last AfD. THIS one is not THAT one. This one has 5 new sources, 2 of which were brought up at the last AfD. The assertions are presented differently and in a manner that allows proper sourcing through Reliable Sources and confirmation per Verify to properly show the Notability that the earlier versions failed to do. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There seems to be a common misconception that "cleaning up" can cure a subject of unnotability syndrome. Unfortunately, that is not the case. yandman 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Using Cleanup to correct the flaws of earlier versions is what "cures". Poor article on am unfavorable subject = deletion. Better article on a unfavorable subject = deletion. Seems like a set of equations that cannot be countered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No reason to be re-hashing the decisions of previous AfD's. This DRV is about the speedy deletion of a recreated article that was "substantially" different (despite pre-concceptions) than its predecessors. If it is returned, it may likley be sent to AfD.... but its not an AfD that needs be overturned. Its the speedy deletion even after the tag had been removed by Black Kite (who is here remaining neutral)... THAT is the issue here, and the only required and valid reason to overturn. You want to discuss notability? Do it at an AfD of the new article. The Speedy was improper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• commment i suppose reasonable people can disagree. To be clear -- the sourcing was not improved, notability was not established, and no new sources that discuss Alan Cabal were uncovered by you (or anyone else). The recreation was an end around on an AFD from two weeks ago that delivered a clear consensus for "delete."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for your opinion. There are other opinions that the article was indeed substantially changed in format and style and that sourcing was (slightly) improved to make a (slightly) stronger case for the notability of Cabal. This is not the venue to argue about reasons why an earlier version was deleted or how the various concerns of the earlier AfDs might or might not have been addressed. The issue here is supposed to be solely about the overturning a slightly speedy speedy... as even the deleting admin noted that his closure followed immediately upon another admin's valid removal of the CSD tag. Rather than say "oops" and return the article, the second admin decided to let it go... to either DRV or oblivion. This in all good faith requires a procedural overturn. Go to AfD if it must, but the speedy was incorrect. That's the only issue here, not the merits of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Correction I deleted an article that at the time I hit delete had a Speedy tag. I don't think you understand the way the software works. It takes me to another page that I then had to change slightly, it would be during that time period that the tag was removed. No edit conflict is created as I'm not editing the page. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I quoted your ANI statement above. I ask of any neutral admin with the ability to check, please see whose timestamp is first... User:Dougweller's for deletion? or User:Black Kite's for removing the speedy tag. Since both admins were at the same time revieiwing the article to evaluate and determine the validity or need for a CSD, the only fair and honorable thing to do would be to give the benefit of the doubt to whichever one completed their determination first. Whose timestanp is soonest? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because I was first doesn't mean I was right! Admins aren't infalliable, and that's why I brought it here - to let the community decide. Black Kite 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I grant that, and am sorry that you are now in this, as controversy is no way to be repaid for good faith on anyone's part. Did you bring here as a preliminary AfD? Or did you bring it here for a decision to be reached in regards the closeness to the two timestamps? Had you been a minute slower, or he a minute faster, it would be a none-issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I give up. You don't understand the software, you insist, wrongly since I wasn't editing the article, which I've already point out, that there must have been an edit conflict that I would have seen (thus not granting me good faith), and you evidently feel you need to have someone to blame and won't consider that it might have been better for you to take it to DRV in the first place rather than recreate an article so shortly after it had been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Perhaps I do not understand the software you use, but I do however understand that at nearly the same time as you were evalauating the article to determine if a CSD was vaild, another editor was himself making his own evaluation. I don't know which of you began their evaluation first... I only know which one finished first. I also know that if this stupid article is returned to mainspace it will be sent to AfD within seconds. I also realize that it will likely have 15-20 delete opinions posted with the first few seconds... all pretty much saying the same things being said above. But, and no matter repeated claims to the contrary, it is different enough to deserve a chance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse behind all the puff of the new article, there still isn't anything to demonstrate that he's actually notable. There's no in depth discussion of him anywhere, only trivial mentions. ThemFromSpace 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery is a negative essay recently created (January 19) which very premise lacks good faith: that editors are simply adding references to avoid deletion. Not surprisingly, this negative "puff" piece has been enthusiastically picked up by editors who delete.

It is hard for me to believe that all 28 references are not notable, including a book, Time magazine, New York Times, Billboard, for all references, see: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article#References. Ikip (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a clear consensus was arrived at by the editors who participated in the AfD 2 weeks ago that they did not establish notability. No new sources that would have changed that consensus have come to light. Ssome of those sources you link to, by the way, don't mention him at all and are not remotely about him, like the Taibbi article [1] or the Necomonicon book [2]; others have barely passing mentions -- for instance, this one [3] says "Internet bohemians and online celebrities, people with handles like "Mnemonic," "Razor" and "Garbled Uplink" went to a party. No further mention of "Garbled Uplink" or Cabal at all. Some, like the Jewish Press [4] note that he sent them a mean email. Most are self-published or otherwise not independent of the source (the article about the defunct band by the band leader). There's nothing new here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those wishing for an overturn must do more than assert that the reposted article differed significantly from the AfD'd version. The speedy is only demonstrably incorrect if the reposted version addressed the reasons for deletion (i.e. a lack of independent sources establishing notability). If a consensus is established to that effect, the article can be restored (and those who still wish to see it deleted may re-nominate it for AfD). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully understand your statement, and had the revised article been sent to AfD, would be properly answering these questions about the differring interpretations of the 5 new sources. And with respects to the good faith of User:Black Kite in his evaluation determining the revised article deserving that chance, feel inclined to now ask how many different ways the wording of a CSD tag is allowed to be interpreted? What is now being asked is a sort of Double jeopardy, no? The same "trial" twice? I certainly cannot "announce" this discussion anywhere, else be involved in canvasing... and those who might have then had chance to see it at an AfD and opine do not even know it had come back. Independent sources HAVE indeed been brought to this discussion: The Jewish Press, Newsday article, 2 Billboard articles, two books: Our Gods Wear Spandex and Cyberville... but this is a venue I thought was intended for discussing the unusual events of the speedy deletion, and not one to discuss former versions of the new article. If I'm wrong, fine... but I have seen it many times repeated at DRVs that they are not the venue for rehasing an AfD... only for investigating the event of the deletion itself.

  If however, a preliminary AfD is to be held here, and to answer ThemFromSpace, in-depth discussions of the subject are found in the Cyberville article... pages 13, 20-21, 23, 32, 39, 114, 168, 212, 336 and a few other pages probably too that I didn't catch. In the Newsday article he's mentioned several times in every paragraph. The Zundel controversy is in-depth too. So if this venue IS to be a preliminary AfD, I ask that some method similar to an AfD posting be put forward that can let interested editors know that the discussion is indeed taking place... because in looking at the AfDs for earlier versions, there certainly were other editors that felt the article worth keeping on Wiki. Might not their opinions be just as worthy as any other's here? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore to new version of the article. Two admins looked at this article at essentially the same time and made judgments that were different, and both were made in good faith. I see no abuse of process here and the timing and tag removal issues are unimportant, as the core purpose of this DRV is to look at the article and decide if it was subject to a G4 deletion as recreated content, not to point fingers or to argue about timing. Also, this is the appropriate venue, not ANI. After comparing the two versions, I see sufficient differences prima facie that support that it is not subject to a G4 speedy deletion. The content is clearly different, it's structured differently, there are way more references, 28 vs. 10, and there are more included bibliographic entries, and the word count is 535 vs. 2025 (new). It's very clearly a new and different version, the issues in the last AfD have been addressed, including RS relative to notability. The deletion thus fails G4 criteria. The author did not just rehash the same content with a few word changes as an end run around the last AfD. Any issues about notability, references, or other editorial concerns should be argued in a new AfD, if someone is so inclined. Bottom line: The new article is not a G4 recreation and should stand or fall on it's own merits. — Becksguy (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Becksguy. This is not a subject to speedy deletion. Massive numbers of references: 28.Ikip (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question—Has any attempt been made to follow up the remark in the third AfD from the IP address purporting to be the article's subject? In cases of marginal notability like this one, maybe the subject's wishes should be taken into account. I am in no way suggesting that his attitude to Wikipedia stinks and we should give him an unflattering article just to piss him off. Because that would be quite wrong of me. So I haven't suggested it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried to make it as neutral and balanced as possible. Trust that there is stuff online that paints him in an extremely unflattering light... but in being neutral, such invective had no place in a BLP, so it was left out. My work on it was as a personal challenge to see if even the worst article might be made suitable for wiki. I had thought I was successful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, Michael. Procedural relist because there was genuine confusion between administrators here, and it's not unreasonable to ask for it to be relisted under the circumstances.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The article seems improved, both with respect to balance and to references. It deserves another discussion. DGG (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate, the admins didn't reach the same conclusion, so lets go with the same default result as a no consensus at AfD, keep. That said, this might have a hard a time in the inevitable AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There still aren't any sources that address him in depth. AniMate^talk 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn due to improvements, i.e. sufficiently notable for the paperless encyclopedia anybody can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse latest AfD or keep deleted or endorse G4 speedy clarified Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC), depending on whether this is a deletion or recreation DRV. The new version is substantially longer, but I don't see convincing improvements with respect to the AfD closing rationale. Why didn't the article creator request recreation at DRV before moving to article space? Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Requesting recreation at DRV is common practice, and approval immunizes an article against WP:CSD#G4. Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The newer article's creator saw the deleted as one lacking substance and scope and not itself being worthy of return. The newer article's creator then took the sorry state of the deleted article as a challange to instead create a properly balanced and neutral one so as to improve the project, adding information and sources not previously existing within the one that had earlier been deleted. The article's creator took special note of the timbre of the arguments used in the deletion AfD and did as much as possible to address the more salient objections. The author then today learned that his efforts to address those issues in the article and so improve the project were themselves for some reason under extremely close scrutiny. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Cmt really? You are the "newer" article's "creator" (which has the same precise standard of sourcing as the last one). And this is what you, the "newer article's creator" wrote on the last AfD, which was 12-2 for delete -- "Keep Same reasonings and discussions as at the last AfD. Nothing has changed except perhaps interested editors do not realize it is once more on the block. No doubt it will be returned to a 4th or 5th AFD if there is another no consensus keep here. And I really do not wish to have to dredge up the sources offered from the last AfD, but will if it is absolutely required. And yes, I was notified about this discussion, but the article is already on my watch list." [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (Response to unsigned statement) Did I say I was not the author of the new article? Simply responded in 3rd person felt correct at that moment. ANd thank you for underscoring my impresion that some wish to use this venue as an AfD and not a DRV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn On the basis that there was a disagreement over whether it was a speedy candidate.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC) below account community banned User:Manhattan Samurai sock; usually his edits are removed. For some reason, other editors want it to remain. *Overturn For a guy who's supposedly of "insufficient notoriety" for Wikipedia inclusion, Mr. Cabal has ginned up quite the ongoing debate. What's really striking is that his name is now one of the only RED entries in a number of Wikipedia entries that cite him, e.g. CounterPunch; Gonzo journalism; and New York Press. I'm also not seeing why Cabal is less important than say, Jeff Koyen; Toby Young; Christopher X. Brodeur; John Birmingham; or Tucker Max, the latter entry which started as a self-promotion tool back in 2004, fully two years before the subject was of note for anything. Additionally, blog entries are used for thousands of Wiki references, including many of those I just cited, but for some reason, not allowed for Cabal. Seems like mucho double standards for the Cabal entry. Jarmancooper (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)— Jarmancooper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blocked as sock of community banned User:Manhattan Samurai.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I please have a link to the checkuser case that implicates Manhattan Samurai? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not proven to be a sock at the moment, so I've removed the strikeout on the comment—it is possible that this is an experienced IP editor who's just registered an account. Though I do understand the suspicion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And i've restruck. Take it up with blocking admin if you don't like it. I will not allow MS to disrupt this (particularly after this was recreated substantially unchanged 2 weeks after an AFD went 12-2 against this, and which was littered with his socks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've unstruck again. The SPA tag is sufficient.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? There are others here and elsewhere who have quite politely disagreed with you... others who recognize that it is substantially different. Their opinions are just as worthy as yours. Thank you for the continued good faith responses. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith extends to people who disagree with you. Actually, that's probably the most important aspect of assuming good faith here. I've noticed you've thrown the phrase around here alot in this debate, seemingly exclusively to those who you perceive to be agreeing with you, with the notable exception above. I'm sure Bali ultimate is assuming good faith but he also realizes that assuming good faith doesn't mean we can't use our brains to point out the obvious. I just hope that you were sincere when you thanked him for assuming good faith. AniMate^talk 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Bali Ultimate has been the epitome of courtesy and respect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recognizing that Bali ultimate is both courteous and respectful. When we treat those with whom we disagree with good faith, Wikipedia works. I'm sure you understand why many of us are wary of a new user making their first comment here after everything with Manhattan Samurai and his socks. This whole mess really isn't too big of a deal, as single purpose accounts who show up only to express opinions in contentious debates aren't given that much weight. Still, thank you for being sincere and assuming good faith in regards to Bali ultimate. Your sincere attitude is to be commended. AniMate^talk 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the blocking admin for the block reason in the absence of any checkuser evidence and was told "See the duck test". I replied "Sorry, and with respects, I think Wikipedia would need to see a few just a couple more feathers to presume it is a quacker from one specific individual... meaning that Wikipedia might wish to see more than just one edit to make a specific allegation that the account is one any one specific individual, as there are thousands of banned or blocked users that meet the same "test". Now certainly the comments of a SPA account will be generally be discounted, and certainly Manhattan Samurai has a puppet history... but if the SPA is not a puppet of MS, he has been blocked for simply making one edit and voicing one opinion, I would recommend he/she come forward and request an unblock. If it is MS, a checkuser can make such determination. But if it is not.... well, somebody got blocked who might not deserve to have been... simply for voicing an opinion in a rather civil manner. Any checkuser's or admins wish to opine? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q: Thanks for pressing on. You're doing the right thing, not only by this entry, but thousands of others. And no, I'm not a sock of Manhattan Chowder, et. al. or a meat puppet, or whatever (the list seems endless these days). I made a valid point, backed it up with several facts, and instead of dealing with the point, Bali and GG--who've apparently both been after this entry for a long time--decided to violate "WP:Block Conflicts of interest -- Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." So I'm blocked -- using the "Like a duck" rule (is this now standard WP?) -- because I spoke up against an insidious practice that has become one of several fundamental and almost tragicomic inequities in this once free and open place: The attack of particular entries for reasons that, while they may be valid in some cases, are not consistently applied, and often seem more related to an editor's ego, personal issues and ability to rally powerful pseudonyms to his or her cause than the desire to objectively disseminate the truth. A sympathizer sent me another example: Tim Folger, asking eight months after its creation, why isn't it being rewritten, deleted, etc.? I don't know. I can't answer. The WP guides are so innumerable and so confusing anymore it's completely discouraging. I used to edit here and I really used to enjoy this place. I thought the Wales vision was as socially and encyclopedically ingenious as it was technologically disruptive. But I've lost my taste for it. "The Encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?" Unless, of course, you're a sock, a meat, a blocked, a banned, a spa, an urban samurai, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Who is this slogan kidding? Wikipedia is an incredible tool, but it is slowly and inexorably being corrupted, by the very forces it set out to eradicate. If that's the voice of a disruptive sock speaking, then so be it. I'd like to think I deserve the "Emperor, You're Naked" Barnstar, but this is not an environment given to self-examination and that's precisely what is slowly killing it.Jarmancooper2 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>

To Jarmancooper/Jarmancooper2: Now you are definitely showing yourself as a sock... I don't believe it has been proven of Manhattan Samurai, but a sock of someone none-the-less. If you wish to appeal the block, there are procedures to follow. Creating another sock as a voice is not the way to proceed, and will doubtless result in continued blocks of the new accounts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny how you've managed to find your way to DRV on your very first edit. I smell socks... ThemFromSpace 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Jarmancooper2 has been blocked as a sock of community banned User:Manhattan Samurai Nancy ^talk 10:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (perhaps relist). The article had additional sources that weren't in the previous version. That means an attempt was made to address the concerns expressed at AFD. Such articles do not fall under the G4 speedy deletion criterion. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wil be content with whatever the community decides about this article and probably won't take part in an AfD if that follows. Just in case there is any confusion still about the tagging debate, I should point out that the only relevance is that another Admin, perhaps correctly, thought it was not a G4 candidate. Articles don't need tags to be speedy deleted. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully endorse there is no reason to overturn the deletion of this non-notables biography, despite the obvious socking. Verbal chat 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• relist I think it's unlikely to be kept at AfD, but I don't think it is a speedy candidate as it is significantly different. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for procedural reasons. The speedy was declined by Black Kite (talk · contribs) and per deletion policy, another admin should not overrule it. If they do it by mistake, they should restore it when realizing their mistake. Whether the article itself is worthy of inclusion is not the subject of this DRV but of an AFD that can be started afterwards. This DRV is about the G4 speedy deletion and that should be overturned on grounds of respecting another admin's decision. All comments about whether this article is G4 or is not are void because it was already declined by the time of deletion. Everything else would allow forum-shopping and wheel-warring between admins who disagree with each others decisions and any other outcome here would effectively set a precedent for future conflicts when two admins reach different conclusions about a speedy candidate. I'm assuming dougweller acted in good faith but once he knew about the previous decline, he should have restored the article and use other ways of deletion instead. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This DRV isn't really about the speedy, though. Even though I declined the speedy, I brought it here (which is where it should probably have been to begin with) for the community to decide whether the re-creation was correct. Otherwise, the article would probably have been AfDd again anyway. Black Kite 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, DRV is about whether deletions were correct, not recreations. While I understand your motivations, I'd say you decided that it was okay to recreate when you declined the G4 speedy. After all, the decision behind declining an G4 is usually "this article is not substantially the same that was AFDed, so the AFD consensus cannot be applied". The only thing this DRV can decide is whether the deletion afterwards was correct, because DRV is not AFD2. If the new article should be kept or not is something a new AFD has to decide, that has no place at a DRV imho. Regards SoWhy 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again - 'deletion afterwards' could easily suggest that I was aware that while I was deleting the article another Admin was declining the Speedy, which is not what happened. Once again, the actions were virtually simultaneous, and as I probably initiated the deletion before the speedy was removed, even if the software only finished it afterwards, there could equally be an argument just as wrong that the deletion came before the decline. Neither is correct, they happened at what was to all intents and purposes the same time, going through two distinctly different software processes. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I did not want to imply this. I used "afterwards" in the sense only that by the time you deleted, Black Kite had declined it. Whether you were aware of it or not, I cannot judge so I'm assuming you were not. My point is solely that imho you should have restored it once you became aware of this conflict simply because the first admin decision recorded in the logs about the page should count, not the latter. It's a purely procedural point, I know, but it helps to make clear that the first admin's decision should not be overruled, not even accidentally. Regards SoWhy 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think by the time I realised what had happened, things had progressed to DRV and others had commented. Even then it didn't occur to me to undelete - I assumed that since the DRV had been initiated, that was what should happen. I still think that a DRV should have taken place before the article was recreated only 2 weeks after an AfD. What I do wish is that I'd never seen it! Of course, there still almost certainly would have been an AfD as soon as the speedy was removed. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response There is no wheel-warring. There was a virtually simultaneous set of actions, where I initiated a deletion of a tagged article but by the time I had finished the process the tag had been removed. There has been no disagreement in the sense of one of us seeing the other's actions and then taking a contrary action. If Black Kite had asked me at the time I would probably have undeleted it, but that did not happen and he took it to DRV instead. Because of that, I'm leaving it to the community to decide. I'm not sure why, given the number of people who have endorse the deletion, you think I should now unilaterally ignore them, Black Kites's actions and the DRV and make a decision myself. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller is correct, there is no wheel-warring. I don't see the slightest hint of anything but full good faith actions by either admin. This is a case of different judgment calls made virtually simultaneously. — Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The fundamental flaws that led to the deletion are still present, and shifting the words around doesn't protect it from the {{db-repost}} criteria. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new article grew (from the old version to the new version) from roughly 535 to 2025 words, an increase of almost 4 times, the number of references grew from 10 to 28, an increase of almost 3 times, and there is more structure now, from 1 section to 3 sections in the body. The article is obviously and clearly substantially different and has addressed the issues raised at AFD3. To characterize the change as "shifting the words around" is grossly unfair and also clearly untrue on it's face. Regardless of any other changes, just shifting the words around would result in an article of about the same size. I did a side by side comparison using two windows and the difference is crystal clear. If you feel the article is lacking, then argue at AfD4, which I'm sure will be initiated microseconds afterwards, if the article is restored. This DRV is about the G4 speedy deletion of the new article, nothing else. — Becksguy (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't turn it into Miss Universe, it's still a pig. Re-iterate opinion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. No sense insulting all the Miss Universes with a Cabal comparison. They deserve much better. I suppose what I attempted was to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse... but it is still perceived as smelling of swine. Maybe I should turn my attention toward making that article on Baconaise into a FA, as edible pork products are apparently seen as far more notable than contoversial writers... and heck, it already has 6 sources and only one is a blog.

Look.... I grant that Cabal is not popular among many wiki editors, and because of that unpopularity, his article is under a great deal of scrutiny. And even though it will likely never be FA or GA, the improved article is in much better shape than many others (see Baconaise). And yes, if the DRV of the new article results in it being allowed to be reposted, it will immediately be rushed to AfD #5 (I see this DRV as AfD #4), and will have a dozen delete opinions immediately within the first few seconds of it being so nominated.

Cabal is seen as an ass by many. He is controversial. He is hated. But he does have enough independent coverage toward notability as required by guideline, and enough verification of his backgound... and he is even quoted by other notables in their own works, which seems to show his imfluences as a personality... even if sometimes seen as a noteriety. I feel that if the article can be kept neutral and non-defamitory, it will remain a proper and encyclopedic contribution to these pages... and certainly one of more note than bacon flavored mayonaise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your laboured attempt at humour--you should probably not be doing that sort of thing for a living--and attempt to divine peoples' motivations without actual evidence are noted but irrelevant, and the 'independent coverage' which has been scraped up in a desperate bid to 'save' this article, as has been noted already, are still crap references. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see two DRVs going on at the same time here. One is the DRV for the recreation of the Alan Cabal article and the other is the DRV for the speedy deletion of the recreated Alan Cabal article. It's interesting to point out that most arguing to endorse the deletion are arguing about the former DRV and those arguing otherwise are arguing about the latter DRV. I think this should be about the former as any recreation of a deleted article like this should go through DRV first. That it didn't go through the proper channels isn't an excuse that the article should be kept as is because two admins differed on the terminology of speedy deletion. This shouldn't have even been posted in the first place without going through a recreation DRV, so any arguments about the speedy deletion are moot. ThemFromSpace 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the speedy deletion and allow Schmidt's version of the article. I don't see how the new version of the article construes as wikipuffery. With that said, as SoWhy said above, I am assuming good faith in that the admins in question aren't doing anything unbecoming their position. This is exactly what DRV is for. Finally, I don't oppose to relisting at AFD; in fact, I expect that someone will probably re-nominate it. MuZemike 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Procedural grounds, and per the purported sock of Manhattan Samurai: 'For a guy who's supposedly of "insufficient notoriety" for Wikipedia inclusion, Mr. Cabal has ginned up quite the ongoing debate. What's really striking is that his name is now one of the only RED entries in a number of Wikipedia entries that cite him, e.g. CounterPunch; Gonzo journalism; and New York Press. I'm also not seeing why Cabal is less important than say, Jeff Koyen; Toby Young; Christopher X. Brodeur; John Birmingham; or Tucker Max, the latter entry which started as a self-promotion tool back in 2004, fully two years before the subject was of note for anything. Additionally, blog entries are used for thousands of Wiki references, including many of those I just cited, but for some reason, not allowed for Cabal. Seems like mucho double standards for the Cabal entry.' Unomi (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse false accusations against an editor raise a presumption that the editor acted properly; this presumption has not been overcome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for procedural reasons. Take it to AfD if need be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• OverturnI'm getting dizzy from this game of musical chairs. Two admin's butts hit the chair at the same time. Seems like the only fair thing to impose is a re-do. Also Editor:Schmidt had made considerable improvement to the article. Like them or not, the article is worthy of reconsideretion since the facelift. No implication of impropriety. Let's start over and see what happens. --Buster7 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - as has been noted by others above, the core issue from the previous AFD - notability - has not been addressed in the new version. That said, hats off to MichaelQSchmidt for giving the article it's best chance. Nancy ^talk 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MichaelQSchmidt has added nine new references during this DRV, bringing the total to 37, as compared to 10 in the old version. — Becksguy (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Cmt And not a single one establishes notability for Cabal. There is still nothing written about Cabal in a single reliable source. I've provided my analysis of these sources on this DRVs talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It seems agreed that there was a procedural snafu and the article is, in any case, too substantial now for speedy deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the reason for the deletion (lack of notability) was clearly not addressed by the rewrite. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Na Na 2: The Fever (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting WP:PROD; album does meet WP:NALBUMS despite being unreleased, see my draft Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as contesed Prod. Does not proclude future AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Loves Derby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting PROD, as group meets WP:MUSIC (e.g., [6]. Chubbles (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TurnKey Linux (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article has been rewritten (User:Abd/TurnKey Linux) and cites multiple reliable sources. LirazSiri (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a link to the AfD, please?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be one: Guy A7'd it, and it was subsequently userfied. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow restoration. Aside from the sources Hobit correctly mentions below, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain plenty of information about free, open source content because of Wikipedia's own nature.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost positive there was an AfD or DrV, but I'm not finding it. Weird. Hobit (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain plenty of information about free, open source content because of Wikipedia's own nature" -- couldn't possibly disagree more. Everything is about proper sourcing; whether a software is open and free, or closed and commercial, shouldn't make the slightest difference. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Restoration I vaguely recall the AfD, but just looking at the sources, I think there is enough there. The German source and infoworld both are RSes. The "WorkswithU" site is just one step (maybe) above a SPS. Linuxdevices seems to be a RS. Sources are a bit light on material, but there's enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to mainspace. Just finished checking out the sourcing and I concur 100% with Hobit. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3 and subsequently Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 9. Also, I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnkey Software Projects is a related topic. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 05:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Sourcing now seems to have cleared up notability issues that may have affected earlier versions of the article that were previously under DRV. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - nice work on acquiring the reliable refs. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Probably as reliable as references will get for some open-source software. Spring12 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Agree that the article has RS, not the greatest I've seen, but enough for a non-controversial subject. Infoweek is a major newspaper in the IT industry. I can't comment on comparison with previous version(s) without them to see, but this version look OK. — Becksguy (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Haigh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

If you google Lori Haigh, pages and pages come up about her. She is currently the subject of a HarperCollins book. She is known for not just one single issue as stated in the deletion request. We feel the deletion requests were made and concurred with by malicious individuals in her personal life and we request the page be reinstated. She was the only person in history to be sued by a Catholic priest. Someone has been deleting the facts, changing the facts and then making it appear unworthy for a wiki page. Her art gallery was famous the world over, and the gallery website receives over 10,000 hits a month to it. Please reinstate the Lori Haigh page. 67.164.39.237 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions Who are 'we'? And why didn't you discuss with with the editor who closed the AfD Bjweeks (talk · contribs) as the process asks you to? Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We" is someone who is very confused, and who has little to no knowledge of history. It's pretty certain that Scott MacDonald has nothing to do with this person's personal life. And anyone who thinks that Roman Catholic priests don't sue people for libel has never looked into the subject. Hearne v. Stowell (2 A. & E. 719, 6 Jur. 458), an 1840 case where a Roman Catholic priest sued for libel, was cited as case law precedent for many years afterwards, and in fact can still be found listed under libel in law books even today.

    It looks like we are missing an article on Hugh Stowell, and probably Daniel Hearne as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – This is not AFD round 2. Also a deletion review based on bad faith presumptions. MuZemike 18:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Nothing has been presented to show that the deletion process wasn't properly followed, and deletion review is limited to considering whether or not it was. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted that the deletion discussion was closed a little early, but there is no point relisting it only for it to be deleted again another five days later. If someone has citations to reliable sources which would change the direction of the AFD, which was clearly tending towards deletion when closed, I'd be happy to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seem to be numerous news stories and multiple books about this person. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ^{[citation needed]} Stifle (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, deletion procedure was followed correctly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist I think if I am reading the date stamps right that the AfD was closed after only 3.5 days, and that this deletion review was started about 5 days after the AfD was started. If the AfD had been left open for the full 5 days, then the person requesting this deletion review might have been able to make his or her claims that person is notable (i.e. that they are the subject of a book and run a notable art gallery) in the AfD discussion. Of course, this is probably moot if the claims to notability can't be backed up by reliable sources, as the AfD would just end in delete again. Also, I just want to mention to the person starting this deletion review that you should assume good faith.Calathan (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Premature close as observed by Calathan. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Close was a bit early and this isn't a clear case. Anything that has this many sources is always debatable and so the AFD should have been allowed to run it's full course. In an AfD I'd suggest we move this from coverage of the person to coverage of the event or actually just delete it. She's got a lot of news coverage, some of which proceeds the one event. But BLP issues and the nature of the material make me feel an article purely about the subject is inappropriate. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Hobit. At the AfD I would argue for a merge, with a mention of the case and the three rather good references from the former "Lori Haigh" article moved to Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Compensation_payouts, and both "Lori Haigh" and "John Lenihan" redirected to there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Deletions at afd run for 5 days, in the absence of a valid reason for speedy or an explicit snow close that is obviously sensible. DGG (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Not convinced that the article should stay, but Google turns up some information about Haigh's work as an art gallery owner that establishes notability outside of the single incident mentioned in the initial article- she was discussed in the press following an attack on her during the showing of controversial artwork, and operates a gallery that has shown art by some notable people. At the very least, we should get input from more than three editors and let the AfD run its full course before deleting. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (without prejudice against recreation) I would've preferred if the deleting admin had clarified their reason in the close since it would clearly be controversial, but I can see a BLP issue in there. If the focus is moved to something else, there might just be an article in it. I suggest the nominator makes a draft in userspace first. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• valid AfD + bad faith assuming request for review + BLP concerns + marginal notability = Endorse--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it's not salted, so if there's something more than what was under consideration, it could be recreated with that additional material consistent with BLP etc... While, that way, it may have a second bite at the apple (another chance of surviving AFD); DRV is not that second bite. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and the body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was used for navigation between the pages specified on the removed. Removal does not coincide with one rule. search request db-DAB--Andrey! 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For non-administrators: It was a disambiguation article for Sestroretsk railway station and Sestroretsk rail station 1871-1924, each of which has a headnote pointing to the other, and it didn't have "disambiguation" spelled correctly in the title. (I mis-type it too, sometimes. ☺) And it was deleted, as AndreyA observes, through speedy deletion, even though no speedy deletion criterion for such pages exists. (Usually, such disambiguations are sent through Proposed Deletion if someone wants them deleted.) Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me a navigating template to make in the beginning of article or standard methods we will manage?--Andrey! 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. While nothing strictly permitted this page's deletion, it is extremely unlikely that someone will type in both a misspelling of the station name and "disambiguation". As such, while process has not been strictly followed, there is no sense in undeleting it and putting the page through a deletion discussion only to have it properly redeleted. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted, not a valid speedy deletion, and the deleting admin should be slapped over the wrist for that, but as Uncle G points out above, a disambig for two articles that reference each other and which has a spelling error in the title is not going to be all that useful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep deleted per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Stifle and Lankiveil. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Stifle. The sort-of procedural violation (a liberal application of criterion G6 could justify the deletion) in this case was not so significant as to warrant undeletion on that grounds alone. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and the body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting a 'history-only' undeletion. The original article was poorly focused and suffered from extensive essay-type OR. I initially !voted for its deletion. Several participants in AfD cited my and another editor's (User:Mitsube) comments in their move to delete. Late in the process, I came to feel that some of the referenced material in the article could be preserved in a properly focused and sourced article on the topic (which is discussed in a number major publications on Buddhism). I created a draft version of a new article in my userspace which deleted the OR, and added a new introduction and subject headings to refocus the article, sourced (in my comments though not explicitly in the article, as it was intended as a working draft) from the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. I linked to the new article in the AfD, and several editors commented that it appeared to be an appropriate starting point for an acceptable Wikipedia article on the topic. My hope was that after a little back and forth on AfD, we could post the new version of the article and close the discussion. However, the AfD was close by an admin (User:MBisanz), I think on the basis of the consensus before the new version of the article was offered, after just a couple on the article by the participants in the AfD. I went ahead and moved the new version of the article into the old space, forgetting about the need to keep the history for the old contributions. User:Aleta caught this and started Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material to discuss the situation. People seemed to feel that DR was the best solution; resurrect the old history for the article, and the current version will be the next edit if DR ops to restore. Clay Collier (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The discussion at AFD did not establish a consensus for deletion (7 keep, 2 merge and 9 delete). As we see above, some of the delete !votes were made without a proper understanding of the process. The closer failed to provide any explanation of his finding in such muddled circumstances and so the original article's history should be restored and the AFD result amended accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow the requested history-only undeletion. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree entirely with Colonel WardenVote Cthulhu (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• History-only-undeletion is fine here. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. The AfD result was clear and the merge votes were against retaining the substance of the article. One of those merges was "merge and delete" and the other was "Merge anything that is salvageable". The opinion is clearly that the original article was fundamentally flawed. If Clay Collier is inspired to create an entirely new article suggested by this one then good luck to him - choose a new title and find a new rationale. andy (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the result was that clear. By my count, it was 11-6 for deletion counting all merges as deletes before the introduction of the new version of the article. Mitsube and I changed our view after the new version was posted; another user stated that their vote was based on the arguments that that Mitsube and I had made for deletion. Taking out just Mitsube and I makes it at most 9-8 for deletion. Given that people involved in the discussion who were in favor of deletion have said that they were fine with the new version, that seems like no consensus to me. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collier has the point here. Why Andyjsmith continues in his relentless crusade against this and a handful of other articles even in the face of consensual opinion and fact itself is beyond me.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the edits and not the editor, please. Aleta ^Sing 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD close, but allow history-only undeletion. As neither Clay Collier nor Mitsube amended their original rationales, it is unreasonable to expect the closing admin to interpret their later comments as retractions or reversals. The situation has been clarified, and the new article appears substantially different from the initial copy to user space. Flatscan (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original close, but allow history-only undeletion. I hate to say "me too", but I think Flatscan sums up my opinion fairly well for the most part. The original AfD could have remained open a little longer after the new version was posted, but I think this process will take care of it. Care should be taken that no article on this subject become a synthesic essay - I think there is a high potential for it. Aleta ^Sing 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that not only was this category moved without any clear consensus but it is now adding clearly false information to dozens (or perhaps hundreds of articles). Satellites which are famously known to be sunk to the bottom of the sea or impacted into land are now categorized as "orbiting Earth". Including Sputnik 1 itself! I have no idea why the editors at Categories for Deletion are apparently allergic to using the term "former" as to me indicating the difference between something that is currently or is not currrently is a simple fact that is easily encyclopedic. But I also believe that there was no consensus for this move based on the discussion comments, several of which raised concerns about it. Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun was also moved by the same editor also without consensus (and possibly also introducing the same basic error of fact into some articles, I haven't checked.) In that case the category was moved to one that no discussion participant even mentioned. Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for wider discussion As with many CfDs,the participation in the discussion was insufficient. As a minimum, appropriate workgroups and wikiprojects should be notified, as at AfD, and time allowed for the possibly interested people to comment. CfD is an obscure process,and nobody who is actually concerned with working on articles will know about it. Any reasonable appeal from it should be allowed & result in a relisting, until we figure out how to fix it so it gets representative and knowledgeable participation. DGG (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. There was nothing wrong with the close, there was consensus for the move. --Kbdank71 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The discussion was inadequate and did not arrive at a decisive conclusion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – there is clear consensus for the move. There are very few current/former categories - membership of Category:Presidents of the United States implies nothing about current status. Occuli (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one doesn't but as soon as you include the word "orbiting" into a sentence about satellites without any qualifiers currency is implied. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per DGG. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to get broader participation. 'Former' might be appropriate here, even if it isn't for other situations. I'm sure there are space flight and astro WikiProjects that should probably be tipped as to the discussion on this particular category. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn No amount of consensus should result in introducing factual errors. If outright overturning doesn't gain enough support, a relisting should discuss possible alternative titles that address this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Wikipedia former featured articles and categories like former monarchies (removing it there, also implies currency of the fact when it actually isn't. Does anyone know where the supposed rule that was being used is documented? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Current_or_former. Call it "custom", "tradition", "precedent", "long-standing consensus", or what you will. I think on balance it's fair to say that it's been most often applied to categories for people or objects and not to organizations or institutions, like monarchies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify- what's the rationale for the avoidance of the 'former' modified in this case, or in general? I can see that we wouldn't want categories for something that might change on a regular basis, but 'Satellites Formerly Orbiting the Earth' seems pretty definitive. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see anything wrong with the close other than I disagree with the result (per Mgm's reasoning). Hobit (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the right thing to do, IAR perhaps, is to relist. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - there was no error made in the close by the admin and there has been no new information presented here suggesting that reviewing this decision is warranted. There is no minimum required participation for CFD so the idea that there was insufficient discussion as at best a misunderstanding of how CFD works and at worst expressive of a desire by an extreme inclusionist to radically transform the CFD process itself. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, the claim that no one interested in working on articles will be aware of the CFD process is not only patently false and patently ridiculous, it is patently insulting to editors who participate heavily in CFD. As one who is involved in the AFD process, CFD process and manages to bang out the occasional article, my experience has been that, with a couple of extreme inclusionist exceptions, the editors who participate heavily in CFD have a far better grasp and understanding of both the process and the relevant policies and guidelines than do the editors who pop in and out of AFDs when their pet articles are up for discussion. Perhaps you might want to "refactor" your comment? Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No error made here by the closer in interpreting the discussion. The main issue raised by the nominator here was raised at the discussion itself, so this cannot be said to be "new information" that wasn't considered at the time. The current name may be misinterpreted by some, but that would be a good reason to re-nominate the categories for a potentially better name—something like Category:Artificial satellites sent into orbit around Earth or something more elegant. But the fact that an even better name can be found is not a good reason to overturn the decision and revert back to names that fairly clearly went against one of the long-standing practices of good categories—to avoid "current" and "former" designations. (With Otto I also think the comments about the degree and quality of participation at CfD is purely POV/speculative with little basis in fact.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This CfD contains a huge mistake in the way it was presented and no CfD should ever result in this sort of error. I can see this happening due to the way the categories were listed/grouped in the CfD itself:
  Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth
  Because of the way this was grouped with the other proposed renames people were caught unaware of this key change. Anyone not looking closely would assume this to be a typical rename to a better title, when actually this meant non-orbiting satellites would get recategorized as orbiting.
  Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth fulfills a purpose and should exist.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selvidge Middle School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting undeletion so that the content in this school's article can be merged to its school district, Rockwood School District. This article was deleted in an AfD debate during the days when school articles were deleted instead of being merged to their respective school districts. I would like to salvage some of the content from Selvidge Middle School, and expand Rockwood School District#Selvidge Middle School. When the article is undeleted, please redirect it to Rockwood School District#Selvidge Middle School. Thanks, Cunard (talk)

• As far as I can tell, per the AfD, the article had no verifiable reliable sources. What of that content do you want to merge into another article? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to use the deleted content in the article as a stepping stone to merging the content. The unverifiable content in the article can be easily sourced by the school's website. Cunard (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst I sympathise, and indeed agree that edit history can be useful, I'm not sure that it really is in this particular case. Looking through the edits, there are no sources at all for anything, and the (purported) facts differ from revision to revision. For example: Does the school have 700 or 800 pupils? Two different revisions state two different numbers. Neither cites a source. (A third says 728. Again, there's no source.) How useful is either bare statement of fact going to be to future sourced content? Not useful at all, appears to be the correct answer, since according to the WWW site that you yourself point to, both revisions were falsehoods.

      There's not really all that much in the edit history that either doesn't have the same problems of self-contradiction across revisions and inaccuracy or that isn't simple regurgitation of a school directory listing. (Several revisions are little more than the name and address of the institution, in some revisions supplemented by the fact that its pupils come from other schools.) About the only information that is useful in the deleted edits are some MAP results. But by my calculations what was in the deleted revisions doesn't agree with the published figures.

      So whilst I sympathize, I suspect that if you use the deleted content as a stepping stone you'll waste a lot of time sorting fact from falsehood, that you could have spent just getting actual facts from actual reliable sources. You'll still have to obtain facts from sources. You'll just waste additional time using them to check what deleted content was true — time that is probably more profitably spent simply writing up the facts that one has obtained from sources directly. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have now added sourced content to the article, but I would still like to have the history of the old article to see if there is anything I can salvage.

        In response to your comment above about the number of the students this school has: it varies from year to year. In 2004, the school had 742 pupils; in 2006, it had 692; it 2008, it had 714 (source). Due to the constant changes every year, the school may have had 800 pupils in a year before 2004. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'm well aware that it fluctuates. Nonetheless, none of the deleted revisions actually have correct information. That's but one example of the mess that you'll find. It's your time to spend, but don't say that you weren't warned when you conclude at the end of the process of looking up all of the purported facts properly in sources and checking everything to see whether it is actually correct or not that you weren't really helped by the deleted content very much, if at all, and could have done just as well on your own from scratch. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• That seems reasonable, but bear in mind that content should be cited to reliable third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted If all the old content was not cited to any reliable source, editors should just use the reliable sources that they can find. There is no good reason to use the unsourced content if they are going to find a source for it anyway. GRBerry 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, the unsourced content would give me more information to work with. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted, normally I'd support a request such as this, but in this case the contents of the article are unsourced, and in my opinion, of a fairly low quality, with lots of promotional language and the like. I'd suggest starting from scratch using the school's website as a reference and source for new content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• So why not allow the user to see the material so they, as an editor, can figure out what can reasonably be merged. I don't understand the point of hiding material from them. We seem to be asking them to take our word for it that there is nothing useful here. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't suppose I'd mind too much if a history-only undelete was performed and the article was redirected, but having looked at the article again, none of the incarnations as far as I'm concerned had any sourcing or references. I don't believe we should be merging unsourced material into any article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Undelete as a starting point This is not the place to consider the reliability of the content. The original deletion decision is from 07, and nowadays we would normally redirect or merge rather than do an outright delete. DGG (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• History undelete and redirect. The material may not be sourced (I can't see it) but that's not even vaguely a reason to delete, let alone not restore. No objection to userfying the information so the merge can occur. Such a request would likely have been granted by a large number of admins had the nom asked there instead of here. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• History undelete and redirect per Hobit, but as I mentioned above, nothing that isn't properly cited should be added to any article (notorious WP:FACTS excepted). Stifle (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And note that "properly cited" does not include citations to the school's website. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should probably ask on your talk page, but why would you object to the school's website as a source in the article. I thought primary sources could be used. Certainly doesn't help with notability, but that's not the issue here, so I'm confused. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as long as they're not WP:SYNTHesized, I guess they'd be fine. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, as long as they confirm non-controversial information. It also shouldn't be the only source you have. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• History undelete or userfy to Cunard as a basically reasonable request that it would be simply obstructive to refuse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BYOND (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedural DRV. I received this comment on my talk page. I believe the discussion was closed with the correct decision based on the information presented in the discussion, but Undead Pancake apparently disagrees with the decision. As there was only a small amount of discussion (compared to many other AFds) I am therefore bringing this here to have more eyes look at this AfD closure to determine if there is consensus for the status quo or if my closure as "delete" should be overturned. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own closure. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be inclined to relist to achieve a better participation and consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, while it's always preferable to see more participation in AfDs than this, there is no quorum for AfD and the AfD was listed for the requisit 5 days. Of the four people who !voted it was 2/2 with one of the keeps being on the margin of SPA and with a checkered change history. No reliable evidence was provided at the time to establish notability even though it was discussed in the AfD. Further, the AfD has been closed for six months, any reason this is going to DRV only now? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist While there is no minimum required amount of participation, agreement among the participants needs to be clear before a discussion with particularly low participation is closed. (Overturn as no consensus is also acceptable) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's been over five months, if the user is willing to improve the article just userfy it and let him/her bring it here when it's ready to go live. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost always fine with that option. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy – I don't know how good bringing back a 5-month-old AFD discussion would accomplish. MuZemike 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - It should get another chance to be decided whether to let the article stay or not, the AfD was closed to shortly with little participation, and the reason was no notability, however articles exist with less notability then what the article was closed for. --Undead Pancake (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, I believe that the article should have been deleted, but getting more input couldn't hurt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist Close wasn't utterly unreasonable by any means, but 2 keeps and 1 delete (plus nom) when none of the arguments are very strong would probably be better as a relist. Hobit (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The policy issue that drove the AfD decision was the lack of verifiable sources for the article (something other than blogs or 'download here' pages on free software sites). No one has really presented any evidence that that decision was in error, or that re-running this old AfD would have any different response. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-Wayne (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted for being mere speculation initially. After someone re-created it an administrator salted the title. However there are many sources written about the supergroup (a joint project of the vocoder-heavy singer T-Pain and rapper Lil Wayne). Initially they were written about the two simply establishing themselves in the project but later there came news about their upcoming album. Examples:

• Cohen, Jonathan (2008=10-03). "Lil Wayne Already Recording 'Tha Carter IV'". Billboard. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Hobbs, Linda (2008-10-06). "Lil Wayne Busy On Carter IV". Vibe.
• Ketchum, William E. III (2008-07-18). "Lil Wayne and T-Pain Form Supergroup".
• Reid, Shaheem (2008-06-17). "Lil Wayne Forming Supergroup With T-Pain, Announces Carter III Tour Plans".
• Reid, Shaheem (2008-07-22). "T-Pain Says He And Lil Wayne Are Making Progress On Joint Album, But First Up Is His Thr33 Ringz LP". MTV News.
• Reid, Shaheem (2008-08-11). "T-Pain Might Drop LP And Mixtape With Lil Wayne; Clipse Aim For 'A Wider Audience". Mixtape Monday. MTV News.
• Reid, Shaheem (2009-02-25). "Play N Skillz Want In On Lil Wayne And T-Pain's 'T-Wayne' Project". MTV News.
• Tardio, Andres (2008-07-22). "Is T-Wayne Album Really Coming Out?". HipHopDX.

It just seems unfair and mysterious as to why the page was salted. Could it be that the recreated pages didn't cite its sources? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's usual, when an article has been salted, to present a userspace draft before requesting restoration. The sources do verify that the album exists, but don't appear to provide any more substantial information than that. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll write up a draft tonight in my userspace. Once I think it's well done I'll post it up here. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft is here: User:Andrewlp1991/T-Wayne draft
• move to mainspace Draft looks okay (a bit too "spamy", but not terrible), sources look very good. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my previous closure as correct, but now permit recreation based on Andrewlp1991's work. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the original closure was fine. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Author) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two years have passed -- speedy deletion should be reconsidered as a deletion discussion CelticWonder (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Ok, instead of delete, I propose moving article to Sean Kennedy (Radio personality). CelticWonder (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (as speedy deleter). The article as reposted still had no indication of notability, and cited no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: The most recent article failed to address notability issues raised in previous AfDs. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I propose a potential WP:Conflict of interest with User:Victoriagirl, who has been the originating proponent of deletion twice. "I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 .. doesn't quite make the grade." (so simply because a news article is now 9 years old, this suddenly makes it "invalid"???) "I note the two 'books' discussed in the article are not included at Library and Archives Canada (a must for titles published in this country)," (Abaddon was published in the US -- NO LAC REQUIREMENT) "nor are they recognized by any of the online retailers and used book searches I checked" (Abaddon is available at Amazon.com).

  To quote others that appear reluctant to participate on WP (yet) regarding this issue:

  It is interesting to note that User:Victoriagirl is from Vancouver. Maybe she has an axe to grind with Sean? Why else would she try so hard to delete THIS article, and not others we've seen with much more flimsy reason to not be deleted? It certainly seems easy for her to just say, "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions" -- and yet, I haven't seen her examples other than: "It's still not in the LAC"

  Does this mean that any book by any author that's not in the US Library of Congress, ISBN number or not, is suddenly invalid? ... I think she's grasping at straws to further an agenda. The fact that she's Canadian and from Vancouver makes me suspicious. I don't want to get all conspiracy theory here, but it sure seems like this person is the ONLY one who objects to this article. Sure, she's got a lot of Wikipedia credentials, and it sure seems like she's got nothing better to do than police Wikipedia, but seriously, what's her REAL beef that she's using minute technicalities to keep Sean out of Wikipedia, when so many OTHER articles are slipping by her unnoticed?

  Why the focus? Why the practiced, detached "this is just how it is" but with the zeal of someone with an agenda?

  ...and another:

  Personally I'd rather take the good with the bad. Nothing is ever 100% true or false. Given an updatable dynamic "encyclopedia" you will have difficulties of conflict between people on what is right and wrong, THAT IS HOW HISTORY/KNOWLEDGE WORKS. Consider that paper encyclopedias a> arent perfect either b> probably had editor battles behind the scenes on the content c> are non editable once released. Just simply putting the dynamic element to things makes the other two challenges simply more apparent. Instead of blaming the attempt at providing knowledge (which is hella better than funk and wagnals so far as i've seen). Why not fight the good fight and do your best for the sake of the truths you do know?

  I know not everyone here is american, but for the most part Wikipedia and most of the peeps here are. A fundamental American concept is to debate and fight for what you believe in, that was the foundation of our nation, so why is suddenly this such a bad thing in a knowledge base? The responsibility is there not only to make things better that you see wrong, but as well, like other threads and posts i've said, to take responsibility for what you read and use your head. You simply seem to want to make a rule that something is "bad". Feel free. I'll happily keep reading and trying to learn more, no loss for me.

  I understand it's frustrating, but if life is easy you are doing something wrong. The battles of wikipedia are very much a load of bullshit sometimes, sure. Better to participate and do our best to bring it to improvement than to wash our hands of it and let it fill the heads of the masses who refuse to think about what they read or hear.

  I'm not going anywhere. This article will stay.

  CelticWonder (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deletion (as creator). NOTABLE = YES.
  • Person is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
  • Person is "popular", and as an an "entertainer - Has a large fan base AND a significant 'cult' following"
  • RantMedia (almost 19,000 Google hits) was co-founded with his friend James O'Brien, and their forum currently has 615 members with over 19,000 posts just since the forum site was upgraded less than two years ago (I don't know how many thousands of posts were before then). This is not a maximum indicator of his following, as many listeners to "radio" do not always sign up on the related forum. Various searches on YouTube with appropriately combined keywords related to Sean, RantRadio/Media, NewsReal, Patrolling, SKTFM yield more than 100 each [7][8][9]. Sean Kennedy is the primary voice behind their name, so it can be said that RantMedia's popularity is because of him, indicating the need for his own article.
  • Amazon & Lulu sell his book: The Scabbed Wings Of Abaddon (ISBN: 978-1-4303-1620-6)
    • ...though of course this article is about him, not his book. The fact that his book is sold (and people BUY it) through THE major online retailer of books should most certainly mean something for his significance. He has three books (two full-length, one comic) available for free or sale on their website and is working on a third full-length.
  • He's had MANY online video/audio shows over the last ten years, some of which are available for sale on DVD via their website and tend to sell out quickly.
  • A referential list of media appearances over a five year span can be found here, with links to original articles.
    • ...including a Wired article from 7/28/2000 [10] with an audio interview, and a Vancouver Sun article from 9/9/2000 [11][12].
  • One of his shows "NewsReal" is syndicated on seven radio stations [13], including his own: RantRadio Talk, Osprey Radio, SRN One, Wild Bunch Radio, WNY Media Network, KJAG Radio, PureRockRadio.
• There is no valid reason for this article's deletion. If we use Victoriagirl's argument for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bottle too Far, for example, the fact that Sean's Abaddon book alone passes her tests:
  • The title and author's name appear on Amazon.
  • Multiple Google searches with related keywords bring him up FIRST, BEFORE any other "Sean Kennedy" character on the disambiguation page.
• I am not Sean Kennedy, and though I've had battling issues in the past with people that disagree with me, I am clearly not a "single purpose account". These arguments were used before by wiki-police on previous AfD pages.

  Not to mention that obviously Sean is NOT a hoax and the legitimate attempts at repeated resurrection of his article (i.e.: not as a result of vandalism) multinationally by completely different people is enough proof of his mainstay as an Internet icon, is it not? He's been around for ten years, and he's not going anywhere.

  Your mention of not being "included in the Library and Archives Canada" is a moot point. Simply because a music group is not inducted into the "Rock & Roll Hall of Fame" does not make a band any less of a band; they just weren't chosen. For the sheer gritty content Sean provides, I'd imagine potentially biased media (a library of "scholarly"/"historical" works included) would not be so eager to choose to include his works. That in itself should not be grounds for inclusion/exclusion from the Project.

  My purpose of a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument was reasonable, though hasty, and I also rather suggest the possibility here of WP:BIAS:

  • Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions -- Sean's popularity is undeniable. I've already stated my reasons why; therefore his inclusion is appropriate.
  • Wikipedians are people that have enough free time to participate in the project. The points of view of editors focused on other projects, e.g. work or personal life, will be under-represented -- generally we aren't the wikipedia-type of people, and we typically fall under the "work or personal life" category. The majority of people voting "delete" on the article two years ago (before his book had an ISBN number and was available for sale at a major retailer) don't appear to be the type of people that would gel with his mindset.
  • ...articles about or involving issues of interest to the so-called underclasses are unlikely to be created or, once created, are unlikely to survive a deletion review on grounds of notability
• The issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (2nd nomination): looking like a vanity page has clearly been addressed as the entire article has been written and edited with a WP:NPOV.

  The issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Author): fails notability has been addressed numerous times (sale of book through appropriate means, search engine popularity, etc.). Verifiable references are abundant.

  Finally, your issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Writer): the subject of successful AfD nominations in recent months can be easily addressed two years later with simply WP:CCC#Consensus can change.

  The entire existence of this page, despite VERY MANY VALID points that it should exist, is apparently hinging on whether it is included in the "Library and Archives Canada". CelticWonder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll begin by addressing the proposal of a "potential WP:Conflict of interest" made by CelticWonder. Leaving aside the fact that this is not the appropriate place for such a charge, I point out that twice nominating an article for deletion in no way meets the definition of a conflict of interest. I will return to the selective quote he provides later.

    First, as it concerns COI, I'd like to address the first of the two quotes from "others that appear reluctant to participate on WP (yet) regarding this issue" that CelticWonder has seen fit to post:

    • I am not from Vancouver.
    • I do not have "an axe to grind with Sean" (whom I do not know).
    • Even the most casual glance at my history would reveal that I've participated in dozens - perhaps hundreds - of deletion debates.
    • I have at no point written "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions".
    • I have never said "It's still not in the LAC" - though I have noted such.
    • I have never mentioned the Library of Congress.
    • As previous the AfDs indicate [14] [15][16]I am far from "he ONLY one who objects to this article".
  • Returning to the aforementioned quote, which CelticWonder has edited to read: "I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 .. doesn't quite make the grade." These words, pulled from the AfD of April 2007 read in full: "Speedy delete as repost. Subject still fails WP:BIO. I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 and a four year old piece from a free computer tabloid don't quite make the grade. I note the two "books" discussed in the article are not included at Library and Archives Canada (a must for titles published in this country), nor are they recognized by any of the online retailers and used book searches I checked. The Toronto Public Library (the largest in the country) doesn't carry either title, nor do any of the libraries at the University of Toronto (the largest academic collection in Canada)." My point then, as now, is that Kennedy has received next to no coverage from reliable sources (this has nothing to do with the age of the article). As my observation about LAC has been brought forward time and again I think it important to make it clear that the article then under discussion stated that Kennedy had published two books - and yet these were not recognized by any library search or on-line bookseller. The subject has since published one of these through Lulu.com and it is available on Amazon (one of over 26,000 Lulu titles listed by the retailer, ranked 1,111,627). Neither fact confers notability.

    The comparison with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bottle too Far (the existence of which counters earlier claims about my history) is irrelevant: it concerns a book, while this concerns a BLP.

    Contrary to CelticWonder's bold assertion, no one has ever claimed Sean Kennedy to be a hoax, no one has suggested that CelticWonder is Sean Kennedy and no one has described CelticWonder as a single purpose account.

    I'll leave off by repeating Spataz's request, would CelticWonder please"point us in the direction of the non-trivial secondary sources for this person that meet RS so that we can consider this under our guidelines and polices." Victoriagirl (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Keeping in mind that I clearly did not write those two quotes, the one by 2xMakina simply suggested the possibility of reasonable doubt in your repeated selection for deletion of this article, thereby a conflict of interest in that your bias may be swaying the swift "speedy delete" you attached to this article not 1.5 hours after it was posted. So...
      • I didn't say you were from Vancouver (you're from Vancouver Island, which is across from Vancouver.)
      • ...but I will second that "Maybe " you do have "an axe to grind with Sean" (either personally or with his mindset -- no one can "prove" this but you, of course, but evidence that you were involved with multiple requests for deletion, including specifically this topic of a clearly notable figure two years after the last request, suggests this possibility.)
      • "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions" was a paraphrase of your comments on the discussion page, which were deleted so we can't quote your utterances here, and the futile argument of semantics regarding the "Library of Congress" was obviously his misreading.
      • I have never said "It's still not in the LAC" - though I have noted such. Yes you did. On the current discussion page for this article before it was deleted. Your primary focus was this matter, despite it being a moot point, and not a requirement for a published book to be considered "notable".
      • And true, you are far from "he ONLY one who objects to this article", but you started two of the four total AfD (citing that it has "been the subject of successful AfD nominations", and you voted speedy delete on another. WP:CCC#Consensus can change, and as I've already stated with plenty of evidence, Sean represents WP:Notability (people) fully, just supposedly not enough for you.
      • You say Kennedy has received next to no coverage from reliable sources yet there's proof ALL OVER THE PLACE that you are STILL BLATANTLY IGNORING: [17] [18] -- both include links to original articles or scans (if the original page isn't available). CelticWonder (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Removed level heading that was messing up page format. Please can the nominator read WP:N, WP:BIO & WP:RS and point us in the direction of the non-trivial secondary sources for this person that meet RS so that we can consider this under our guidelines and polices. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Non-trivial" secondary sources:
    • Wired magazine: personal audio/written interview with Sean & Cimm
    • Vancouver Sun interview (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) with Sean, Cimm, and Derek
    • Spin Magazine article ABOUT Sean.
    • Seattle Times activity involving Sean
    • Computer Paper (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) article about Sean & Cimm and Sean's show
    • Langley Times article about Sean & his show
    • New York Times article mentioning Sean via popular mention
    • Straight.com "Vancouver's Online Source mentions Seans shows
  • ... and I've already added notable terrestrial radio & television appearances to his article. CelticWonder (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose deletion. First off, a little effort should be taken to incorporate as many of the sources listed on that website into the article (the newspaper articles mainly) with links if possible to the original articles and not reproductions on another website. The whole cult following criterion is a bit dubious to me, but on a cursory look, this seems to qualify. The age of the articles for RS is not an issue so long as it is clear that they are referring to this guy...notability cannot be lost. I'd also rather see an article about his prime work, RantTV, since that seems to be the only source of notability for him and the sources tend to talk more about RantTV than him. His book being on amazon is absolutely not a valid claim to notability...amazon aims towards having everything, not everything worth having. I am also loathe to use hit counts and forum membership as indicators...a single news article that says "he has a cult following" or something like that would be much better. The article could definitely use improvement, but there seems to be a weak case for notability under WP standards here. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion. Pretty much agree with all the points of the creator. Looked at article seems reasonably well referenced, NPOV, chap is notable. Hope this is the way to add a vote, first time I've done it. SimonTrew (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Notable terrestrial radio appearances has been added. CelticWonder (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sustain deletion. there are no real elements of a notable career here. His books are self-published and essentially unknown, whether in canada or the US. He has written some short stories, some of which were used as episodes in a radio series. He has had some interviews. He runs a radio show. Unfortunately, except for a brief article on Wired, nobody seems to have noticed in any reliable published sources. That one item is not enough to justify an article. DGG (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Forgive me for using your comment as an example, but it's one of many similar previous comments on AfD discussions that blindly say "I only see one article" or that "oh, he runs some radio show" like he just started two months ago. He has MULTIPLE shows (audio & video) spanning TEN YEARS, his listener base is huge, and there are MANY "Non-trivial" secondary sources as I have listed above. Notability doesn't disappear with time, and he presently continues to write & perform. CelticWonder (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I consider this borderline, and therefore a matter of judgment. Different people can see this material , and judge it differently. I have found similar articles very difficult to decide on at AfD, and I am not sure about just how we should judge. I once thought that the general WP:N guideline would avoid such issues, but then it comes down to matters like "substantial" enough coverage. I don;t think that being an admin or not has much to do with the necessary judgment: everyone's opinion is equal here of such matters. I just give my own. I do not intend that anyone follow my view unless they independently agree with it. I'd like to have Stifle's full opinion on this, in fact. He's as good at this as I. DGG (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sustain deletion per DGG. Despite attempts to dress things up, there is no there, there. As well, nominator needs to understand the true meaning of 'Conflict of Interest' and, based on the tortured reasoning applied to Victoriagirl's alleged motivations, should be adding the word 'obfuscation' to his or her vocabulary. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should not exist, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not an administrator of Wikipedia as DGG and Stifle are, so even though I've supplied abundant evidence that Sean Kennedy is notable, ganging up on an article that should full well exist with a "keep deleted" vote simply for the notion that "what's good for him is good for me" is unfair to this voting process, is it not? CelticWonder (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, this isn't a vote. Second, I strongly suspect that Stifle is basing xyr decision on DGG's reputation. DGG doesn't come to the conclusion of deletion lightly, and if xe has (as xe did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Writer)), it's a fair likelihood that a case for the contrary (that has a proper foundation in our policies and guidelines) is going to be quite difficult to make. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Uncle G said. (And for future reference, I'll accept "he" and "his". However, for the sake of being complete and giving the article a fair chance, I have reviewed the situation de novo, and remain of the opinion that Mr. Kennedy does not meet WP:BIO at this time. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - note that I've personally got material in several public libraries and in the National Archives, yet I'm almost definitely not notable. Those two criteria are not suitable demonstrations of notability - merely demonstrations that you're willing to mail them your material. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I find the focus on public libraries and the LAC rather puzzling. Really, all this based on a two year old observation offered as part of evidence to counter the false claim that Sean Kennedy had written two books. Since the subject continues to be raised, I think it important to correct some gross misinformation. Library and Archives Canada is not a repository for material people have been willing to mail, rather it gathers books published in Canada (whether written by Canadians or not), books concerning Canada and Canadian subjects that are published abroad and, finally, books written by Canadians that are published abroad. Kennedy's book, self-published through Lulu.com, falls into this final category. I will not speculate as to why it is not found in the LAC, nor will I comment on the attempt by CelticWarrior (above) to liken the holdings of LAC to induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. As public libraries have twice been mentioned now, I'll point out that AMICUS, which provides a search of 30 million records from 1300 Canadian libraries across the country (including the Vancouver Public Library in the author's hometown) has no listing for Sean Kennedy's book. Make of that what you will. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Library and Archives Canada and AMICUS (one in the same as far as online presence is concerned, btw; search engines use same website), has no such requirement. Cimmerian has submitted both of Sean's released novels for inclusion yesterday at LAC, and once they have been processed at Library and Archives Canada, it is archived on a LAC server, and added to LAC's Electronic Collection then they will be viewable by the public only at selected terminals at LAC's main building in Ottawa, as per their Legal deposit procedures page. CelticWonder (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Search engines may use the same website, but Library and Archives Canada and the 1300 libraries covered by AMICUS are not one and the same. I think it important to add that "viewable by the public only at selected terminals at LAC's main building in Ottawa" refers specifically to the ability to access the contents of the book, and not the record. CelticWonder, I wonder whether you might clarify: what you mean by "has no such requirement", and how it is you know that Cimmerian has submitted Sean Kennedy's book to LAC. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Oh, you want to know "how" it is that I know? Maybe because he answers his e-mails. Wow, spo0oky... Despite ALL the evidence produced to pander to Victoriagrrrrl's lack of notability accusation, you still insist that a listing in the LAC is of utmost importance, despite his multiple books collectively being ONE of MANY of Sean's accomplishments in his TEN YEAR popularity. The reason one chooses "restricted" as opposed to "open" availability is because the books are FOR SALE. LAC doesn't seek out books written under one of those attributes, they are submitted by publishers. And responding to your earlier utterance, there was never a "false claim" made that Sean Kennedy had written two books. CelticWonder (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose deletion - has been featured on CBC (that's Canada's national broadcaster, and Canada is this whole other country eh) and in Wired, as well as some other sources that people in the past have called "non-notable sources". That's a lot more than you'll find for other internet personalities. It's also interesting that he'd have that much coverage considering his whole thing is anti-media anti-consumerism pro-open-source bias. Frankly, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but you'll find more sources on Sean Kennedy than you will on the 2000 Simpsons episode articles we've got. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit: sorry, as above, featured in not just Wired and CBC, but also in Vancouver Sun (large daily paper for 3rd largest city in Canada), Spin Magazine (large mainstream music mag), Seattle Times, and New York Times. Obviously more exposure, and more national exposure, than most of the (for example) 100,000 indie-rock band articles that I've been trying ever so hard to get deleted over the years. Certainly doesn't really support a delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The additional sources presented are trivial references. The speedy delete, as a repost of information previously deleted without substantial improvement, is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The speedy deletion of the article by NawlinWiki was justified, since the article was basically a word-for-word repost of the deleted version, so the only question in my mind is whether the outcome of the March 2007 AfD, and the two subsequent ones (1, 2), was correct. (By the way, if the article's text is kept in any form, including as a userfied draft, the deleted history should be restored in order to preserve attribution. The current version is a GFDL violation.)
  While there does seem to be just enough coverage to make a case for notability, I am not sure whether the coverage demonstrates the notability of Sean Kennedy or of RantMedia (or RantRadio). Almost all of the coverage identified thus far, including the Wired piece and the other interviews, is about Kennedy's shows rather than about Kennedy himself. So, while I do believe that we should attempt to include some (not all) of this information in a Wikipedia article, I wonder whether a biographical article is the best means of doing that. Perhaps it might help, as Cquan suggested, to see how the article would look with the references included... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As per DGG. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• allow creation at this point. I honestly don't see where DGG et. al. are coming from. The short Spin article is about this guy (apparently under a different name?), and other sources provide significant coverage. The COI issues are troubling, and I'm not sure (author) is exactly what he's notable for. If anyone doubts the sources, they can send it back to AfD where I strongly suspect it would be kept. The article itself is poor and could use significant trimming. Too promotional etc. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. While there are a couple of third party mentions that establish a few basic facts about the guy, most of the actual content of the article is essentially self-sourced from the subject's personal web site and his projects. It's not enough to have the third party establish that he exists and then let his website fill in all the details- we need third party sources for the complete article. The sourced material that doesn't come from the subject's own web site and sources wouldn't be enough to write more than a blurb or stub, and there doesn't appear to be potential for sourced expansion. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. I find myself agreeing with DGG. If this wasn't a marginal case discussion wouldn't be so complex but I think the crux of it is that nothing has changed since the original AfD. While there is media coverage, it's old (significantly older than the old AfD) and weak, with only a couple of very short snippets being about the subject rather than incidentally being involved in otherwise marginally notable activities. I would also like to note that "I'm not going anywhere. This article will stay." is a particularly bad attitude towards building a consensus based encyclopaedia. I've seen "I'm goping to argue this until I win" attempts in AfD and DRV before and it tends to result in closure comments like "WP:SNOW" and "Bad Faith Nomination". Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - fails to meet our standards of substantial coverage. The New York Times mention, for example, is literally one sentence of text and one sentence of "I like this guy." Vanity press books from Lulu are no evidence of anything but willingness to put your name out there. There's simply no substance about this guy, least of all as "Author"! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Without simply using Wikipedia tutorial articles that I've read already as an answer to this question, WHAT SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for you to consider him "notable"??? There HAVE been substantial improvements to the article in the form of references to NON-TRIVIAL notability, so I am at a loss for words at this point.

• He's been asked & featured personally onto multiple radio shows including CBC twice.
• He's been in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, some referenced on the article itself. If you want all of them on there that I've listed above, I'll put them ALL on there.
• The former two points are ADDITION to the MANY shows he's had, both audio & video, over TEN YEARS, recognition due to his popularity on many websites, prominence in search engines, a populous forum, etc.

If the abundant evidence provided isn't enough for what I believe is a strong argument against deletion, I don't know what is. He's notable (see ALL above). More than one person here is ignoring this. Why? After all the proof I've supplied here, since I can't use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument (though it should be, after all this tiresome defense), proponents for deletion should really take a hard look at the entire project, because there should be a mass killing of thousands of articles if THIS one doesn't qualify for inclusion. Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions rather than on ... protesting inappropriate inclusions. Why has extreme deletionism become such a popular new fad over the last few years? I don't know what else to do here, so what is it you are looking for? CelticWonder (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deletion: The deletion criteria seem nebulous, almost tailored, and comments like "nothing has changed since the original AfD" is patently false, as anyone who looks at the edit history of the page can plainly see. Why say something that isn't true unless it's in your best interest to do so? Or more accurately, serves an agenda? I see an active, malicious intention to suppress Mr. Kennedy and his views, and I don't fully understand the reasoning behind it; However, if someone is working so hard at finding reasons to NOT include Mr. Kennedy in Wikipedia, perhaps it bears investigating why. If the article is miscategorized, then help recategorize it instead of deleting the article out of hand. If it is poorly written, perhaps suggestions would be in order. If it lacks qualities required, then state them plainly. It appears that while SOME of this was done, not all of it was. Too much "thou shalt not" and not enough "this is how you do it," to be considered a mere administrative or quality issue. WWJMBD (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, [some of] the most active and established users in DRV, including people notoriously inclusionist, have all joined forces to or been coerced into !voting an endorse decision in a conspiracy that rivals only the moon landing actually taking place in a sound studio on Mars and the fact that bigfoot until recently was CFO of Lehman Brothers. Please help perpetuate the conspiracy. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, something does seem a bit odd here. Not bigfoot odd, but "not quite following WP:N" odd. Perhaps because of the nature of the topic, perhaps because of issues with the nom's behavior.

• Wired has a 15-minute interview on-line with two people, one of whom is the topic of the article. I've not listened to it. But that's got to have significant coverage.
• Spin has a short (200 word?) article as an interview with the person.
• The Vancouver sun (a significant paper) has a really long article about work done by the person and about the person himself, including a 1/2 page picture.

Just those would generally be enough to keep an article around here as it pretty plainly meets WP:N (articles in the Vancouver Sun and Wired?). And there are a number of legitimate sources past this. I think DGG !voting against may have moved the discussion a bit far to one side. Toss in the behavior of the nom, and I think we are going to be deleting an article we shouldn't. I'd suggest the nom consider writing an article on the most notable of the radio shows. The coverage in the Sun etc. is likely more than enough to keep _that_. Hobit (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some nastiness, both on this and my talk page, I'd decided to walk away from this review. However, I see that my behaviour is now being called into question. How so? Hobit, would you please elaborate.

I'd like to address the three examples of media coverage provided, all of which were discussed two years ago in previous AfDs [19][20][21]:

• The subject of the 2000 Wired piece is not Sean Kennedy, but Rant Radio. As Mangojuice pointed out in the second AfD nom it "says very little about this person".
• The Spin mini-interview, also from 2000, is not really "an article ABOUT Sean" (as is claimed above), but is certainly worthy of note, despite its brevity.
• The Vancouver Sun piece, again from 2000, published in a regional supplement, concerns RantRadio - not Sean Kennedy.

In short, these articles, together with fleeting mentions in other sources cited - like the New York Times - simply don't meet the basic criteria called for by WP:BIO.

Finally, since I have returned, I may as well address a piece of misinformation that has appeared in my absence: that "there was never a 'false claim' made that Sean Kennedy had written two books." In fact, the claim that Sean Kennedy was the author of two books was part of the April 2007 Sean Kennedy article. The questioning of the existence of the books was discussed at length in the third AfD nomination. One of the titles under discussion has since been published through Lulu.com. As it also concerns past debates, I feel it relevant to repeat the observation that CelticWonder's claim of 26 March ("I am not Sean Kennedy, and though I've had battling issues in the past with people that disagree with me, I am clearly not a 'single purpose account'. These arguments were used before by wiki-police on previous AfD pages") is false. I regret that he hasn't seen fit to correct the error. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Victoriagirl, I would appreciate it if you would stop wrongly insisting that people "correct their errors".

• "Self-promotion" was inappropriately cited HERE and HERE to begin the very first of MANY unnecessary AfD's, and since no one cared to pay attention to correct this grossly misleading suggestion and quash the notion that it was ever self-promotion (therefore creating an AfD page with no merit, rather than simply suggesting a cleanup), this one comment set a precedence for a string of speedy deletions that destined Sean's rightful place in WP to never have a chance.
• "Single-use account" was accusingly hinted five times as "XX has made few or no other edits outside this topic" on this page alone.
• You still refuse to accept that his radio & TV appearances attest his notability strongly.

My reason for making the comment I made was to entertain that my arguments held merit, not to accuse YOU of making such suggestions. "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" has been supplied, as well as Sean's meeting the requirements to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and being "popular" enough beyond all doubt as an "entertainer - Has a large fan base AND a significant 'cult' following". Since you wish to continue the argument that he isn't in the news "enough" for his books by your standards, I repeat my proposal to everyone to move the article to Sean Kennedy (Radio personality) CelticWonder (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question was this a speedy delete or an AfD? Hobit (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - It was an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Author). He'd already been deleted after a prior AfD as simply Sean Kennedy. The arguments in this DR are hauntingly similar to those in both AfDs. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ManchVegas Roller Girls (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Were trying to get ManchVegasRollerGirls page up and running, it was filled with all the appropriate information since the last delete & with all due respect within 30 seconds of it being up it gets tagged for deletion. Once I was in the process of contesting the removal with the admin whom redirected me here. Since the Nashua team has there up and running we want to get ours going but can’t since it gets removed every time even with all the required information to provide. I know there’s a conflict of the manchvegasrollergirls and the ManchVegas Roller girls. That was my bad it should be ManchVegasRollerGirls that was a type on my end. We’re just trying to get our page up and running like The Nashua Team New Hampshire Roller Derby. Thanks for your time. Team1up (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review texts about conflict of interest and ownership of articles on wikipedia, the pages about content do not belong to anyone nor are they anyones, they are a part of the encyclopaedia and whether they are contained is a question of policy, generally demonstratable notability in verifiable, reliable sources. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read those plenty of times, I placed the wiki up for the team for Manchester NH under request to do so. I don’t care about edits...or who edits it we have people who can monitor and help manage the page. I care about the process of that it was placed up with legit information and that people take it down w/o any real valid substance behind it other than. All we want is to have the site up; it has every reason to be on wiki. We even have more references to add.. But we could not add them since the admin took it down w/o giving a change to add the additions. Team1up (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as seen here " http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ManchVegasRollerGirls " The previous reason for removal was lack of refrences, we provided refrences this time and yet still got removed. Sorry for the re edit again.. forgot to add in that tidbit of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team1up (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: And yet you clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the pages I mentioned above. The mere idea that you would have "people who can monitor" goes in conflict with wikipedia. It indicates that you consider the page "yours" and that you would have editorial rights with regard to the content - which is simply not the case. In terms of the process, the page was deleted under general criterion 11 for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, this is within wikipedia policy and process and is within the remit of an administrator. I'm choosing not to express an endorse/overturn opinion myself simply because there is no way for me as a non-admin to see the deleted content. Notice that it could also possibly have been applicable for criterion 4, recreated content, per Stifles link below. Given your admitted conflict of interest and close proximity to the subject as well as the tone of discussion and previous AfD, my recommendation is probably to avoid contributing on the subject. That being said, nothing would prevent you from creating a userspace version of the article which demonstrates verifiable notability in a neutral tone then asking for comments before moving it into mainspace. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManchVegasRollerGirls. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note this is Wikipedia, not wiki. I recommend you write about your club on its own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend salting if this deletion is endorsed. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete. Nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD that was performed. Seems to be COA/advertising issues as well- if a proper article on this topic is to be created, a username recreate as proposed by Usrnme h8er seems appropriate. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland Global Services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Sutherland is a major Business Process outsourcing company and should have a wiki page. Rockingbeat (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The list of steps to list a new deletion review encourages editors to "attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster". Did you make such an attempt in this case? If you did not, you may wish to do so.
  In light of the number of times that this article has been deleted, I would suggest writing a draft article in userspace—one whose content is neutral and supported by reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject—and then bringing it to the attention of the community. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion As can be seen in the deletion log, this article was repeatedly deleted because it was promotional in nature and copied the company's official website exactly. Such text violate our WP:NPOV and copyright policies. The deletion didn't preclude an article from ever being created. It is just locked to avoid such a promotional entry being posted again. If you have a neutral, verifiable article to place there, please let us know so we can evaluate it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is Wikipedia, not wiki. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and keep salted – per deletion log. If a neutral, encyclopaedic version can be written (use a subpage or the sandbox), then please show us. MuZemike 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted; I recommend providing a sourced, neutral userspace draft before coming back here. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This series of multiple copyright violations must absolutely not be restored. Our Wikipedia:Copyright policy is very clear, as is our mission to provide free content from the neutral point of view. If editors repeatedly take the lazy route of simply swiping someone else's copyrighted, non-free, text and pasting it here, then the consequences will be the inevitable ones, warned about on every edit page that one ever sees here: there will be no article.

  I'd say that the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of some very bad editors, except that it doesn't appear, from their contributions histories, that the people responsible for these serial copyright violations are editors. They are a succession of single-purpose accounts whose only edits are to copy advertising and self-promotional blurb into Wikipedia. It's not unreasonable to conclude that these are not editors at all, but people carrying out actions motivated from an interest different to that of writing an encyclopaedia.

  If you think that a proper article about this subject can be written, Rockingbeat, based upon in-depth, reliable, and independent sources, then I suggest that you write one, using the methods suggested above. You'll be the first genuine Wikipedia editor to try, if you do. There has been no attempt to actually write an article at any point, so far. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete. Appeal gives no reason to believe that the deletion was improper. Given NPOV and advertising issues, the userspace draft proposal seems to be appropriate here. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I contacted User:Sandstein The admin who deleted the article, and gave him the link to the re-written article I have been working on. The previous article was deleted because the user writing it was using it as an advertising tool. User:Sandstein replied saying he was happy with the sources given and he thought the page was good enough to be re-instated. He then suggest that I bring my draft here for review. Our draft can be found here. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - the sources on the draft do not appear to be reliable. kidslike.com appears to accept contributions at large with no indication of fact-checking or vetting. killerstratups.com is a "user driven internet startups community" whose goal is to promote "'“the next big thing' on the internet". examiner.com looks to me like a souped-up blog, with local people whose expertise in their fields or communities contributing material on what they personally find to be interesting or cool. roblox.com is of course not independent. That leaves a single potential source, midweek.com. This source is an opinion piece, which are certainly considered reliable for confirming that a particular person holds a particular opinion, but it's being used in the article to verify a piece of factual information. I don't believe, based on reviewing the sources presented and a quick search through Google (not definitive but still persuasive to me in this instance), that Roblox is sufficiently notable to allow for recreating the article. Sorry. Otto4711 (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Analysing the sources reveals:
  1. User-submitted content, not a reliable source
  2. User-submitted content, not a reliable source
  3. Interview-style press release
  4. Almost all regurgitated from roblox's own website.
  5. Sourced to roblox's own website
  6. Sourced to roblox's own website
• As such, keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Stifle's analysis. Nothing here that would overturn an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for now. I suggest that the DRV-nom read the neutral point of view guideline as well as the verifiability policy and use both of them to rewrite the article again. MuZemike 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak allow restoration. At no time did I say that I was happy with these sources, but references 3 and 4 do seem sufficient for borderline notability. Yes, they seem to regurgitate corporate material, but as long that is done in a medium of some intellectual and economic independence, we call it journalism. But keeping it deleted until some more substantial sources turn would not be all that bad either.  Sandstein  19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have reached somewhat of a concensus. I say we leave it deleted for now and I will work on getting sources to better fit Wikipedia's expectations.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Achievement Hour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Thehondaboy believes that this AfD was closed contrary to consensus, and brought it to the attention of WP:AN/I. This is the appropriate place for a review of the deletion, so I am beginning this review here. I endorse the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thehondaboy's concerns can be found here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closer acted correctly on information given, and there's no obvious additional information that wasn't brought up in the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The close was perfectly correct; especially given the double-voting and SPA IP Keeps. Even the "good" Keeps made little policy-based attempt to justify the article's existence except by pointing to Google hits. The odd thing is, publicity stunts do tend to attract odd Google hits, but even the article itself couldn't point to any solid third-party discussion - mostly "hey, did you hear about ...". I have to admit the "Notable Human Achievements" section was a pretty good joke, though ... it was a joke, wasn't it? ... Black Kite 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Black Kite. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - properly-conducted deletion discussion which happened to be sullied by meat puppets. Jd027 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - correct reason in closing, admin waited the requisite 5 days to close the AfD, I don't have a problem with this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate - N complaint: Though never formally stated as N, several complaints were on whether the event is notable. While this may have been a problem at the initial creation of the article, which received a notice for deletion within hours of creation and it's first mention on a pro-environment blog (suspiciously indicating the possibility of the notice being from a biased editor), it was not a problem within a roughly 48 hour period after the notice was given. Well within the 5 day review time frame.

N clearly states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

The event is notable, and has been referenced in:\

• The National Post, a major newspaper with a global reach.
• The National Review Online a major political magazine and online news journal referenced the event.
• The Duluth New Tribune, a 138 year old Minnesota newspaper has mentioned the event.
• The event has been mentioned by Michelle Malkin who has a nationally syndicated column reaching more than 200 newspapers, and is additionally a contributor on Fox News, MSNBC, and C-Span.
• The event is also to be brought before the House Floor of the Oregon State Congress by Representative Matt Wingard with a youtube video to follow.
• The O'Reilley Factor has contacted CEI about the Wikipedia take down as well indicating its circulation in news media circles.
• Additionally, countless blogs have mentioned the event including openmarket.org, greenbiz.com, rightwingnews.com, americandigest.org, twilightearth.com, planetsave.com, and climatebiz.com;
• and it results in 26,100 Google search results.

N clearly states that notability is: Not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity. The evidence clearly shows that the event is notable, it does not matter if it is not popular to those who disagree with it or how famous the event is.

SR complaint: The article was clearly high-quality in form and function and met the guidelines and clearly had a neutral point of view and was a verifiable event.

NFT complaint: Obviously with the above cited verifiable references, the event is not "something me and my friends made up". The creator is a published policy analyst with a major Washington, DC think tank, and additionally the references prove it is not an idea within some group circle.

The reasons for deletion were weak at best, but even then evidence is given here that completely blows any of those arguments for deletion out of the water based on WIKI guidelines, not anyone's personal opinion or bias.

Failure to restore this article is ridiculous. Wiki's own guidelines dictate that is proper form to be an active article. It follows all guidelines, and any questions relating to reasons for deletion have now been answered in full.Thehondaboy (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion; the closer followed AfD process and correctly weighed the balance of policy-based argument. Having also looked at the deleted article I got an unavoidable impression of the tail wagging the dog, and blogs and self-published sources are generally considered unreliable and are not adequate to source article content. (Disclosure: my hidden agenda can be found at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N). EyeSerene^talk 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you even bring up N and V with the sources I've listed? While you call out blogs and self published sources I've given you the National Post, NRO, Duluth News Tribune, etc. Did you just bypass my written arguments before you posted?Thehondaboy (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in the National Post has at the end "Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute". So this was an editorial that was written about the event. Also, the other two articles referred to the SAME EDITORIAL as a reference for the story. As stated abouve, blogs & self-published sources are reliable. As for the idea this is a "left-wing conspiracy" designed to remove the article, let me just say for myself, I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, however whatever political bias I have is checked at the login screen when I work on Wikipedia. The article just does not meet the standards for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. There are 8 refs listed at the bottom of the most recent pre-deletion version of the article. 2,5,7, and 8 are to blogs or blog sections of other websites (such as with The National Post, eg network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/03/23/this-earth-hour-leave-the-lights-on.aspx). Refs 3 and 4 are to the CEI press release itself, which can be fine depending on what's being cited, but given the weakness of the other sources are not adequate in themselves. Ref 6 is to an article written by the founder of the event, and ref 1 basically reproduces the press release and is also rather bloggish (although it's probably the strongest of the lot). I appreciate your frustration, but these just don't support the article's claims. EyeSerene^talk 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wildthing, I don't care if you're a libertarian. If everyone else here has an ulterior motive, then you "checking your bias at sign in" doesn't mean a hill of beans. And since everyone here has discounted the Duluth News Tribune, I'm now convinced WP is a place for only biased like minded individuals. Further more, discounting the NP article because it was written by Minton is a bogus claim. You are faulting Minton because she is a contributor at a major international paper and has the ability to write her own story, which was not categorized as an op-ed, that is your impression of it. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't abbreviate as Wiki! – WP is OK. Keep in mins there are many other wikis around, and you end up insulting veteran editors by abbreviating as such. MuZemike 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MuZemike, don't tell me not to use a word because I'll "insult a veteran editor". That just increases my suspicion of bias amongst a group of editor's indicating that WP is political, and not an encyclopedia. You're comments are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you have nothing constructive to add about deletion review, please move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) 2009-03-26 18:46:10
• Also, this is DRV, not AFD2. "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly ... this process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". Black Kite 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
• Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion for the reasons already given. There is an argument to be made that a mention of this reaction to Earth Day could be made at the Earth Day article. In that case, a redirect there might be appropriate. Martinp (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, clearly a correct close. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, procedurally, this was closed correctly and should be deleted. I'm the editor who found the references mentioned above however I'm also the editor who commented that the Google news hits were misleading because only a small handful of them actually discussed the subject of this article. Even with the reliable sources that have been found, this event doesn't pass WP:NEWSEVENT.--RadioFan2 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closed correctly - I do like the 'tail wagging the dog' comment. It is already mentioned in the Earth Hour article by the way. dougweller (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • if so, a redirect might be the appropriate solution.DGG (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, when you discount the obvious single-purpose accounts, consensus was for deletion. I have no objection to a redirect from this title to Earth Hour. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nothing I've seen makes the close look like anything other than the correct call. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinstate Unless the section about this is greatly expanded in the Criticism part of Earth Hour, I see no reason for this to not have its own article. It seems like Wikipedia overall tends to endorse the Climate Change theory and stifle articles critical of it and policies contrary to the Environmentalist position. So allowing an article for Human Achievement Hour would help dispel this criticism. Rockingbeat (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, if using a redirect, a much larger and more detailed section in Earth Hour would have to occur and would need to be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs)
    • CommentWe don't protect sections of articles. And WP:Undue would apply - this has so far received too little coverage to be notable and that affects its mention in any other article. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as the deletion process was properly followed. The WP:NPOV policy applies within an article, and does not oblige us to have articles for and against a certain subject when one side has far more coverage than the other. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The decision was procedurally correct, the counter-arguments didn't hold water, and the SPAs and double-voting simply illustrate the thinness of the alternative case. Rockingbeat, this is not the venue to argue against climate change, nor does this deletion discussion have anything to do with the rightness of the theory. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wasn't arguing climate change. A critical read of his comments make it very clear that there is a climate change bias on WP with efforts to squash opposing events. Allowing the page to stay would dispel those criticisms. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read what he wrote. I don't consider myself signficantly uncritical. Reading his comments discloses his belief that such a bias exists on Wikipedia; it does not demonstrate that the claim is true. Allowing a page to stay in order to give the project a good political image by the appearance of balance (rather than adherence to our normal notability criteria) is a classic example of giving undue weight to a view. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse absolutely no way this could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The major problem that all of your criticism's face is that you are picking and choosing which reference to come up with some trivial reason why it doesn't count, but not one of you can discount the Duluth News Tribune and no one has tried. The Tribune article ALONE validates the existence of the WP article based on WP rules of notability, Thehondaboy (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The event has now been mentioned in the Charleston Daily Mail a Pulitzer Surprise winning newspaper by Don Surber; Let's sit in the dark and freeze to death. There's too much out there at this point to ignore. Thehondaboy (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh oh, mentioned in the San Francisco Examiner. Heard of that one guys? Turn it on! Turn’em all on. I doubt I even need to depend on the bias of the deletion review anymore. Someone else will end up posting it. It's everywhere. Thehondaboy (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, 1) that's an editorial; and 2) the Examiner is a free tabloid newspaper. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion provided that title is redirected to Earth Hour#Criticism. There is some coverage of this event in reliable sources (see USA Today) but it is primarily in the context of talking about Earth Hour. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salt. No question about the correctness of the deletion, regardless of how much chaff the nominator tries to throw up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored? I'd missed that DGG had restored it. I am not happy about this being done on a routine basis, and I am particularly not happy with it being done in this case as it is giving added publicity to a negligible event happening tomorrow. Is this a normal thing to to? Before I realised DGG had restored it, I put it back to its earlier state - text not visible, article history there which allows people to see it that way. If DGG or anyone else feels strongly about this, restore it - I didn't mean to edit war, and thought it had been done by someone else. Having done it and about to go to bed I don't feel like undoing it. I'd like to know though if this is normal and within guidelines (which is probably is, I respect DGG and this may simply be something I missed). I hope this isn't too rambling, maybe I shouldn't have had that Mojito. :-) Before restoring it though, please look at this edit on my talk page [22] - with all respect, DGG, this looks like a run around the deletion process. But I will go along with any decision made by another Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorted, article semi'd (sp?) by DGG so it stays hidden but history is available. I think making the history available is fine, but it should then be protected - I note that one article creator restored his article during a current DRV,[23] which shouldn't be possible Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • my intention was to restore it for discussion, not to reverse the closure. Most of the time it makes no particular difference whether its displayed or hidden, for just the 5 days. I carelessly put it visible, not remembering it was time-sensitive, and that the display might be taken as promotional. In such as case, I would not deliberately do so after a delete closure, unless it is reversed. I am not prepared to close this review early as restore, but if someone thinks it justified, it's up to them. As for the article, I have no particular opinion one way or another. I apologize for confusing matters. It remains visible in the history during the discussion, semi-protected to avoid edit warring back and forth. DGG (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and redirect to Earth_Hour#Criticism. The only reporting of this in reliable sources is as part of the reaction to Earth Day. A handful of opinion columns about it does not mean it should have a separate article, and the AfD was closed properly.--ragesoss (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinstate As multiple people have pointed out, this has been reported in major newspapers and other media outlets. Some of the largest right-leaning blogs have major features on it, including National Review and Michelle Malkin's site. National Review has now mentioned the article's suspicious deletion as well. There is no legitimate reason to shut this entry down. Deleting the article as of now has the appearance of being politically motivated. DesScorp (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeeScorp, what you have to understand is that all of these people are editor's running off the Earth Hour site as they visit, checking the link to HAH in criticism section and bleeding off into here to make sure it stays deleted during the 28th. They don't care about the this project's reliability or truthfulness. Next week this thing will go back up and it won't get a single complaint. This whole fiasco just proves that Wikipedia is a busted project that doesn't work. Thelobbyist (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — Thelobbyist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Note especially this edit --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually, we understand when fervent political activists mistake Wikipedia for a soapbox, as you and your suddenly newly active friend are attempting to do. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like the fascists have won. For now. You've allowed an article that supports one side of the issue and have deleted an article that supports the other, and all the rules-lawyering in the world won't alter that fact. Fascists are always big on rules -- at least when the rules are convenient. NPOV? Hah! Some POVs are clearly more equal than others on Wikipedia, and the POV that wins is the one that has the largest pack of amateur fascists patrolling the site for Politically Incorrect articles. Must. Protect. Narrative. Must. Protect. Narrative.76.195.223.161 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet CalendarWatcher, if you determine this is political activism --your opinion by the way-- you have allowed one side, and not the other. That's called censorship. You're an amateur in a sandbox world based on WP rules you ignore. What that means is that WP is broken. 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) thehondaboy
• Wikipedia editors are showing their left-wing bias and their support of the enviro-zealot extremists by not allowing this article to be shown. If this article is deleted, then the "Earth Hour" article should also be deleted to keep things equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpet Crawler 2009 (talk • contribs) 2009-03-28 15:29:05

Reinstate- Amazing myopia. The only possible explanation for the deletion of this page is "political activism." Censorship of political views is never pretty, and a dangerous step. WP editors have crossed the line- will WP remain relevant?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucio (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — Brucio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Guess who did a story this morning? TIME Magazine. This whole thing is so corrupt. "It's not notable." Then why is it in Time Magazine? Where not talking about a blog. We're talking about USA Today & TIME Magazine... Thehondaboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and that was a trivial and dismissive comment in a longer article. But you all don't seem to accept that when the AfD took place the existence of other articles was irrlevant, what counted was our notability criteria. It didn't take place suspiciously quickly as the National Review writer claims, it ran the standard 5 days (some get closed earlier, this one did not). And this will run 5 days. Perhaps at the end it will be reinstated, perhaps not, but insults won't help. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Indianapolis Star, Indiana's most widely circulated newspaper, described Human Achievement Hour as a "competing national event" to Earth Hour and devoted 3 paragraphs to Human Achievement Hour that explained the purpose of the event. While Deletion Review is not the proper forum for resolving notability disputes, the recent publication of reliable media articles such as the Indy Star's necessitate that we renew discussion about Human Achievement Hour's alleged notability. Jaminus (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this attempt to get around the AfD [24] is a very bad idea - you don't seem to read your talk page, but if you continue to do this you might find yourself blocked (not by me, but it is the sort of action that gets people blocked). Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Correctly carried out closing. Chillum 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate While this article was clearly not notable at the time of its creation -- and thus was properly deleted -- the fact that several reliable and credible sources have referenced Human Achievement Hour since the closing of the deletion debate means that discussion must be re-opened to ensure that the article gets a fair shake. Following the article's deletion on March 25, 2009, articles discussing the subject have been published in sources including the USA TODAY, Time Magazine, Chicago Tribune Breaking News, Duluth News Tribune, and National Review's The Corner. Notability is not constant -- as WP:NN states, "subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence." The case for inclusion is much stronger now that the topic's notability has improved, and the only way to discuss the merits of the deletion is by debating its notability -- again. Assuming there is no dispute that the notability of Human Achievement Hour has grown significantly since March 25, the deletion debate must be re-opened -- whether or not you think the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Jaminus (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion was a disgraceful event in Wikipedia's history. It's obviously a clumsy and ham-fisted attempt by ignorant young enviro-goofs to crush any dissenting views of the juvenile Earth Hour stunt. Even this discussion is filled with veiled threats by activists to dissenters to ban anyone who complains. Wikipedia is really lurching mindlessly into the control of partisan goon-squads. For shame, Wikipedia, for allowing such ignorance to take control. Bushcutter (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and redirect to Earth Hour#Criticism as noted above. The AFD was not wrong, the close was proper, and the coverage has been all in the context of Earth Hour, so it makes more sense to be included there to me. I find it deplorable that so many of the editors campaigning for this to be included find it necessary to fire insults at the people who are endorsing the close; calling people "ignorant young enviro-goofs," for example, is a disgusting personal attack, and as far as I'm concerned invalidates the argument and should be grounds for a strong warning if not a block. Attacking your opponents is not the way to influence a discussion such as this, and I highly suggest that the rhetoric be dialed way down as this discussion goes forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reinstate As has been pointed out by numerous people here, this event has been covered by many major media outlets and blogs. It is certainly noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, and the deletion smacks of nothing more than pure political bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.64.33 (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Prabhudesai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion closer acknowledges there is coverage of the author's books, but says there is insufficient coverage of the author. But the coverage of the author's work is good evidence of notability for the author, and without the article on the author there is no coverage of the books at all (they don't have articles of their own). Also, the AfD nominator indicated that the article subject was notable, but needed work. This work was done after the first two delete votes, and a reopening of the deletion discussion to gain greater input for consensus was refused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Also, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the closer offered an opinion rather than determining consensus and that this opinion didn't follow policy guidelines. Allowing the AfD to go on longer to determine consensus is hardly asking for another AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I temporarily undeleted it in the page history to facilitate the review. DGG (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close based on the article as it existed (there was nothing about the author himself, only his books) but I think the article could be improved to prove notability. I'm looking at it now. Black Kite 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion proper read of the consensus. This is not afd round 2. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I closed the AfD, so I'm not going to !vote in this, but I would point out that coverage of the author's work does not automatically provide good evidence of the author, and particularly I did not say that the books were notable; that wasn't in the scope of the AfD, nor of my closing rationale. --GedUK  21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion DRV is not AfD round 2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Updated version at User:Black Kite/DP. Black Kite 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There really wasn't a consensus in that debate and I'm deeply perplexed by previous remarks that suggest there was; am I reading the same AfD as everyone else?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as a valid reading of the consensus. Nomination reads like an AfD argumnet—I'm not seeing a reason for this DRV, other than to re-try the AFD. From WP:DRV: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-daten (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The original "BS-daten" template, used on dozens German railway line articles, was deleted and replaced by "Infobox rail line". The new template has some major disadvantages: first it doesn't dovetail into the route diagram but displays as a separate box; second, it is often a different width; third, it introduces a different colour scheme and fourth, it is a real hassle when translating articles and adds a lot of time to the process. There are a lot of railway line articles to go so this is a real factor for me. The overall visual effect is messy and definitely worse than before. Have a look at the Haßfurt–Hofheim railway article and its de.wiki equivalent or what was my budding "B" class candidate, the Hof–Bad Steben railway and its de.wiki opposite number. Before I understood the deletion review process I'm afraid I created a new Template:BS-daten, but have been told this could be removed at any time, so I'm asking if we can sort this out. I hope I've used this process correctly - it's new to me.

I would be grateful if we could agreed to retain this template until such time as a multi-lingual version of "Infobox rail line" is produced which can handle "BS-daten" fieldnames and data and which also generates a single box combined with the route diagram template. Meantime we can legitimately undo the changes and continue to use "BS-daten". Many thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist This was deleted with only one comment. Apparently the problems weren't recognised. What should actually be done I do not know, but it clearly needs some discussion by those who work on the subject. The user is apparently new to WP process, and already he apologized if he wasnt following everything exactly, so I think the message above might not really be appropriate in this instance. DGG (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist – I agree with the nom that the replacement is not satisfactory. Occuli (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - as the single user who !voted to Delete this template, I'm prepared to admit I was wrong here. I hadn't realised the problems with the replacement, and now I do I agree that this version is preferable. On the other hand, there are reasons to prefer a uniform standard, but this is clearly an issue which needs further discussion. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - please note that Infobox rail line does have the ability to include the map template; this is a common practice on Amtrak articles. I'm going to demonstrate on Haßfurt–Hofheim railway and drop you a line. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful responses. Stifle asked me to respond to his question. I didn't contact the deleting administrator because I didn't know the process. I acted in haste to reinstate the template (actually I translated the German one from scratch, so it may not be exactly the same as before, but it seems to work), but then decided it would be wrong to reapply it without asking the editor who made the changes (Erik9) why he was doing this. He then pointed me at this forum. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Relist to get a proper consensus, without blame to the deleting admin. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain what happens now? Does this get reviewed again? If so, where? Thanks in advance. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the normal listing period of five days expires, an administrator will judge the consensus and take the appropriate action. At the moment, it looks like that action will be to restore the template and relist it at AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist without admonishing the closing admin - clearly there is further discussion to be had about the issues surrounding these templates. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Craig Barber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The article was notable to a degree, and the image is public-domain. This should go through AfD again for fresh discussion. Samllaws300 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (logged in at a public terminal)[reply]

• This can be speedily closed, I don't think it does need discussion again. --Samllaws300 (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone can close or delete this, the user was blocked as a sock per this thread. --64.85.214.236 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flanders and Swann (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was deleted as part of a purge in 2007. I'm not convinced that this consensus against categories still exist. There are several articles and one sub-category that can populate this.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, unless nominator can provide evidence that consensus has changed. --Kbdank71 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of similar examples in Category:Categories named after musicians e.g. Category:Rolf Harris. I know "other stuff exists" is not always a good argument, but in this case I believe that as these similar examples have existed for some time without causing problems, I see no problem in restoring this category. (I suspect that if I'd simply re-created it, no-one would have complained, as seems to have been the case with some of the other categories purged at the same time).

As a counter request, I'd like evidence that categories like this are not acceptable. I'll raise the matter with the original nominator to get their view. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist How can we find out if consensus has changed otherwise? DGG (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not demonstrate that consensus has changed. There is still a strong preference for navigation templates for all but the groups with lots of articles related to them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - no indication, despite the occasional aberrant result, that the general consensus against small and eponymous categories has changed. Indeed, presumption is against eponymous categories in general. Unfortunately with these band categories everybody wants their own favorite band to have a category so we end up with hundreds of cats with practically nothing in them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Fair enough, if general consensus is still against categories like this I'm happy to go along with it, but it struck me as odd that we have Category:Flanders and Swann songs, without an obvious parent category. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The parent is Category:Songs by artist. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Otto is probably correct on this one (difficult to be sure as it depends to some extent on what the articles would be). Quite a few non-Ottos now think it is very odd to have Category:Four Tops songs, Category:The Four Tops albums and Category:The Four Tops members floating around apparently unrelated in category space. Occuli (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a navbox, which has all the relevant articles I've found (so far). One thing I'm considering is renaming Category:Flanders and Swann songs to Category:Flanders and Swann songs and revues, so that it's a bit bigger. However that's a discussion for WP:Categories for discussion, not here. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist DGG has hit the head on the nail. The editor has followed the letter of the law in coming to DRV to consider recreation of the category. Other than the circular reasoning of stating that it was deleted before and that there is no proof that consensus has changed, how on earth could we know if consensus has changed? On the other hand, the significant number of such categories that have been retained, as documented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 28#Category:Travis .28band.29, goes a long way to show that there is no absolute policy banning the existence of such categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted; WP:OC applies. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauchlan Maclean, 2nd Laird of Brolas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Public domain source from 1899 scanned by Google. Editor deleted because Google stamps a copyright claim on every image that they scan. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second wranglers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:Senior wranglers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

My objections (Senior wrangler discussion) are:

1. Otto's rationale is a logical howler ('Valedictorian' is not usually defining so it is never defining), and all the 'deleters' followed like sheep. Accordingly no case had been made for 'delete'.
2. BlackFalcon relisted when there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus.
3. Having contributed at some length to the 'delete' argument, such as it was, influencing the last 2 contributors, BlackFalcon should not have closed the discussion.
4. As the cfd opened on 27 Jan, and the last comment was on 24 Feb, 19 days after relisting, it is clear that the cfd was thought to be 'finely balanced' otherwise it would have been closed earlier. Such cfds should be closed as no consensus rather than waiting for a random 'casting vote' long after everyone else has stopped watching.
5. The deletion of Category:Second wranglers was even worse; the delete argument conceded the battle early on and descended into irrelevant skirmishes. Again, it was open for 3 weeks, evidence enough that a 'delete' consensus was difficult to perceive.
6. There should a warning on the cfd notice - think carefully before suggesting a trivial rename as there are piranhas out there.

(As to the quibble that 'Category:Senior wranglers' should have been taken to DRV while the second wrangler category was being cfd'd, the counter-argument is that BlackFalcon should have allowed say 24 hours rather than 1 minute between closing the one and opening the other, to see if a DRV was opened (it would have been). It is irritating to have to go through the same arguments twice simultaneously, or indeed twice consecutively. Or thrice, not to mention last year. I can see the logic of Bencherlite's closure but it seems unduly bureaucratic.) Occuli (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore both: there is clear consensus in the proceedings on Second Wrangler to keep that one, and to restore the Senior Wrangler category. I would also have given less weight to the arguments to delete Senior Wrangler, since they do not appear to proceed from knowledge of the history of nineteenth-century mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Baa-aaa-aaa - maybe it's just the ungulate in me but I see no procedural errors in either CFD that warrant overturning either of them. This rather bitchily-written DRV comes off like the sourest of grapes and an attempt to make it all about the people involved and not the arguments. "Important" is not and never has been the standard for categorization and if the keepers couldn't make the case, too bad. They wanted to use the second CFD to try to make the case for the first CFD and it didn't work. Too bad they'll probably force the reversal through here. Otto4711 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must there be procedural errors in order to warrant overturning? I think a perfectly valid deletion after the usual AfD (and I presume also CfD) with no procedural errors can be validly overturned. The grounds could be things that were not considered the first time. To say otherwise would be to claim infallibility. Consider all those people who hang around AfD discussions to urge deletion of articles whose content they are unwilling to know and to tell people with expertise in the topic to submit in meek and servile fashion. Are they infallible? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, procedural error is not required. DRV is also appropriate when "...significant new information has come to light since a deletion...." That hardly seems to have happened in the three hours between the close of the 2nd wranglers CFD and this DRV, unless calling people stupid sheep is significant new information. DRV is not to be used just because one disagrees with the outcome of the XfD, which appears to be the case here since the DRV appears based on nothing more than the rhetorical equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" Otto4711 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sour grapes? The clearest possible consensus at the Second wranglers CfD was for retention. Consensus can change and it did. It is a clever move by the closing admin to ignore the clear consensus on the issue at the Second wranglers CfD and concoct an excuse that the prior CfD should have gone to DRV first, therefore providing an utterly out of process excuse to close the newer CfD as delete. Apparently process means nothing when one agrees with the outcome. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ouch. I'm not impressed by an accusation (without any evidence) that I "agreed with the outcome" and so closed it as delete. As I noted below, I closed the 2008 discussion as "keep". Please rethink your remarks. Bencherlite^Talk 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't believe that the decision was "concocted" in this case, which would imply that the result was manufactured to meet a desired result. The issue here is a basic and fundamental misapplication of Wikipedia policy, applied in apparent good faith, in assuming that the result of a prior case requires mandatory action in any and all future cases, unless the original deletion is explicitly overturned by a DRV that addresses the specific original case. A closing administrator had three basic options: 1) To treat the prior case of Senior Wrangler as controlling and delete in the Second Wrangler case, disregarding any contrary consensus; 2) treat the newer case as controlling and respect the consensus established at Second Wrangler as the most current, overturning the prior decision at Senior Wrangler; or 3) to decide the Second Wrangler case on its own merit, leaving the seemingly inconsistent result that Senior Wrangler was deleted unchanged. A review of Wikipedia policy shows that the clear consensus established at the Second Wrangler case is the only relevant matter here, leaving options 2 and 3 the only viable ones under policy, while option 1, chosen by the closing admin, is in clear contradiction to policy. Wikipedia does not operate on a precedent-based system. While prior cases may influence newer ones, the result of any prior consensus has no binding value whatsoever in any future situation. In fact, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia official policy on such matters, mandates that "Consensus Can Change", stating that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." In this case, consensus changed in the clearest possible manner. Even if the Senior Wranglers case was decided correctly -- and it was not -- there is no obligation to delete Second Wranglers simply because of the incorrect assumption that the prior precedent is binding, even for the sake of "consistency". That an article for Company A is deleted places no binding precedent to delete articles for all all other companies, or for articles for all smaller companies, or articles for companies in the same industry as Company A or even for smaller companies in the same field as Company A; Each case must be decided on its own merits, as long as all other policy requirements are met, as they are here. An approach that demanded that all similar cases are automatically driven by prior cases not only establishes a firm roadblock to improvements to Wikipedia, it encourages an approach to game the system to shoehorn all cases into the neat "binding precedents" that are already being used at CfD to stifle change. "Concocting" a decision would imply that this one case was decided incorrectly on an arbitrary basis and I do not believe that anything was concocted here. The issue of misinterpretation of policy here, ignoring clear consensus here for retention of Second Wranglers and insisting that prior precedent is binding when no such policy exists, is one that could well be misapplied elsewhere by assuming it in good faith to be Wikipedia policy despite clear evidence to the contrary written directly into Wikipedia:Consensus. This out of precess decision needs to be overturned here to ensure that it is not misapplied elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a precedent for option 3 at a fictional Americans cfd in Oct 2008. Occuli (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn These were the highest possible honours for Cambridge undergraduates in mathematics; consequently, the highest honours in mathematical sciences in the world altogether in the period. I am not for the moment arguing that everyone who attained these ranks were notable, though I would be prepared to do so for senior wrangler. But certainly for those who did attain these rank, and have articles in Wikipedia (which is about 2/3 of the senior wranglers and 1/3 of the 2nd's), it is a distinctive specification of their of significance and appropriate for a Wikipedia category. The argument about CfD is irrelevant--for a category, there is not other method of review of seeing whether consensus has changed. We must have a way or reviewing any decision--it's a basic meta-principle of orderly procedure. As for arguments specifying animal noises as proposed decisions, there's nothing rational to say-- or that needs to be said. :) DGG (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The function of DRV is to determine whether the XfD close was technically correct or to offer up new information that weighs on whether circumstances have changed. Your comment does neither. DRV is not CFD round 2. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn both Not much substantive remains to be said. To repeat: this was a "most notable award" in the 19th century - much more notable than Rhodes Scholar, say, more like being Miss America, and consensus is that these are appropriate for categories. Procedurally, a deletion consensus was never apparent, based in policy or practice, or logical, especially once this fact was established. As noted Black Falcon's close was defective in other ways. Bencherlite's closure was wrong, based on a othercrapnowdoesn'texist idea, rather than the specific arguments on that page about that category, which showed a clear preponderance of keeps - about 10-6. Finally, I'm glad I edit conflicted with DGG, because his point about the necessity of methods to review decisions is well taken.John Z (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course there should be review mechanisms, and of course there are, and the mechanisms and circumstances for that review are spelled out clearly. "I disagree with the outcome" or "the people who support the decision are sheep" do not fall under those circumstances. Otto4711 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How then do we see if consensus has changed for a category? DGG (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Talk about beating a horse (or ungulate, in this case) into submission: this whole saga has been going on for nearly two full months now—let's try to make it an three with this discussion! Oh, can the wrangler categories ever rest in peace? Seriously though, the merits of deletion vs. keeping have been debated ad nauseum in both CfDs. The entire reason that, as User:Occuli points out, that the second discussion was marred with some petty sub-squabbles was in all likelihood because everything that could be said had pretty much been said. User:Michael Hardy says that a valid reason to overturn a CfD could be the illumination of "things that were not considered the first time." That may be true, but I highly doubt anyone can point to any surprising "new information" that has now come to light that was not discussed in the CfDs. For that reason, we are pretty much stuck with questioning whether there are procedural errors that would warrant overturning or (please, no) relisting. The two closers are not infallible, but they both appear to have made good-faith efforts to honestly make a decision based on the discussion and arguments that were before them. I personally agree with the result of the decision, but regardless of which side they had come down on, I cannot fault the closers' actions procedurally in these cases. User:Occuli's presumption that "it is clear that the cfd was thought to be 'finely balanced' otherwise it would have been closed earlier" is a bit of a non-starter: it's more likely that it stayed open for so long largely because the more regular users who typically close CfD discussions had all participated in the discussion! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It stayed open so long because the CfD process is not much visited except by specialists, and the supporters may have neglected to canvass. DGG (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like another less-than-likely theory. There's a far simpler possible reason which, without any evidence that would lead us elsewhere, should probably be accepted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no particular opinion either way, but I dispute your claim that the merits were debated at all, much less "ad nauseam". Only one serious argument for deletion was advanced in the CFD for Category:Senior Wranglers, namely that the category was equivalent to "valedictorians"; this was not properly rebutted. One or two people advanced the claim that Senior Wrangler is a "defining characteristic"; this was not rebutted either. So there was not a debate in any meaningful sense. For Category:Second Wranglers, the "debate" was even more of a travesty. This time arguments for keeping the category were advanced, but the opponents of the category repeatedly refused to engage them, relying instead of arguments from consistency with the previous deletion. —Dominus (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you see is typically what passes for "debate" at CfD: users setting out their opinions. There doesn't necessarily have to be vigorous back-and-forth between users for the issues to be pretty much exhausted. In my opinion, they were here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your own position on this is inconsistent. The paramount importance and significance of the Senior Wrangler was brought up in the CFD of Category:Senior Wranglers. The claim of importance was never answered, and was disregarded by the closing admin not because it was false, not because it was irrelevant, but because "the claim is unfortunately unattributed". No attempt was made, it seems, to judge the matter on its actual merits. In the following CFD for Category:Second Wranglers, the matter was argued more thoroughly, with extensive documentation, but several contributors to the discussion again disregarded this argument and its overwhelming evidence, this time arguing "that this is not the appropriate format for rehashing the senior discussion", "the place to contest the closing of the previous discussion is DRV, not here". You yourself said "I'm unsure why users are re-arguing the senior wrangler issue here. That seems to be an issue for WP:DRV, as has been repeatedly pointed out." Now the issue is being brought up at DRV, as you said it should, and you claim that no "'new information' ... has now come to light that was not discussed in the CfDs." This argument is circular. The relevant facts were disregarded in the first CFV; they were argued extensively in the second CRV but you said they should be brought up in DRV instead; now here it is in DRV and you are disregarding them because they are not "new information" and "the issues were pretty much exhausted". This is a circular argument. However well you meant your remarks, they amount to moving the goalposts. The facts are unarguable that the Senior Wrangler award was of major importance at the time, and this has been extensively documented. These facts have been disregarded throughout this process by the opponents of the category, using first one and then another procedural quibble that never engaged the substance of the issue. Your own claim that this is "beating a dead horse" is another circular argument of this type. You claimed in the second CFD that the arguments about the importance of Senior Wrangler should be postponed to DRV; now that it is in DRV, you say proponents are "beating a dead horse", implying that the argument was over in the CFD and is being inappropriately prolonged. When I say that the matter hasn't been debated, that's what I mean: the opponents of the category, including yourself, have persistently refused to engage the matter. —Dominus (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not circular, because my advice was disregarded, and the issue was presented there. My comment was an after-the-fact observation—by then, it was too late. Trust me, the horse is dead; i.e., everyone (if they have read the entirety of all discussions) are aware of the arguments that you assume are being ignored. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say people had not read the arguments; I said they ignored them. This is not an "assumption": The admin who closed the second DRV (Bencherlite) has said as much. —Dominus (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we repeat ourselves over and over and over again in the hope of forcing a user to "not ignore" them, even though there's no reliable way to assess how much someone "ignored" an argument? If you want to do that--knock yourself out--but don't complain when others make observations about unnecessary repetition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I agree with DGG. I think the closure was in good faith, but the arguments for deletion were all thin and seem to have no knowledge of the significance of the wrangler grade. Being a wrangler was massively notable and it is appropriate that they should have categories. There was no real consensus based on building an encyclopedia to delete these. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn both. In line with the clear balance of opinion at the Cfd on Second wranglers. Jheald (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As was made clear in the Afd for Second Wranglers, if not perhaps at Senior Wranglers, this was one of the most senior academic prizes in mathematics during the nineteenth century. Those advocating deletion on "valedictorian" grounds have clearly failed to understand this, and although both Cfds were closed in good faith, they were done so on a mistaken assumption and should be reversed. It doesn't matter how long this takes, as long as the error is eventually reversed, and accusations that people are "beating a dead horse" are certainly not in the spirit of WP:AGF.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And the idea that those of us supporting deletion are dumbasses is an example of good faith? Otto4711 (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say that, you did. What I said was that you were mistaken. You've just failed to WP:AGF for a second time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What you said was that we weren't able to understand a basic argument. Sure sounds like an oh-so-polite way of calling people stupid to me. Could it possibly be that we did understand it but we just think you're wrong? Otto4711 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are still failing to AGF, but thats not my problem. My problem is that so far no one has successfully explained why these categories should be deleted: both the arguments for endorse above are based on technicalities relating to previous Cfds, which carry no weight in this DRV. Other reasons for deletion are that 1) the subject works better as a list, which is irrelevant to the discussion, because lists and categories are designed to work in tandem and these categories are an ideal way of associating the award with the people who won it, and 2) this is just a list of "valedictorians", which is simply untrue. The position of Senior Wrangler was a major academic prize during the nineteenth century, and many if not most of its recipients went on to become notable, or even famous, mathematicians. Please explain what it is that you don't understand, or don't agree with, in this summary.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jackyd, you quoted me on the "beating a dead horse" comment and then suggested that this was contrary to the spirit of AGF. Well, apparently you missed the fact that this comment preceded my comment that began, "Seriously though". In other words, the stuff that preceded that was said in a spirit of jest. I would suggest that in light of the context of my comments, an assumption that the comment in question was a serious criticism of others is not an example of assuming good faith. So you may want to examine your own assumptions before repeatedly criticising others'. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I admit, it was not obvious to me that you were joking, but I withdraw my comment in your case if it causes offence. I do maintain however that Otto4711 was certainly not adhering to AGF, both in his opening comment and in his subsequent replies to me. I still await a reasoned response to my summary of the issues at stake.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]