Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May

Lida Hensley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The result of the discussion should have been keep, the admin who closed the discussion was wrong. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I don't see how "keep, keep, redirect, keep" equates to a redirect. It sounds like further discussion is needed to reach a consensus. I must confess, I contented myself with a WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE vote when I voted. StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin - Firstly, I was not contacted prior to this DRV per step 1 in the instructions above. Secondly, the DRV nominator canvassed only the keep voters about this DRV. Finally, the AfD looks lopsided if all you're looking at is bolded votes. But, as we all know, AfD is not about counting bolded votes. RJH makes comments that no independent sources can be found. West Eddy and Hobbes Goodyear argue that no sources were found after searching far and wide. Even Dream Focus makes a comment that questions a claim made in a primary source. No attempt to provide sources is made by any of the keep voters. If no sources that pass WP:GNG can be found by 7 editors, then it's clear that the article cannot be allowed to remain. Hobbes Goodyear makes a suggestion for a logical redirect target, and that's where it ends up. Could the discussion have been relisted? Sure. But, I seriously doubt it would have changed the outcome. Me-123567-Me, had you contacted me on my talk page with your concerns, this is what I would have told you: I would be agreeable to relisting the AfD if someone can provide a single source that even comes close to passing WP:GNG. And I would still be willing to uphold that offer. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 05:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Textbook example of why AfD is not a vote. T. Canens (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse mere assertions of notability not backed by any sort of policy (e.g. references to a big number and assertion that president of ULC is some how inherently notable - neither are part of our notability standards) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Merely clicking on links in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL that was posted in the AfD brings up sources. Plus, its the topic, not the source, that needs to pass WP:GNG. Hensley, President Of Universal Life Church, seems like a decent source of info. But overall, there doesn't seem to be enough new source information to overcome wp:GNG. The deletes had the stronger argument in the AfD and the new information that has come to light since the deletion is not significant enough to overcome the reasons for the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't overturn. Scottywong makes a reasonable stab at a closing statement that explains why he has not decided to follow the numerical consensus, but should have referenced BLP as well; Scottywong's feeling that he is entitled to be consulted before a DRV is raised is misplaced. Per longstanding precedent and for very good reasons, the closer is not the gatekeeper for DRV. It's encouraged to speak to the closer first but there's certainly no requirement to do so.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason it is encouraged is that if the objection is not valid, the closer might be able to explain it sufficiently to satisfy the person objecting. and that if the objection makes sense, the closer might relist or re-close without the need for coming here. Both have been known to happen. But SMarshall is right that it is not required--& I doubt it would actually have helped here. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sound application of the principles underlying BIO1E, even if it may not strictly be a BIO1E case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No evidence was offered that the topic passes WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The president of an organization is not automatically entitled to an article if the organization is not very important, and the best course in many cases is a merge or redirect to the organization. I however very strongly disagree that proving notability requires meeting the GNG; though the GNG is certainly the general way of showing it. But the closer's erroneous statement to that effect does not invalidate the close, which seems a reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:GNG was the key policy in this case, and no argument was made relative to any other policy. (While there are a few, a very few ways, in which we allow articles on people that don't appear to meet WP:GNG (Olympic athletes, members of national legislatures, etc.), Hensley was not argued to meet any of those exclusions. I think there was a natural tendency, since the ULC is actually highly noted,, to presume Hensley was notable as a result. I understand the instinct. But it's not based in policy, and in fact, WP:ORG specifically reaffirms NOTINHERITED when it specifically states that individuals do not inherit notability from the organizations they serve, not that that needs reaffirmation.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure with the qualification that "redirect" is a form of "keep" and the decision to redirect rather than to keep-as-is is no more binding (or less binding) than any other equally-well attended and well-discussed decision held on, say, the article's Talk page. There was clearly no consensus to delete the pagehistory. Everything else is an ordinary-editor decision. There is nothing to discuss here (though the additional explanations and comments elaborating on our inclusion standards are always helpful when educating new users). Rossami (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree here. A redirect close to an AfD is a formal close of a consensus discussion, of the same strength as a RfC, more so than an informal discussion; the reason for the distinction is the general notice. It can still be reversed, and it still does not need formal process to reverse it, but it needs some degree of explicit or implied advance consensus. It is not an ordinary edit, and not as lightly to be done as a normal BRD--because the D part has already been held. I do not mean to imply it needs to come to DRV, or a formal RfC, but the presumption is that it holds until there is consensus otherwise. We need some slight degree of stability in order to make progress. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the decision holds until there is consensus otherwise but that would be equally true if the consensus were established on the article's Talk page. AfDs get some small additional degree of deference because they are generally well-advertised and well-attended but that's all. (Are we violently agreeing with each other here?) Rossami (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - My usual DRV shtick is to say "a DRV is invalid if all it is is disagreement with the closer", but I never thought I'd see it done so literally. Tarc (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There was no good consensus for any particular outcome at the time of the close. Multiple editors added multiple sources to the article but, curiously did not comment themselves and no-one else commented on these additions either. So we had a situation in which the article was improved but the discussion did not reflect that improved state. Relisting would have been more sensible. Warden (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I notice that a source was added five hours before the debate was closed. I hope the closing admin noticed it and checked it out. The closing comment was "providing sources which pass WP:GNG, and in this case that has not happened", but no-one had had a chance to comment on whether the last references added meant that the article passed WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you add sources to the article at the 11th hour and you don't comment at the deletion discussion, I'm sorry but the closing admin is not going to notice your sources. It is not the closing admin's job to go on a treasure hunt through the page's contribution history to see if anyone happened to leave some easter eggs lying around a few hours prior without letting anyone know. -Scottywong| confer _ 04:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Multiple editors" in this case numbering two. Regarding the "treasure hunt", presumably AfDs use {{la}} in order to simplify this. Depending what browser and scripts are employed, hovering over the history link shows at a glance that refs had been recently added (although in this case insufficient). -- Trevj (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Speaking as a non-admin, I think I'd like to see a bit more consistency in how admins use Template:Relist. StAnselm (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sounds a bit like WP:BIO1E to me. Yes, it could have been relisted - and the closer has has agreed to above, in the event of further material being presented in relation to WP:GNG. Even WP:ANYBIO states Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. [...] -- Trevj (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep The closer is to consider both the arguments offered in an AfD as well as the numeric count of votes, otherwise the door is swung wide open for abuse of discretion. For example, if 17 editors opine "keep" and offer modest arguments and 1 opines "delete" with slightly better arguments (but not unargaubly perfect) then community consensus is obviously "keep". Such is the case here. The closer abused discretion and should be closely monitored in the future. Turqoise127 22:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in the British Isles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a close call.

1. While I understand it's not about vote counting, I counted 7 delete to 5 keep votes, so there wasn't a clear consensus to delete.
2. At least two of the delete votes mentioned me by name, and one of the delete votes called the creation of well-sourced and (as some have said [1],[2]) useful content POINTY, so there were potentially some personal issues at play in the !votes as well.
3. The closer's statement felt a bit like a vote; he claims that the article itself was OR or SYN (although everything was clearly sourced, several books on the topic, and absolutely no new conclusions drawn), and that he was felt all of the material could be covered in bilateral articles.
4. This is obviously an emotive topic for some, but WP:NOTCENSORED and just because the existence of an article offends is not a good reason to delete. In further discussions on the closer's talk page, he again noted the potential for 'drama' around this article because of the name, so I can't help but wonder to what extent the name of the article weighed in the decision to delete (I had proposed a rename at several points in the discussion - IMO the name should not be at issue, what is at issue is the scope and notability of the topic).
5. After further discussions on the talk page, the closer seems to suggest that the crux of the issue is that the article "was trying to do too many different things at once and was completely unclear about its goals in the process. The result was something of a nightmarish mess." I respectfully disagree. I've preserved a copy of the article here (renamed slightly, so as not to offend): User:Karl.brown/Politics_in_the_atlantic_archipelago; I leave it to you to judge whether it was a "nightmarish mess" as claimed. Please do note, this is an article on a complex area, that had only existed for 3 days, and much time was wasted defending it from deletion, so one should also not judge the current contents *too* harshly. I also note, as repeated on the closer's talk page, that several people opposed to this article (e.g. RA, Snappy) copy/pasted it to the bilateral article, and edit-warred to keep its full contents, carefully [3],[4],[5] maintaining a duplicate copy in Ireland-United Kingdom relations during the whole course of the debate, so they obviously thought the content was worthwhile (just in the wrong place); unfortunately as a result, improvements that were made in good faith by editors to the content only ended up in one place.
6. Finally, as to the debate itself, I think IMO the crux of the debate and the real deciding question between the active editors hinged on the argument that this article was a fork of Anglo-Irish relations: "Much meal is made of, for example, the multilateral nature of the British-Irish Council, without considering that the only signatories to the Agreement Establishing a British-Irish Council are Ireland and the United Kingdom. The latter point underlines the reality that UK-Ireland politics is, in reality, the politics of the archipelago as a whole. Those two political entities hold responsibility for political relations of the archipelago as a whole." (RA) I disagree, and I provided multiple sources, including some just before deletion, showing that
   1. other types of political relationships in the archipelago exist
   2. relationships between non-sovereign entities is not always subservient to relationships between sovereign ones
   3. Irish-Scottish or Irish-Manx or even Irish-Scottish-Manx-Northern Irish relations are *not* simply a subset of Irish-UK relations
   4. Multilateral relations between all the countries in the isles is *not* the same things as bilateral relations between the two sovereign states
   5. Many scholars have used the creation of the British-Irish council as a starting point for a different kind of political analysis archipelagic studies) that is not simply Anglo-Irish (e.g see p2: [6] "So reviving the links with both Irelands will be made easier with the advent of the 'Council of the Isles' (in Strand Three of the Easter Agreement). This spells the end for the convention that dealings between London and Dublin account for the totality of 'east/west' relations.")
7. Finally,as one result of this discussion, you may find it interesting that since it's creation, Anglo-Irish relations never once mentioned their poor stepcousins, the Channel Islands or Isle of Man, nor Ireland's connection and dealings with same. Now, however, because their "fork" position required it, those opposed to this particular article now diligently work to *keep* mention of Irish-Manx relations in the Anglo-Irish article ([7], [8]); otherwise, their fork argument holds no water. (get it... fork... can't hold water... sorry... :) KarlB (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus I'm just not seeing the consensus here. Several of the delete votes were citing OR and SYNTH and, after reading the article, I felt and feel like they didn't read it at all. I'm not seeing either of those two things in this article and most of the push for deleting it seems to be because it has British Isles in the title. And, as Karl says, the closing admin statement reads like its own superseding vote by itself. Again, i'm not seeing any sort of consensus here, let alone a consensus to delete. Silverseren^C 21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, the synthesis is in the attempt to combine existing articles into this single article. It is in fact a complete mismash and completely OR in it's construction. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What information from existing articles? Make sure you're not confusing info that is from this article that was copied to others in an attempt to de-legitimize this article. Silverseren^C 02:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution section, Main article: Devolution in the United Kingdom, Culture (I don't see what this has to do with politics, more synthesis to the topic yet again), Main article: British_Isles#Culture, Immigration and emigration, main article:Irish migration to Great Britain. The Joint projects section is a synthesis of topics. Look at the top of most sections, they point to the main articles. For example the section on bilateral relations has: 'The relationship between the two sovereign states in the Isles, Ireland and the United Kingdom, has a long and complex history, outlined in Ireland–United Kingdom relations, just summarizes that article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, I suggest you read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Summarizing is *not* the same thing as synthesizing - and all of the points you make above are about how the article summarizes, not how the article comes up with new conclusions based on things not stated in the sources.

Also, if you don't know what culture has to do with politics, I suggest you read one of the many books here: [9]. Culture has a huge impact on politics, I don't even know why this is up for debate. --KarlB (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand what I am saying. Summarizing multiple articles and placing them into the same article all together is a synthesis. You are also at times summarizing multiple topics in a single section as if they are related, that is a synthesis unless reliable sources do it. Your novel combination into this article is not discussed in reliable sources. No reliable source makes the connection about culture in this topic and that you have so is original research on your part once again; your rebuttal itself was original research. Pointing out that culture has a connection to politics and that therefore an article on politics within the British isles should have a section on culture, is inherently original research. You have arbitrarily decided that culture was a significant enough issue to mention. What does Rugby have to do with Politics in the British Isles? Your text on the Celtic league fails to mention that it isn't on a British Isles basis but also includes Brittany and does not include most of England. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, summarizing multiple articles and placing them in the same article is summary style. There are thousands of articles in wikipedia in Wikipedia:Summary_style. No reliable source makes a connection between celtic culture and politics in the British Isles? Did you even read Pan-Celticism? Here's another ref: [10] I'm not even going to bother to provide more here since this is not AfD - in any case, read WP:SYN again - it's about original conclusions being drawn, which was not done. Sorry.--KarlB (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Pan-Celticism mentions politics in the British isles (except for the categories you inserted: [11] but which were removed). A section which is a summary of an article needs to have a direct connection to the article it's being placed in. Otherwise this would allow for random sections to be inserted into articles with only the most tenuous of connections. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you: "Political groups such as the Celtic League, a notable Pan-Celtic political organisation, along with Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party have co-operated at some levels in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and Plaid Cymru has asked questions in Parliament about Cornwall and cooperates with Mebyon Kernow. The Regional Council of Brittany, the governing body of the Region of Brittany, has developed formal cultural links with the Welsh Senedd and there are fact-finding missions. Political pan-Celticism can be taken to include everything from a full federation of independent Celtic states, to occasional political visits. In 1972 the Provisional IRA adopted a policy of not mounting attacks in "other Celtic countries" - i.e. Scotland and Wales - possibly due to the influence of its chief of staff Seán Mac Stíofáin, a Pan-Celt.[7]" Do you still not see the connection? Of course more exposition is needed, but pan-celticism (and celtic identity) is clearly related to politics in the British isles - Scotland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Cornwall and Wales are *all* members of the Celtic league, a political organization - one (admittedly fringe) goal of some pan-celtists is a federation of celtic states - that is an essentially political goal. As for your comment about rugby, you may want to look here Politics_and_sports; or here, where the original content I wrote has been expanded, and there is now a picture of rugby added to the article Ireland–United_Kingdom_relations#Culture; I'm not sure what definition of politics you are using - the interpretation I've learned is that politics reflects culture, society, history, and relations between peoples, so it is in fact your suggestion that sport and culture are somehow *not* related to politics that is need of sourcing.--KarlB (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the links to the topic aren't directly there, instead you are inferring them. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done talking about this. I've given you books, citations, quotes, but you continue to refuse to see the evidence in front of your nose. If you're trying to say "it doesn't say "politics in the British Isles" I'm sorry but that's not a fair argument; if we can establish that a certain movement has important political impact on 75% of the regions in the British isles, then it is clearly relevant!! Your continued ignorance of that fact doesn't change the correctness of the article on that point. --KarlB (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TLDR. Let's not rehash the 25 pages of discussion leading to the decision to delete into a review, plus the discussion initiated at the closing admins Talk page, plus the discussion an AN/I, and now this. Also I'd like to point out that Karl notified a hand-picked selection of editors (who share his opinion to Keep or try to Salvage this article) and failed to notify any editor who disagreed. Clearly, this editor does not understand or accept any of the arguments presented during the AfD process, and seems more intent on keeping an article (any article) at his selected title and is now fishing for content to fit the bill - all of which, in turn, may also fall under WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karl and I have been discussing this in good detail on my talkpage, which you may wish to refer to. Essentially, I thought the delete !voters (who I hope have been notified of this DRV...) made better arguments as regards scope, synthesis and bias, but I'll leave it up you people from this point. I am not opposed to a recreated version with a different title, though, as there was definitely some material worth preserving here. Moreschi (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware he continued discussing it. He did not notify the !delete voters. He should summarize any *new* points above if he wants anybody to actually read it - otherwise he's simply polling for more editors and failing to observe consensus. --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighKing. You will note that one of the first people I notified was RA, who was one of the biggest contributors (and a delete voter). In addition, I only created this a short time ago, and was polishing the result before notifying more people. I have since notified everyone I could find in that discussion. Go easy on the unfounded accusations, of what I'm doing, and why. --KarlB (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Moreschi - I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more on this notion of 'bias'. Can you explain what specifically about the article you found biased? --KarlB (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletions discussion are not merely a count of !votes. It is the arguments put forward that are measured. In this case, the arguments put forward by those wanting to keep the article were unconvincing. For example, of the four !votes to 'keep' (aside from Karl), two cited a book on the Politics of the British Isles in the 12th—15th century as a reason to keep an article on contemporary politics of the region. Aside from raising the question of whether they even fully read the title of the book before citing it, we already have an article on the History of the British Isles. A third said it should be 'kept' because, "There are political organisations that operate in both countries of the British Isles". ... " Indeed, and we already have an article on Ireland-United Kingdom relations (i.e. "both countries of the British Isles").
  Substantively, the the reasons given for 'delete' !votes was that the article is a content fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations and seemingly a coat rack for a finge POV on the subject. --RA (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Here is a summary of some of the less useful delete votes: 1) pure OR / another of Karl's pointless cats/articles 2) The Republic of Ireland is an independent country (um, ok) 3) NPOV and the term British isles is politically unacceptable (sorry, WP:NOTCENSORED) --KarlB (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Uninvolved editor, commented at ANI here Wikipedia:ANI#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FPolitics_in_the_British_Isles. Much of the points raised by KarlB appear irrelevant to saying the close should be overturned and appear to mainly be a restart of the AfD itself. Only points 3 and 5 appear to be directly relevant to that. On point 3, Editors claimed in the AfD that the article was an original synthesis. It was also argued in the AfD that the material was already covered by multiple separate articles, hence this is not an original point by the closer either, for example see the sentence beginning Delete As a POV fork redundant content fork.... . The closer is expected to weigh up the different arguments made during the course of the AfD through the lens of policy and guidelines, if arguments are not convicing they should be given the appropriate lesser weight in determining the consensus. On point 5, from the talk page it is just a further clarification of the multiple separate articles mentioned in point 3. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article also wouldn't have a WP:SNOWBALLs chance of passing an AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that some of the proposed references don't even verify the content so I would suggest people to be skeptical about them as well if they are looking at the article. Here is an example of some OR with a reference that does not verify the content: E.g [12] which is meant to verify There are no major political parties that are present in all of the countries, but several Irish parties such as Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail have won elections in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and both of these parties have established offices in Britain in order to raise funds and win additional supporters., Firstly I'm fairly sure it's wrong since Fianna Fáil have not won elections ever in Northern Ireland, see the Fianna Fáil article and secondly, the source does not mention anything close to the text "there are no major political parties that are present in all of the countries", it appears to be inferred. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IRWolfie. You're right that that sentence wasn't phrased well; what was meant was have won seats in elections (Fianna Fail won a seat in an early election of the Parliament of Northern Ireland). I recall there was another source that mentioned that there were no common political parties across the countries, but I neglected to add it, so I'm sorry about that. But calling it OR is a bit extreme. I don't think one under-referenced sentence is a reason to disparage a whole article; look at Republic of Ireland - there are plenty of entire paragraphs without references, but we don't disparage that whole article on that basis.--KarlB (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fianna Fáil haven't won a seat. In the same section there is another reference that does not verify it's content, instead there is OR with a citation that does not verify it, i.e the sentence beginning: The converse of unionism.... Here's another original combination of topics in that same section Identity is intertwined with politics, especially in the case of nationalism and independence movements. Details on identity formation in the British Isles can be found at Britishness, Scottish identity, Irish_people#Irish_Identity. It's hardly suprising the closer fond the synthesis arguments persuasive considering the shoddiness of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Fianna Fáil haven't won a seat" That's your opinion, but unfortunately it's not backed up by FACT. see bottom. Please stop casting uncertainty on this article based on one claim which doesn't hold up. Your accusations of OR hold little weight, and in any case, a single sentence or section that *was* OR would not thusly merit deletion. Finally, the claims of OR/SYN were not backed up by any of the discussants in the AfD; no alleged "evidence" as you have attempted but failed to provide was given in the AfD.--KarlB (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether or nor Dev used a Fianna Fail label in South Down in 1933 is a minor point of historical fact relevant to those 3 articles, but not to this one. Just as Sinn Fein operates on both sides of the Irish border, this is an issue relating to all-Ireland politics; it is irrelevant to any discussion of whether to view the politics of the islands of Ireland and Britain in a bundle with the politics of the 3 crown dependencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the politics of the 3 crown dependencies (and relations of Ireland to same) *should* be bundled with British-Irish politics? Or are you saying they should not be? In any case, IRWolfie attacked a single statement as being false, he was wrong, I provided a source, end of story.--KarlB (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem reluctant to engage with the points being made by others. One of the points which I have made repeatedly is that the article which was deleted was not about the "politics of the crown dependencies", nor was it about "British-Irish politics". The deleted article was overwhelmingly about the international relations of one sovereign state (the ROI) and another (the UK) along with the relations between Ireland the dependencies of the UK's monarchy.

Labelling that as a common "politics" rather than as international relations or bilateral relations is a POV advanced by the postnationalist school of which you seem to be an adherent, rather than a neutral summary of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Did you even read the article on bilateral relations? What does the first sentence say? Did you notice the big box on the side of the International relations article? it says "part of a series on POLITICS". You have a very strange and uninformed understanding of international relations and politics; the article as framed was primarily a survey coupled with discussion of the multilateral bodies and a focus on cross-island cultural and political movements. It purposefully did not focus on the obviously dominant Anglo-Irish relationship.--KarlB (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing apples to oranges Since IRWolfie was disparaging the lack of sources for one sentence in the deleted article (and suggesting one should thus be skeptical about the whole article) and others have (elsewhere) attacked the content of Politics in the British Isles, I'd just like to share this link [13] - this is the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article, 2 years after its creation. You will note that it has zero references. None. Zilch. Nada. In fact, it wasn't until around August of 2010, 4 years after its creation, that the article actually got more than 1 reference [14]. How do you think it compares to this one, 3 days after it's birth: User:Karl.brown/Politics_in_the_atlantic_archipelago And as mentioned above, it wasn't until a few days ago, after the creation of Politics in the British Isles, that anything about the channel islands, isle of man, or ireland's relations with Scotland or Wales started to be considered part anglo-irish relations.--KarlB (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The AfD discussion seemed to assert that the scope of the topic was so wide relative to available reliable source coverage that the combination invited original synthesis/research to fill in the wide gaps as fuled by all the drama surrounding the loaded term "British Isles" topic. The closer recognized something to this effect. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. FYI, just about all Wikipedia articles related to "Politics in ..." are redirects,[15] with the preferred title beginning with "Politics of ...".[16] There's Politics of Ireland (two sub articles) and Politics of the United Kingdom, but of which seemed to have good input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. However, the development of this Politics in the British Isles topic seemed to lean towards Politics of Australia and Canada compared, only much more troubled. The closer was correct, so endorse the close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: Per Seren. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. In any case where a plausible search term gets turned into a redlink, neither the debate participants nor the closer have thought it through properly.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - quite simply, there wasn't one. WaggersTALK 09:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Blatantly improper supervote. There was no consensus to delete and it seems quite outrageous that an opinionated close should override this outside of the normal AFD process. Warden (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the above, there was no supervote as I have already argued about above. Declaring that there was and that there was no consensus in your AfD doesn't make it so. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Good interpretation of discussion by closing admin. Mo ainm~Talk 10:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: I think that the closer's statement was perhaps unfortunate, in that it read like opinion and therefore could be characterised as a supervote, but nevertheless his rationale was sound. He says, "BHG's reasoning is compelling". Obviously, then, he did not feel that the quality of the arguments on the "keep" side was sufficient to close it as a "keep" or "no consensus". The grounds for closing as "delete" were good. As a general observation, however, I would prefer if closing statements remained focussed on policy, and clearly cited the arguments that are being summarised, and did not wander off into personal musings. Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer correctly weighed the crucial points in the debate, which were a) the huge overlap with topics which fell more naturally under Ireland–United Kingdom relations; b) the lack of evidence of scholarship which explores contemporary politics from a British Isles perspective (as opposed to the historical issues covered in History of the British Isles), and the resulting synthesis; c) the problems inherent in using the loaded and contested term geographical term "British Isles" in a political context.
  Other factors which were not stated as part of the closing rationale, but which would have reinforced the same conclusion, included: a) the canvassing by the article's creator of 9 individual editors ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]), who were selected on the basis of having edited an article which took a similar perspective; b) the fact that two of the !votes to keep ([26], [27]) were explicitly based on a reference to a book labelled as The Political Development of the British Isles, but whose full title reveals that it is about medieval political history: The Political Development of the British Isles, 1100-1400.
  There is a further issue, which was addressed in the post-closure discussion on the closer's talk page, which I think is important in approaching complex political topics. The closer suggests that one way to narrow the scope to something more usable would be to write just such an article on "post-nationalist archipalegic studies". This suggestion of an article on a particular strand of scholarship seems to me to be something we should have much more of; more historiography rather than just history, and more about political science rather than just politics. The creator of the article under review here clearly has at least some in-depth knowledge of the postnationalist approach to studies of this region, and may be well-placed to develop an article about that strand of intellectual development. The error, in this case, was in framing the substantive topic so tightly in a postnationalist lens, rather than in seeking an approach which would accommodate the many different perspectives ... and the closer is right to suggest that an article on the intellectual framework itself could be a great addition to Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn on the basis that there was no consensus. This was a classic supervote, expressing their own view of the matter. I'm not going to reargue the fundamental issues here in full; that's for afd2. But I think Karl's argument just above about sources a very good one, and is a sufficient reason to keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Uzma Gamal. Snappy (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while Moreschi's closing statement could have been better worded to make it clear the closer was relying on strength of arguments rather than personal opinion I think the reasoning is basically sound. While the debate had been closed early it had already degenerated into an unreadable mess and continued discussion would not have helped. I'm not seeing a convincing rebuttal to the arguments that (a) the nature of the sources is such that any article with this title would substantially constitute synthesis, and (b) that the content is substantatively duplicative of other articles. Hut 8.5 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notification. WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion by Karl.brown (talk · contribs)
  It is unfortunate that rather than using the standard neutrally-worded templates, the notification includes Karl's mistaken view of the nature of the discussion; this discussion is about whether an XfD was correctly closed, rather than Karl's assertion that it is about his framing of the substantive topic. Whatever the wording, transparency should have been maintained by informing this discussion of the notification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be canvassing on the part of KarlB. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a false accusation on the part of IRWolfie. The notification was neutral; both nominators used the same reasoning; intersection of geography and politics, and whether in this case it was notable, so it was a neutral summary of the nominations. BHG is right I should have notified here, sorry about that, but RA also notified several projects and didn't notify, and I don't see a chiding from BHG for that.--KarlB (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – I have waded through the morass of the afd and cannot discern a coherent counter to the charges of synthesis and duplication. (KarlB needs to master the art of précis.) Oculi (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while Moreschi's closing statement is a bit shaky worded and not clear enough in showing that the closer was relying on strength of arguments rather than personal opinion, I think the reasoning is basically sound. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a opinion expressed in some of the comments above that strikes me as blatantly opposed to NPOV policy: that there are topics that can not be written about neutrally, and therefore any article on the topic should be prevented by deletion. This is a policy which will reduce the encyclopedia to a very bland and relatively useless enterprise, for much of what people want to know in the world is about the factual background to things that are controversial. There's a somewhat less stark version also expressed, that this particular article was so tainted that it must be deleted. I think this is true only of libel and copyvio. Anything can be edited. Seeing a poor article in the history of what has become a good article is the proof of NPOV--the demonstration of what is, and what is, not the proper presentation of information. People will learn from what has ben replaced, if they analyze it. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear, hear! Silverseren^C 19:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I think you misunderstand the objections.
    The neutrality of an encyclopedia article depends not just on its content but on its framing, and it is very easy to frame a topic in a way which advances a POV. I'm sure that we could produce a thoroughly factual article on a range of topics which are stripped of their wider context such as "Irish terrorism against British civilians" or "British military violence against Irish civilians", and I hope you would agree that neither framing is NPOV.
    Similarly, conflating disparate topics is a way of advancing a POV. I hope you would also agree that even the most factual coverage in article entitled "Politics of nations with significant Jewish populations" would be decidedly POV, and that an article on "Corruption in Italy and Indonesia" would be answering a loaded question (look! there is corruption in those two places, ain't they more similar than you thought). Or try "Political policies of [Mao|Stalin|Pol Pot|Hitler|Mussolini] and [Obama|Bush|Reagan|Clinton]"; that's the stuff of partisan polemic, not NPOV.
    My examples are of course extreme, and the issues in this case were more complex and more subtle, but I hope you will not try to defend the claim that all topics are inherently neutral so long as they are properly written. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The places involved have a common history, and common political problems which affect all of them. The examples you raise are interesting: The first I consider a valid article if it is intended to mean influence of Jews on politics of countries where they have a substantial population.) We have in the past avoided such articles because they tend to be written by those with open or disguised anti-semitic prejudice, but I consider that a terrible reason and similarly a rejection of the principle of NPOV, exemplified in the absurd rejection of a very well documented subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood because of the manner it had been written and the apparent inclinations of a principal editor. The second is a deliberately absurd red-herring collocation--there is no common history or administrative tradition of Italy and Indonesia, though comparisons of Indonesia with The Netherlands would make a viable article. The third pairs similar could make an article comparing the general characteristics of dictatorships and democracies, based not on our own source for them individually, but sources that compare them in that exact manner . Anything with sources can be discussed neutrally & various people have suggested good source. (We are particularly well suited to dealing with taboo-ridden topics because of the extraordinary diversity of our contributors. What we need to keep away from such articles are not just the bigots, but also those who would avoid bigotry by avoiding discussing the topic at all) I know of no exceptions. There is a link between NOT CENSORED and NPOV: We need no censorship because of our commitment to NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources recently uncovered: Political integration and disintegration in the British Isles; A. H. Birch. Allen & Unwin, 1977.; The Impact of a Scottish Referendum on Ethnoregionalist Movements in the British Isles (includes comparative study of ethnoregionalist movements in Isle of Man, Scotland, Jersey, Shetland, etc) BHG seems to believe that the article is POV for two reasons: 1) because of its title. If that's the case, then re-naming is sufficient. 2) The idea that putting bilateral and multilateral political relationships in the isles in a separate article from the dominant bilateral Anglo-Irish/Dublin-London relationship is just advancing a POV. For example, in the paper I cited above, looking at ethnoregionalist movements in the crown dependencies and Scotland; that could not be placed in Ireland-UK relations, and it wouldn't fit in UK politics either (Isle of man is not part of UK), nor Scottish politics, because it's looking at a comparative regional basis - how will the crown dependencies react to a scottish referendum? But political correctness seems to have killed the possibility of having these sorts of discussions. If something is going on in the British Isles, it's either between Ireland and the UK, or it's just Ireland, or it's just UK, or it's just Isle of Man. Any article which tries to catch the stuff that falls between the cracks? POV POV POV--KarlB (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Man is a dependency of the monarchy of the UK, and despite the constitutional theology, it is in practice a dependency of the UK (see for example how the UK represents the IOM in the ECtHR). That topic could therefore be covered quite adequately within a UK framework (or within a British Islands framework if you want to be constitutionally purist), and there is no need to adopt the non-neutral concept of the so-called "British Isles" as the scope. The fact that some British scholars misuse that POV term when they are actually referring to a smaller region does not require an NPOV encyclopedia to follow a POV framing or POV terminology -- just as we do not adopt Tea Party terminology or framing when discussing the US Democratic Party or Soviet terminology or framing when discussing the "capitalist states". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is *not* a renaming discussion. If you disagree with the name, propose a new name - otherwise, stop bringing it up - it's pointless and distracting. And as you know, British Islands does *not* include RoI, which is an important player in this game! This is about the TOPIC, to wit, the multilateral and bilateral relations between Ireland, northern ireland, wales, england, scotland, isle of man, jersey, guernsey. Wait, guess what? That is almost the exact membership of the British-Irish council? I wonder what they talk about there?? Perhaps, politics? --KarlB (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing three posts are completely off-topic. Please read my request above. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did put collapse around that section, but BHG reverted that change; she wanted everyone to see the discussion. If you want to re-add the collapse heading I wouldn't be opposed.--KarlB (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do anything until BHG responds. I the meantime I would appreciate it if you would knock it off - both with BHG and Hut 8.5. A one-off, brief response to a new (and relevant to the DRV) comment by a new participant is acceptable in a DRV; cluttering up the page with endless repetitive arguments about crown dependencies and multilateral relations - with or without collapsing - is not. The question here is whether Moreschi closed the AfD correctly or not, nothing more than that. The proper place for your multilateral political debate is on your user talk page, not here. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Per DGG, the close is too far into supervote territory. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen and do things properly Moreschi does not have the authority to close an AFD early because they believe "everything useful has pretty much already been said". Not everyone who participates in an AFD shows up the first half of it. The rational presented is obviously a WP:supervote. Reopen the existing debate to let it run its proper number of days, and then close it properly, letting those participating in it influence the outcome, not the personal viewpoints of one administrator. Dream Focus 15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Moreschi closed the discussion in response to a specific request by a keep voter at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FPolitics_in_the_British_Isles. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussion had descended to a point where it was better to close it early than to allow it to go on. Occasionally, that happens.

  That's not to say that discussion has stopped. A potentially useful discussion is taking place on Karl's talk page about how to address the concerns about synthesis and duplication (and of the article being some kind of coat rack) in a new article. A re-opened deletion discussion is infinitely less like to be useful than that discussion. And it would put the kibosh on resolving the issue productively and through consensus. --RA (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  People often argue back and forth in AFDs. That doesn't give you the right to close them quickly, and thus prevent others from participating. Dream Focus 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse My sentiments above of WP:TLDR still hold true, but now that I've read all the pages here I'm endorsing the close. I believe Moreschi closed correctly, and which I can understand why Karl may be frustrated, it is no reason to disrupt this process by rehashing all of the same arguments over and over again (I've see them 3,4,5,6 times now), and effectively hijacking the review and trying to drown out other views. (And I'll add that BHG should have known better). Wasn't impressed with Karl's canvassing either. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wow, and I thought I could be verbose - I want the last half-hour of my life (and the associated braincells) back please : ) - jc37 19:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but Userfy - It looks to me that the main thrust of this is that there is rough consensus that at least some of the data on the page is salvageable (as even noted by the closer above). So, if this is to be retained as an article, at the very least this apparently needs work (and further discussion). In the meantime, it might be worth discussing adding whatever may be determined by consensus as appropriate, to Ireland–United Kingdom relations. - jc37 19:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of it was added to Ireland–United Kingdom relations before it was deleted (see here, here and here). It has been userfied at User:Karl.brown/Politics in the atlantic archipelago. --Scolaire (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the close is within reasonable discretion, and does not look like a supervote to me. It starts by saying an editor's reasoning is compelling, and then goes on to what reasoning is found to be compelling. I didn't see a ton of productive discussion on the "keep" side during the AfD (I'm singularly unimpressed with a solicitation to edit war, to wit: "I've tried reverting, but I've hit my limit; so if other eds want to help, it would be appreciated; I can't participate in an edit war. Snappy is almost out of reverts too by the way."), and AfD is not a nose count. Moreschi made a reasonable interpretation of the discussion that's well within reasonable closer discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Furniture (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The company has a relativity large impact and importance in South Florida, and could be of interest to those in the area. The article has been deleted twice: once in 2006, and again in 2008 (the latter apparently with good reason). However, both admins are either inactive or have expressed an unwillingness to continue admin duties. If undeleted, I will be making some updates to the article. Lbart0725 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't see anything worth restoring - the most recent version was shameless spam ("new philosophy to combine quality brand-name home furnishings with lower prices... strong commitment to great customer service.... " etc.) and the earlier one was a two-line stub. Suggest you first make sure you can find references that show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability, and if so start with a clean sheet. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just write a new article. This doesn't need a DRV; and I don't see why you'd want to base the new one on rejected advertising copy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just write a new article that includes a credible claim as to why City Furniture is important or significant and make sure the article is not "Blatant advertising: reads like spam". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This article was just advertising, and it wasn't even good advertising: just the usual cliche-ridden formulaic verbiage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse prior speedy-deletions. No objection to a new article if the subject now clearly meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for companies but given the prior history and local nature of the topic, I would recommend drafting it in your user-space first. (Perhaps at User:Lbart0725\City Furniture?) Then get several opinions (some of the participants here would probably help) about whether the article passes the hurdles before moving the draft into the main-space. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kimberlin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Negative article should be corrected, not deleted 189.61.28.233 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I do not consider this an A10. It is not an attack page: it describes what crimes he was convicted for, but he certainly was convicted for them. It is not negative unsourced material; everything is sourced to major publications or to others mentioned in that article but not yet formally cited, including the NYT In fact, it's about the opposite of an A10-; it is currently redirected to the article on Speedway bombings, but the Speedway bombings article is very much more negative about him. Indeed, section 3 of that article deals with speculations about his having committed another crime with which he has never been charged. Nor does the section in the Speedway article on the trial refer to the challenge to the convictions based on the police use of hypnosis. Nor does it deal with the support he has received. Nor does it deal with his activities after release from prison. The question is whether there should be one or two articles, and I remain undecided. If the redirect stands, the existing article must be balanced. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what do we hope to achieve here beyond the previous DRV? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Nothing has changed since the previous DRV. T. Canens (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the recent controversies about Kimberlin, maybe the page should be re-created but protected as a compromise against it becoming an attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.196.91.249 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the outcome of the previous DRV.--62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused...exactly what is being appealed here?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the nomination is asking for permission for moving Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brett Kimberlin to main space. Note also User_talk:Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry#Brett_Kimberlin and the very active editing of Speedway bombings.[38] Thincat (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject of the page has a book length biography by a major publisher, Citizen K: The deeply weird American journey of Brett Kimberlin. This alone confers significant notability and offers a lot to work off of. If it is an attack page in current/deleted form, that's why we edit. Overturn and restore. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Close The draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brett Kimberlin has recently been moved to main space as allowed by the previous DRV but despite a negative view[39] at AFC. A complete re-write then took place. So, I think nothing is required of this DRV and anyone can submit an AFD (where I would vote keep). Thincat (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Close FWIW, I did the rewrite because I was tired of the partisan fighting. Thus, this isn't the article that received the negative AfC, at least not when I was done with it, and this deletion review should be closed. But it's obvious that there will continue to be POV changes to the article that will need to be removed, because this person is such a lightning rod. -- AyaK (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot. Rewritten article is better. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Speedway Bombings are a newsworthy domestic terrorism event, and Mr. Kimberlin was convicted in connection with the bombings. There's no reason for Wikipedia to censor this information. Biccat (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Walpin firing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I became curious about this deleted article after reading this external commentary. Kathy 9is2 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the outcome of the deletion discussion do you have a question about? —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it deleted when so many editors supported keeping it? Why was such a notable article deleted? Google shows lots of reliable sources covered this, and that it still gets mentioned three years later. What was the purpose of deleting the article? Why not undelete it? Kathy 9is2 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure you want this article, or do you want this instead:

Gerald Walpin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Campaign season is upon us. Obama had to settle a dispute that initially arose between a Bush-appointed watchdog and a Bush-appointed prosecutor. He's therefore going to be subjected to the standard partisan criticism whichever way he comes down. NOTNEWS, not encyclopedic absent unusual circumstances. No flaws identified in either of the closes involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan LaSecla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article about LaSecla was originally deleted on the grounds that the subject did not meet gridiron football notability guidelines. However, now that the subject is now playing in the Italian Football League (source), subject is now notable. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Example of media coverage is here. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review
• Comment If there is new information, why isnt the article recreated instead of questioning the process of the original review? I might add that one additional reference that is WP:ROUTINE game coverage (english translation of article: [40]) does not satisfy WP:GNG, nor is Italian Football League listed unter SNG of WP:NGRIDIRON. I'm not a regular at DRV, so I'm not sure if I should be endorsing the original decision, or relisting it because of new information even if I still dont think it meets notability guidelines cited in the original AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow recreation. The media coverage cited above is too superficial to convey notability or to be the basis of a WP:BLP-conforming article.  Sandstein  09:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Could the old article be userfied, with the intention to recreate when further sources (in addition to the single one cited above) are included? (Userfication was suggessted in the AfD.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‪Template:NOT‬ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Used for maintenance and unencylcopedic content when no alternative is available. Undelete. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Captaincollect1970 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (no consensus) due to inadequate closing explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not an apparent consensus in that XfD. There are several prominent editors who in the discussion are spoke contrary to the nomination and close. There were not rebuttals to them, but repreated badgering by the nominator. I'd have like to see at least one person on addition to the nominator challenge the "Keeps". However, "rough consensus" is a judgement call that allows for signficant discretion by the closer. However, when employing significant discretion, I think explanation should be given, and especially so when challenged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have provided an additional closing statement as requested here. We frequently get a major backlog at TfD due to the relatively small number of admins closing the discussions. Sometimes it seems very clear to me, but not to others. I am always happy to add an additional closing statement when it is requested. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse reasonable close well within admin discretion. There was some disagreement, but nothing of value (like content) seems lost, and there seems a way forward for all needs (the use of more specific templates). I seem to recall, but can't point to, a trend against extremely generic templating due to it being considered not sufficiently helpful to other editors).
• Apologies to Plastikspork. I and the nominator should have asked more personably on your talk page before making statements here. Thanks Cunard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Once again, used for maintenance and unencylcopedic content when no alternative is available. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck through your bolded sentiment here, as nominator your request for restoration is already known, you don't need to state it twice. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion process does not require a detailed closing explanation, so no fault there. Nomination is not an issue with the process merely disagreement. Neither are DRV issues. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There really was a rough consensus that this template should not be available for use. Editors are rightly encouraged to use a more specific template.—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, there was consensus to delete. we can always ask the admin to add a closing statement if that is an issue. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore there was a consensus to delete, now it's no longer needed. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote.—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse disagreeing with the outcome is not sufficient reason to overturn the close. Hut 8.5 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Closer interpreted the debate correctly as bringin out too vague to be useful consensus with insufficient retort from the keeps. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article on carnism was deleted without any apparent attempts to determine whether or not the concept is credible, which it is. The primary reason for deletion was the claim that the term carnism is non-notable. But in reality, carnism is discussed all over the animal rights movement, referenced in psychological publications (including Psychology Today, June, 2011) in philosophical theory (Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective, by Marti Kheel. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (2007)), in The Guardian, by a journalist for the New York Times and Atlantic Monthly, and was even discussed in a beef industry journal. Therefore, I request that the page be restored. If editors have concerns over validating and relevant citations and references they can then be addressed. I have attempted to discuss the deletion with Davewild but received no response. --Biocentricegalitarian (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD was recent and the outcome very clear, and the term still appears to be largely associated with one person, rather than something in general use or even jargon use. Essentially a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, DRV is not a re-run of the AfD. DRV simply establishes whether or not the close was a correct assessment of the actual debate. In this case, there were no compelling arguments made in the AfD to keep the article, and practically all of the support came from canvassed outsiders. Therefore, the close was a correct one. Secondly, I would suggest that whichever external group is apparently driving people to contest this (the nominator is yet another SPA) stop throwing new users at it: it is transparently obvious canvassing, and the existing community tends to react poorly to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close. Just an SPA lobbying to reverse an undeniably sound AFD closing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, close was in accordance with a strong consensus.—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I fixed the nomination.[41] Somehow, the nomination included a parameter "xfd page=" (without an underscore) and that caused the DFV link to default to AfD#1. The correct parameter is "xfd_page=" (with underscore symbol). (Someone may want to look into to fixing the template(?( for the future). In any event, the four DRV posters above this post (Andrew, Chris, Hullaballoo, and S Marshall, may have reviewed AfD#1 instead of AfD#2. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Found the problem. User:74.74.150.139 tried to fix the nom,[42] and Armbrust than tried to fix that, but forgot to add the underscore in the |xfd_page= parameter.[43] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed both AfDs and my recommendation is unchanged.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - This appears to be another one of those potential Wikipedia:Coatrack/publicity articles. Most of the "carnism" references refer to Melanie Joy's 2009 book, "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism." Wikipedia should not be used to give meaning to carnism so whatever Joy says carnism is, that is what it is. On page 18 of the issue of Vegetarian Times, they claim University of Massachusetts, Boston, psychology and sociology professor Melanie Joy, PhD. Joy coined the term "carnism", even though Kenneth Shapiro used the term in the name of his 2004 lecture, "The Psychology of the Dinner Plate: Vegetarianism versus 'Carnism'. This US News article has a decent usage of the word carnism, but not info on carnism beyond filling a dictionary definition. The word also is used in a number of articles, but only once and usually as part of announcing an upcoming lecture or book having "carnism" in its name, e.g.: (1) Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to 'Carnism' (2009) by Melanie Joy, PhD., (2) in the 2010 article comfortably numb? Boston Globe January 26, 2010 article [44] merely announces an upcoming lecture by Melanie Joy, PhD., (3) etc. This was brought out in AfD2. The AfD2 closer interpreted the debate correctly, so endorse the close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. - Google books brings up some interesting hits, but I couldn't get a graph on ngrams for the word "carnism". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your responses to this deletion request. At the moment I am indeed an SPA, I almost also coincidentally a psychology student whose lab has begun to research carnism, and there is at least one other doing the same at the University of British Columbia. I have taken time to review wikipedia's articles on neologisms, on notability and on coatracks, and continue to contest this deletion because I do not believe these terms apply to this concept, although they may have applied to the article that had been written on it.

Carnism is clearly notable, as shown in the links I posted in my first entry into this deletion log. Certainly such references also mention Melanie Joy, just as any discussion of objectivism or cognitive dissonance is almost certain to reference Ayn Rand or Leon Festinger. Uzma's focus on articles of tedious of reporting is not representative of the 65,600 results of a Google search on the topic. Indeed, the first result after carnism.com is to a New York Times blog. According to the Wikipedia page on notability, an article is notable if it has received coverage from a source independent of the subject. All of the links above are evidence of such coverage, and easily found.

Certainly, an article on carnism is not necessarily a coatrack. Carnism is an ideology, and an article about that ideology does not need to advocate another (in this case veganism, or Joy herself), which I believe some editors area concerned about. Taking all of this into consideration, I wonder why the article was so quickly deleted (twice) instead of editors requesting that it be rewritten to satisfy wikipedia's standards, which could be easily done.

The concept is notable, it is verifiable and has entered the vernacular of the animal rights movement, and is being researched acacemically. If an article on carnism was written that satisfied all these requirements more fully than the previous one, could it be posted? I request that the page be unblocked, but the original article permanently deleted, so that I may write such an article. A term growing in usage around the world like this (it was recently discussed here in German) should be available to the Wikipedia community. --Biocentricegalitarian (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Membership (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was not notified of this sizable deletion please undelete the work in progress. Over 100 templates were deleted with such minimal discussion. The template is intended to be more like {{Flag}} with minimalist input. Development is waiting for MediaWiki updates. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• endorse deletion, but there should be no reason why these cannot be moved to either user or wikipedia namespace. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is because parser functions are difficult to operate in the userspace. Please see my next comment. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• You certainly should have been informed, but I doubt that would have changed the course of the discussion. That there are so many templates within this system only makes it less likely that it would actually get deployed, as it significantly increases maintenance costs. No objections to userfication of course, so that if you want to propose reintroducing these later you're free to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It was deleted under the false assumption that it was abandoned. It wasn't. Deletions of over 100 templates should be with a good and well discussed reason. I resent the claim that a discussion wouldn't affect the outcome.
• Why are you requesting it to be userified? It would significantly hamper the development of the template as then each transcluded use would have to be entirely rewritten which would easily take hours if not days. It would take just as long to re-introduce it.
• Development is pending the introduciton of MediaWikiwiki:Lua scripting possibly through MediaWikiwiki:Extension:Scribunto which are under development. The reason why work was stopped is because the template structure is too heavy for parser functions. It would be more implementable when that is available. The complexities would also disappear with it.
• The idea for the usage is something like "{{Membership|United States}}" or "{{Membership|United States|1970}}" similar to "{{Flag|United States}}". Country data template range has over 7 pages of templates and redirects and is certainly maintainable.
• International relations of countries do not change often but they do change. The goal of the Membership template range is to introduce an easy way for articles to enjoy the ability to display such relationships with a historic perspective (if needed). Updating the template would also update all relevant pages. For instance, when I read about the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Libya, etc seeing what countries are involved and their affiliation would certainly be helpful. Moreover the templates can also be used and integrated into country infoboxes so for instance you would see international memberships and affiliations of Russia in Russia. For example, few people realize that Russia is actually a NATO affiliate (partnership for peace) and became a WTO member recently. So you can perhaps see that there is a very wide scope intended for these templates once they are complete.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Relist - While it's not necessary to notify editors of a page, in the case of templates, I think notifying the coder(s) might be good practice. Especially on a work in progress. And honestly, what is being saved here? Whether deleted or visible, it still exists on the servers. So what's the rush? - jc37 13:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy If the templates are on hold awaiting MediaWiki updates then they can be put in some provisional development workspace until those updates are made. Warden (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you insist on userifying, at least leave the reidrects in place. Otherwise the code will not work. The templates inter-depend on each other. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • They should not be called "membership" there is no indication that these are country templates, and are completely opaque in naming. Why should "membership" be a country template? Membership is most likely to deal with a person's membership in organizations, not a country's membership in organizations. Since RM/TFD has dealt with opaquely named templates by renaming them, we should not be having these use "membership" when they depend on features not yet implemented, there is no need to pollute templatespace with unintuitive redirects that are not useful. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ambiguity was intenional as non-countries can be affiliates or members of organizations. EU as a whole is a UN affiliate (observer). Likewise there are cases where countries not widely recognized (hence considered non-country by a large number of countries) are members to international organization (such as Palestine to the OIC or Western Sahara to African Union). Calling it a "country" creates too many problems and controversy. Like "Flag" the templates name should not be very long as that is just painful to look at. My days of work (or in your words pollution) will forever occupy templatespace just not visible to the public. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
        • As I said, the most obvious use of a template called "membership" is for people, not countries and pseudo-countries. so it should not be called "membership". Template names should not be so ambiguous as to be meaningless. As I also said, ambiguous templates are frequently renamed. We should not need to go through the exercise of renaming these templates when they are not even in use yet. Just select a better name that does not imply it is about individual people. -- also per comments below, why not use it to indicate that a province is a member of a federal union, like the States of the United States? So much ambiguity in the naming of the template is not good. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's the concern, call it "international membership" (per international community), and call it a day. - jc37 06:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is neither a deletion criteria or undeletion criteria. It is just the opinion of 70.24.251.208 whom have made the covert deletion nomination in the first place. That said this can be done (I like your proposal) - though I'd like to note that I immensely dislike that the IP seems to be using an XFD in place for a rename discussion which is disruptive. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - So basically, where {{flag|United States}} displays  United States, Template:Membership would display something like the flag of Hawaii next to United States since Hawaii is "a member" of the United States? The Hawaii article doesn't mention "membership" in that context. The United States article says, "a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council," so would the template cause the flag of the U.S. to be next to United Nations Security Council? Certain White Cat, would you please show or link to an example of what Template:Membership does to give some context to the discussion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• United States isn't an international organization. :) The concept I have in mind is more like showing the US membership on demand. US is a member of UNSC (permanent member), NATO, WTO, INTERPOL, and other such organizations. The template has an optional parameter for date so that you can see US membership to international organizations in 1960.
• Example uses that I have conceptually is for example showing international memberships of US on the article United States. Likewise displaying a similar set of ino on lists. United States is a more clear-cut example with its membership. Things get complicated for some countries such as Norway (a NATO member; not an EU member), Sweden (an EU member; not a NATO member) or Vatican (an OSCE member, not a UN member).
• I cannot show an example since the templates are deleted. I would be able to show you if the relevant pages are undeleted. It is difficult to argue without them and I do not remember the nested code out of memory. The template does work, it is just not updated for all of the ~200 countries (primarily due to time constrains).

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment (support undeletion): As someone who spent a significant amount of time in creating many of the country templates, I find it very wrong to delete 100+ templates without any notifications to the people who put in work. Yes, as currently coded, the templates were very large (so much so that having 100+ of them on the same page exceeded the parser limits); but the code-reduction was only stopped to wait for the arrival of Lua. The potential uses of this template-system are quite vast (like flag as WhiteCat has said). In its structure, as far as I remember, Template:Membership/Sub/Head was a table header, Template:Membership/Sub/Foot was the table footer, and country-specific data was kept in templates named in the format Template:Membership/countryname.

What it did

Writing something like {{Membership/Sub/Head}}{{Membership/Afghanistan}}{{Membership/Sub/Foot}} would produce a table with columns for countryname, AU(African Union), AL(Arab League), CON(Commonwealth of Nations), EAC(East African Community), EU(European Union), IP(Interpol), NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), OIC(Organisation of Islamic Countries), OPEC(Oil Producing and exporting countries), UN(United Nations), WTO(World Trade Organisation). Writing the fullforms from memory, some might be wrong, sorry

The row for Afghanistan would contain the flag of Afghanistan with its name in the countryname column (this was produced using flag templates). If Afghanistan was a member of an organisation, the column for that organisation would show an svg icon (probably the map for the organisation). The alt text (or title text, not sure which) would be the date Afghanistan joined the organisation.

The columns were sortable and the sorting was done according to the date of joining.

Also (not sure about this), hiding some columns (if unneeded in the article), was possible.

I hope this gives an idea of what the templates used to do.

Tech stuff

Technically, the system had options for getting the membership status of a country in a particular year. This means that the system had checks for the existence of the country and the organisation at the given date. Plus, the system handled different levels of membership (such as in EU or NATO), and also handled multiple memberships in the UNSC through different country-specific subtemplates for UNSC memberships.

For it to support so many options, it used a lot of subtemplates which would be very easily reduced if done through Lua.

Intented use

As far as I remember, writing something like {{Membership|USA|1970}} was not currently possible (don't remember why), but that was the intended idea. Also, the idea was to extend the templates to include other similar international organisations, such as NAM, SAARC, ASEAN etc, but this wasn't yet done due to the parser limits.

This could ideally make maintainance of this data in multiple places redundant and help store this information in a single template.

Please undelete

The system was undoubtedly half-baked, but creating the data containing templates with membership information for this many organisations for 100+ countries took a lot of effort and time. Even if the appearance is not infobox-like or not something we want, creating the data containers took a lot of effort and they can be easily reused. Even the code templates can be easily modified to either fit into the current parsers (I think some reduction could be done), or into more efficient lua scripting (if we can keep the templates unused while we wait for lua).

As for why it should be undeleted now instead of waiting till Lua arrives, I think its better if its kept as it was in the template namespace so that more of the data-containers can be created (100+ are still needed) and if Lua takes too long, the system can be improved to work with the current parser.

Also, undeleting this template and its subtemplates should be accompanied by undeletion of Wikipedia:International membership templates and its subpages which were deleted along with it.

PS:I'd even made a half-baked twinkle-like script for creating the country-specific data containers; so you can imagine the effort it took people in creating 100+ of them manually.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had no idea that the author was not notified. My standard response when I find that to be the case is to immediately undelete the templates and relist the discussion. I was disappointed to find out that "Step 1" of the WP:DRV instructions were not followed when this DRV was initiated. The first I heard about any problem with the deletion discussion was the notification of this DRV. I would have been happy to restore the templates and relist the discussion if I were simply asked first. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a mistake on my part, sorry. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Relist - Chris Cunningham's comment in the TfD,

  "The problem is that we are unlikely to decide that this tabular format should in fact be rolled out to the country articles. Each country article already explains which international organisations a given state is a member of in the prose. Should we wish to add it in a more structured manner it is far more likely that we'll do it in the infobox, rather than in an entirely new (and seriously overengineered) format like this."

  is very persuasive and I could see the close being based on this. However, I'm seeing in this DRV, significant new information that has come to light since the deletion that could give Chris's views a run for the money. Plus, the above image File:Supranational European Bodies with NATO members-en.svg does show a complex system of international memberships that might need conveying graphically. Seems reasonable to have all these views presented in one discussion, particularly where the closing admin Plastikspork noted above "happy to restore the templates and relist the discussion" (take out of context). In the next TfD, please post images of what the template does so we're not left guessing down the road. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template system could very well be integrated into the infobox template. For instance the infobox for Belgium has a line for currency likewise it can have a line to denote NATO affiliation, EU affiliation, UN affiliation and etc. Such memberships are not obvious or completely non-existent in current infoboxes. Underlining reason for this is that no one has ever attempted to express international memberhsip of countries in a templated form before which is the goal of the Membership template. That data can be used in various forms including in infoboxes as previously mentioned. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jurij Moškon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that the Vesna Award (the main film award in Slovenia)[45] makes him notable enough.[46] In this article [47], he is described as one of the most prominent Slovenian film editors. Some further biographical information is available at [48] and [49]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD but allow recreation - The AfD close was over a year ago on 26 April 2011. The closer noted that "No references support inclusion," so the references in the above DRV request have not been AfD vetted. The reliable sources need to be independent of Jurij Moškon (see WP:GNG), so citing to Jurij Moškon's resume doesn't help the DRV nom. While the other four sources are sources, they may merely be website postings and not Wikipedia Reliable Sources (see WP:RS). Given the AfD was a year ago, no references were reviewed in the AfD, and the four other sources listed above are new information has come to light since the 26 April 2011 deletion, seems reasonable to allow recreation and let AfD review these new other-than-English sources and other sources that may come to light during the AfD process. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the reliability of the other four postings, the first was set up under the supervision of the Slovenian Ministry of Culture, the second and the third are news articles from the Slovenian national radio and TV portal, the fourth is an article from a long-standing newspaper of Lower Carniola. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unles I'm missing something the 1st one doesn't mention the subject in question. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one illustrates the importance of the Vesna Award. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD but allow recreation, per above. The closer correctly read the discussion, in which noone has raised arguments for keeping. Indeed, nothing against a recreation. Cavarrone (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh on my 2011 close; allow recreation (original closer) With regard to this close, the Vesna claim was in the article at the time of the discussion, but the text didn't assert the award's putative significance and was kind of muddled, and it's my sense that as a result the question of notability under ANYBIO (1)'s award clause wasn't seriously considered. As a result, with respect to recreation, we now have a new (to the argument) claim of notability, and a source. Yes, it's sourced from a web site, but if the Vesna award turns out to be significant, that we'd almost certainly consider the award-granting organization's web site reliable even if primary. As there's a new claim to notability, old precedent (right or wrong) isn't controlling, so allowing recreation seems a no-brainer.

Had I been asked before DRV, I likely would have just said the same. The article still might fail at AfD2, but, particularly in view of WP:SYSTEMIC, it deserves a more-than-fair shot to make its case. --joe decker^{talk to me} 14:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Goad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I had no time/energy to protest the deletion of the article when it was done. I really don't think it was garbage and I really believe that it's notable. Even only the number of crimes make it so. However, in case the administrators decide that it's "garbage", please restore the last version somewhere in my user page so I can expand it. It would cost me too much time to find again the references and to create it again from scratch. Thank you. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't comment on the original article but the subject is definitely notable. Thus, undelete Egg Centric 15:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need to vote. This is a contested PROD so restoration will be automatic.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not the real reason why this page was deleted. Is the editor involved with a competitor or commercial product? This page was linked at other pages in Wikipedia, eg. comparison of accounting software. This software is GPL Licensed open source and has many users in South Africa, Please assist to restore this page so that it can be updated 196.210.160.59 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the IP some tips on his/her user page. As far as I can see this was A7 speedied and there's nothing particularly wrong here, it just needs a better article. Egg Centric 13:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Can someone undelete so we can review whether the speedy deleted per WP:CSD A7 (an article about a company or organization that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject} was valid. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 speedy deletion. The article noted "The business model is one of the first "software-as-a-service" models" to credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The company is in South Africa, so the source material may not be immediately accessible via the internet. No objection to listing at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy as per WP:GNG. We should also have WP:MARKETINGISNOTNOTABILITY --HighKing (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and the GNG have no relation to each other. It is not necessary to show notability to pass speedy. all speedy requires is some rational indication of importance. Failure to show notability is a reason for prod or AfD, both of which give a reasonable period for the original editor and other editors to find adequate sources for it, which is often possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Ashton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed on 11 May as No consensus. The closer then undid the close on 23 May, and it returned to the unclosed pool where I picked it up, unaware of the previous close. I did eventually become aware of the previous close, but this was quite late on in my close review; that I had already spent over an hour on the close may have influenced my decision to carry on with the close. My thinking at the time was that I was dealing with the same AfD, and that as long as I took account of the article talkpage comments and article developments since the close, that would be sufficient. Normally this wouldn't be significant, however, there had been significant article development between the two closes, so this morning I am thinking that would put me in the position of casting a supervote. The article is currently userfied at User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton. I am thinking that there are possible reasonable outcomes - one is to uphold the close, and allow the usefied article to be moved into mainspace where it can face a second AfD, or restore the article to mainspace and relist the AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that there's a functional difference there. Both circumstances result in the article being in mainspace and an afd discussion happening. Egg Centric 12:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold first close, but wait on AFD and set an incubation deadline (about 1 month). Thank you SilkTork. The primary DRV issue is that we had two weeks of AFD, two weeks of NCDK close and hostile editing, and then a sudden deletion after 2 hours; this may well have been according to process, but I didn't see the user who asked for the "unclose" inform any of the interested parties who were working hard on the article (468 revs) all that time, so it was a shock to several of the editors per your talk. The primary AFD issues are that notability under AUTHOR (over 20 reviews of 5 books, only 2 of which were rebutted) and PROF#C3 (CFRACI status found after AFD close) were never rebutted during AFD. Because I did so much work during AFD and there was a sudden influx of other editors of multiple POVs (cutting the article from 40K to 20K), I was waiting for a cooldown before I did more significant work, presuming that a second AFD would be poorly nommed before at least 1-2 months. If we have a week of DRV and then a second AFD, this article will have been continuously under the hatchet administratively for 6-7 weeks, and that is not a conducive environment to establishing consensus. Further, the amount of time I consumed meeting the seemingly illogical demands of a dozen other editors, finding 70 sources, getting sent to ANI for AFD length (where Uncle G found no disruption), and still seeing the article deleted makes it very hard to justify a lot more on-demand fixup work in a hostile environment, given priorities IRL. Of all AFDs I've been in this has been the most-sourced ever. These are not my only observations but suffice for now. JJB 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Or What Unscintillating said. JJB 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• On the numbers, it's a no consensus that leans towards delete, but when I review the arguments I find the view that was most clearly stated by Hrafn very hard to argue with and deserving of significant extra weight. To me, if it had been closed from a clean start based on the arguments presented in that AfD, "delete" looks right. I think that a slightly messy process produced the right outcome.

  Our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. It's too harsh on Silk Tork to say that it wasn't, and although Silk Tork's scrupulous approach to this does him credit, I don't think deletion review has a role here. I endorse the outcome. I don't really endorse the messy process used to get there, which is regrettable but not terrible. It certainly doesn't amount to a procedural irregularity that justifies disturbing the close.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, which of the three outcomes do you endorse (NCDK, delete, or userfy)? Which of Hrafn's views (by timestamp) deserve extra weight? JJB 17:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I endorse the outcome that we've been asked to review (which is Silk Tork's close of 23 May). The view I thought deserved extra weight was the first view Hrafn expressed during the discussion (and I mean "first" in the order it appears in the AfD; I accept that the sequence may have been more complex during the course of discussion and Hrafn's comment may have been amended, but I reviewed the discussion in its final form rather than diff by diff).

  What this means, specifically, is that I agree with Hrafn where he said: I'm seeing little-to-no substantive independent coverage here. Most sources listed either (i) include Ashton himself as a (co-)author, (ii) are creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) affiliates of Ashton, (iii) are/were Ashton's employer and/or (iv) make only passing (and/or dismissive) mention of it. I think that where the sources give in-depth coverage they are not reliable within the meaning of WP:RS, and where they are reliable within the meaning of WP:RS, they are not in-depth.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to mainspace, allow a week or so for improvement, and then relist. I said keep, but it was a rather weak keep; I think it's borderline, though it had strong advocates & opponents. I think the true result was no consensus, but it'd be better to have another discussion after improvment (which in practice is the same thing, as has been pointed out above). DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse first close, overturn second close - The AfD was opened 29 April 2012‎ and closed about 12 days later. Phantomsteve's 10 May 2012‎ no consensus close interpreted the discussion correctly and the close was otherwise proper. Phantomsteve reopen the AfD, 25 days after it was listed and 13 days later after close, on 21:01 23 May 2012, giving the reason "questions have arisen about whether this is "no consensus" or not." The reopening of the AfD was untimely, particularly in view of the article changes during those 13 days. The untimely reopening of the AfD makes the second 22:53, 23 May 2012‎ close out of process. Also, DRV is the place to handle questions about whether a close interpreted the discussion correctly. While SilkTork appears to have done some fine work and stand up self reporting to DRV, it is better to stick to process to minimize admins waste of time and give value to proper/timely consensus discussion closures so that those participating in consensus discussions feel fair play is part of that process. Since the first close was no consensus, the article should be restored to main space and there is no objection to immediately relisting at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse SilkTork's closure. My reading of the discussion is that the "delete" side had stronger arguments, so I contacted the first closer asking him to justify his close. The first closer was unable to justify his "no consensus" close owing to lack of time. Hrafn (talk · contribs)'s arguments about the insufficient coverage in reliable sources in terms of depth and independence, as noted by S Marshall (talk · contribs) were particularly persuasive. I do not believe that SilkTork (talk · contribs) committed a procedural error. Because the previous closer rescinded his close, SilkTork was free to approach the discussion without being constrained by the previous close. His closing rationale is an accurate summary of the consensus, a product of over an hour of reading and analyzing. I support the proposal by John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) to "wait on AFD and set an incubation deadline (about 1 month)". After more work has been done on the article, it can be (i) brought back to DRV for consideration or (ii) restored to the mainspace directly if {{db-repost}} does not apply and renominated at AfD. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Userfy  The article had already been userfied by the time it came here to DRV, and the request that I had made, to which there had been no response, was to overturn to "Userfy".  What happened was that POV-pushing contributions savaged the article after the "no consensus" close, with an objective of proving that the topic was not notable.  I only participated in a small number of the edits after the article was reduced by about 40 sources.  I saw belligerence toward objections to adding BLP violations, and incompetence in identifying sources.  A quote by Kurt Wise as being something Ashton said was agreed to by two editors.  This incident was immediately followed by another defective source citation, followed by an editor yelling at one of his/her own quotes.  I can provide diffs on request.  The point is that this article needs a chance to recover from the POV pushing, so it is appropriate to leave it on JJBs user page without a schedule.  It would be more correct to call this close userfy, because there is no plan by the 2nd closer or anyone else to keep the article deleted, and keeping the close as "delete" will serve only to confound a next AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this completely affirmed analysis. During AFD certain editors suddenly began massive edits that continued until second close, reducing size from 40K to 15K and deleting about 45 sources. Because I had been responding to the same editors' demands at AFD for two weeks I opted out of trying to analyze every deletion claim on talk, having already established there that many of them were policy failures. Accordingly, as Cesiumfrog's editing also shows, there is too much damage to the legitimate notability claims that were unanswered at AFD and yet declined for comment by both closers to be repaired during this DRV (not to mention outright erratic edits needing reversing). The purpose of userfication is to show that Ashton's award "FRACI CChem" meets PROF; that 5-8 of Ashton's books with numerous reviews satisfy AUTHOR; and that sufficient mention of Ashton satisfies both GNG and the cumulative nature of BASIC, just as I said in my very first AFD comment. Time for consensus to arise on these very old points, given the hostile environment, should not be deadlined unreasonably. JJB 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse If you read SilkTork close he makes it clear that he will "userfy the material on request to allow work to continue until notability can be established.", that has been done work is ongoing there. Once it is felt fit to move it back then it can be done, this has the feel of debating a process rather than getting on with fixing the article. Mtking ^(edits) 00:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The most notorious wikipedia vandal now has at least three mentions in reliable sources. I don't believe these are enough to produce an article necessarily (they may be though), but they are enough to add him to Troll_(Internet)#Examples - which is where I would like this redirect to go to. Once the redirect is in place it's a simple matter to chuck in a sentence or two about WoW there. Egg Centric 12:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me the right course of action should be to add him to Troll (Internet)#Examples first and create the redirect only if it sticks there. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S'pose so. here we go Egg Centric 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This isn't indepth coverage of Willy on Wheels. How does he deserve a page?Curb Chain (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And who asked for a page on Willy on Wheels? As I seem Egg Centric only asks for a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Three passing mentions in news articles about the general concept of WP vandalism are nowhere nearly sufficient to justify a Wikipedia entry - not even a list entry in the Internet Troll article. It would be different if there are three reputable articles about the subject but passing references are not sufficient to substantiate claims of notability. Prior deletions of the page (mostly speedy- but the last via RfD) were in compliance with WP:DENY. The proposal to restore is not.
  Note also that the addition of the paragraph about this vandal has already been reverted with the argument that his/her specific behavior does not necessarily meet the technical definition of an "internet troll". Rossami (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is an important point. I feel that there is a place in our encyclopedia for Willy, but it ain't where I was thinking of putting it.... Egg Centric 00:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources aren't indication on why he meets WP:GNG, so he doesn't deserve to have an article. WP:DENY is clear cut in here also considering that the original vandal left Wikipedia a very long time ago, same with his wanna be many impersonators (and we have plenty of archives to prove that fact). Keep Deleted and suggest withdraw. Secret ^account 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse RFD close - The 2007 September 4 Redirect for Discussion closer cited "protected titles mechanism" and the above DRV request does not indicate a basis to overcome that to redirect the Willy on Wheels to another page. There are additional RFDs[50] and you additionally would need to overcome the reasons listed in those RFDs to allow a redirect from the Willy on Wheels page. Also, the requested target Troll_(Internet)#Examples doesn't seem appropriate (more of an RFD issue than DRV). Comment - As for the relaible source material, there's probably a place for it in a Wikipedia page. However, the examples listed in Troll_(Internet)#Examples are general examples not tied to any individial account, and listing Willy on Wheels there is a specific example tied to an individual account, so the info doesn't belong in Troll_(Internet). You eventually might have better luck in adding the info to Wikipedia or another page having Wikipedia as a main topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, do not redirect. The troll article actually does a good job of keeping the examples just to the actual notable ones that had real-world effects or consequences. Willy had very little effect on Wikipedia (there's only a small and ever-decreasing number of oldbies who even remember that era), and absolutely zero effect on the real world. That would frankly not fit in at all among the other examples cited that involved lawsuits and arrests, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - very much should not point to Wheely Willy. If substantive references exist (I'll leave that to others to decide), then I suppose maybe that could be added to the examples at the bottom of Vandalism_on_Wikipedia, and then this could be protected as a redirect to there. But otherwise, keep deleted and salted. - jc37 13:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liz White (animal rights) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) For comparison, the deleted article is here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article yesterday though there was a recent AfD under a different title. I discussed it with Joe Decker, the deleting admin (discussion here), and he suggested DRV.

I would like to keep this because we lack articles about women in general (outside the entertainment industry), about Canadian women in particular, and this would be our only article about a Canadian woman animal rights advocate. She appears regularly on television in Canada discussing animal welfare. However, she talks about the issues, not about herself, so there isn't a lot of biographical information around, which is perhaps why some editors argue she isn't notable enough.

There have been two AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz White (politician) (September 2008, keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz White (politician) (2nd nomination), May 2012 (delete and merge)

The second AfD discussion was somewhat borderline, the current version of the article is quite different, and additional sources have been added. This was the article at the time of the second AfD, which focused mostly on the political party she led and the elections she stood in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. Nice work SV - Article is substantially different and improved from the previous version , including additional WP:RS asserting the subject is over the WP:NOTABILITY hurdle - Youreallycan 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn self and keep. When SV and I discussed this yesterday or before, I expressed the opinion that it was marginal (based on what was there at the time), but with Slim's judiciously additional sources added since I think it's now over the bar. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse recreation and keep, and a good job to SV. The only thing I wouldn't endorse is the idea that we should base any part of a keep or delete on the grounds of its subject's gender or nationality (or anything else about the nature of the subject), as that's just an I (don't) like it. The only criterion should be source coverage, but here, that requirement is met. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep There are quite a number of references in major publications (e.g., Toronto Sun, Washington Post). She clearly passes WP:BIO. NJ Wine (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, as written by SlimVirgin it is a different article, it is about animal rights activist Liz White. But if the article is to be kept, a lot of the political information should be re-added. Would the article be kept in good repair if it once again becomes about politician Liz White? 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If content from the old Liz White (politician) article is used, it should be histmerged into the new article to keep the history in one place. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The last AfD was closed as merge, no delete. WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions (essay) may be of interest. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong Venue DRV is not necessary when an editor believes that he has fixed all the issues raised in a previous AfD and BOLDly restores the content as fixed. DRV does not exist as a prior restraint on such issues, and I think we're all sufficiently acquainted with SV's BLP policy knowledge to have confidence that anything she restored would have a pretty high presumption of appropriate policy compliance and inclusion-worthiness. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to support what both Flatscan and JClemens have said. Procedurally, it looks very simple to me: the material has been AfD'ed twice but never deleted, on the very simple grounds that there has never been a consensus to delete it. The most recent closer wishes to overturn himself to a full "keep" outcome, and there is no reason why DRV would prevent him from doing so. Our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and it seems very clear that it has been. I think this can be speedily closed. What Flatscan says about the history merge is of course important.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD(2nd) and allow creation - The Liz White (politician) article seemed to require her notability to be based on her being a politician and I can't say that AfD(2nd) closer got it wrong. So, endorse AfD(2nd). However, reliable sources don't write articles based on Wikipedia's classification of people. They write news articles, etc. to convey the information they want to convey irrespective of Wikipedia. Liz White (animal rights) is a better article name as it gives the impression of more freedom to use information about Liz White from all reliable sources, not just those discussing her political career. Plus, the Liz White (animal rights) article Slim wrote is different from the deleted article. Thus, allow creation of Liz White (animal rights). I suggest merging the content of Liz White (politician) into Liz White (animal rights). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warrandyte Cricket Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

5 years on, I have found many articles from newpapers from as early as 1881, documenting the importance & history of cricket in the eastern suburbs goldfields region of Victoria, and am hoping you can reconsider re-adding this page. I particularly want to highight how cricket was formed & developed in Victoria some 158 years ago, and have many stories to share. Mystery92no (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the AfD was 5 years ago, a weak delete at that. I see no reason to not restore this to allow addition of new sources, which no one appeared to advocate for in the linked deletion discussion. If it remains unimproved, I anticipate no prejudice against re-deleting it through a fresh AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Though not really phrased in those terms, the discussion seems to have tended towards delete based on the lack of sources in the article. If they can be supplied, there is every reason to recreate and expand the article. Newspaper accounts are excellent for that purpose as long as they are not just listing of match schedules or results but rather actual discussions of the team and it's players. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation. For future reference, you didn't need to come here, but if you feel tentative and want to come here, I recomment that you prepare a userspace draft in advance. What new articles have you found? I recommend undeleting the history for referecne. Userfy to User:Mystery92no/Warrandyte Cricket Club. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation - "The Warrandyte Cricket Club is one of the oldest cricket clubs in Victoria, dating back to 1855."[51] While the Internet may not provide easy access to reliable source information on the topic,[52][53] seems likely some have written about his 150+ year old club in the last 150 years. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with SmokeyJoe that a DRV isn't really needed here and recreation should be allowed if the proper sources are there for GNG. The article was deleted in AFD over five years ago and the AFD didn't have really much of a policy based argument anywhere. The only argument in that debate was I think the third oldest club might not be notable enough but I really don't know, delete anyways. It may have been a acceptable argument back then, but it's not now. This should be speedy closed with a talk page comment to the nominator that it's ok for an article, but to take GNG to account while creating it. Secret ^account 05:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't a request for a deletion review of the AFD as it was done correctly. Editors have stated that in order to make way for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afranet the issue must be brought here. I am making this request on behalf of User:ChazzI73 and will inform him of this discussion so he can take part. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Here is my argument about Afranet. Sorry if it is a bit lengthy. For whatever reason, the article I crated is available at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Afranet and the history I can see under page Afranet has different content. Anyhow, here is my reasoning:

Population of Iran is about 75 millions. Tthe second language there is English, so it is crucial to have information about reputable Iranian companies both in Farsi and English.

Iran has the highest rate of education in Middle East. It has large and successful immigrant community in English speaking countries including US, UK & Canada. More than half of the population there is below 30, Internet Usage in Iran and number of Internet users in Iran are the highest among Middle Eastern countries, which make it important to have information about important Iranian companies online.

Except Afranet, at present there is no other ISP/ICP in Tehran’s Stock Exchange and they are the only private IT company in Iran that has ever gone IPO. Afranet's market share in Iran’s Internet is almost 10%. (3 millions out of 30 million users ref - http://www.internetworldstats.com/me/ir.htm , http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Communications_in_Iran & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHQyXXx3GfY )

Largest University of Iran (Islamic Azad University) is hosted in Afranet’s Data Center which is another measure of credibility (check it at http://notification.azmoon.org/). This is one of the honorary national projects in Iran completely hosted by Afranet with 2.5 million daily visitors and two millions registered students.

Afranet Data Center has almost 3,000 physical machines that put it among the largest in Middle East. If you want to compare it, the three leading Data Centers in the United States are Google, Amazon and Microsoft. Afranet has the similar role in Iran.

Afranet categorized as a “Medium” sized registry by Ripe (https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/ir.afranet.html ). It accounts for about 1% of IPv4 addresses in Iran (ref http://www-public.int-evry.fr/~maigron/RIR_Stats/RIPE_Allocations/IPv4/Alpha/IR.html) and

No other Data Center in Middle East except Afranet holds an Information Security Management System certificate (ISMS or Iso 27001 ref http://www.gilanifoundation.com/homepage/128/Asia%20128/Iran%20128.pdf , http://www.iso27001certificates.com/Taxonomy/ScopeResults.asp & http://www.afranet.com/Stocks/MarketingInfo/Afranet-Catalogue.pdf )

Afranet's website has Google Page Rank of “5” which means it has good amount of authority in the eyes of Google. This authority mainly comes from the history, links by third parties to the website and visitors and could count a measure of credibility (check the Page Rank at http://www.prchecker.info/check_page_rank.php). Besides, there are about 1 million indexed pages in Google by searching “Afranet” or “افرانت” and its CEO, “Fereidoun Ghasemzadeh” or “فریدون قاسم زاده” in both English and Farsi on aggregate. Only in Google and not considering other search engines or search sources, there are over 100,000 searches annually for aforementioned terms (according to Google Adwords tool available at https://adwords.google.com/o/Targeting/Explorer?__c=1000000000&__u=1000000000&ideaRequestType=KEYWORD_IDEAS ).

Afranet Competitors such as Parsonline (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Parsonline ), Sepanta (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Sepanta) & Shatel (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Shatel ) with sometimes smaller market share are listed and accepted in Wikipedia. Afranet is a much more credible company from some aspects.

The company's Public Offering was late last year (2011). Now there are a lot of inquiries about investing in this company, analysis of its stock or more information on it. Their market cap is 27 billion Rials (ref – Tehran Stock Exchange site @ http://en.tsetmc.com/loader.aspx?ParTree=121C1412&inscode=52792903131341205 and balance sheet at http://www.fipiran.com/CompanyBalanceSheet.aspx?lan=en&FinancialInstrumentId=4415&CompanyId=756 ) (was about 17 million USD as of 2011 – ref www.turquoisepartners.com/iraninvestment/IIM-Aug11.pdf and http://www.reportlinker-news.com/n018990830/Market-Overview.html ).

Afranet has been mentioned numerous times in English and Farsi news including the following:

United Nations report on Iran: http://un.org.ir/sites/default/files/docs_pub/3970/doc_attachments/post_report.pdf

MacMaster Times: http://www.afranet.com/En/App_Themes/images/About/Press/MACMASTER.jpg

Business Week: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=51800721

Tehran Times Newspaper (report on ISO 9001): http://www.afranet.com/En/App_Themes/images/About/Press/tehrantimes-iso-ceremony.jpg

Tehran Times (Announcement of IPO): http://old.tehrantimes.com/PDF/11206/11206-4.pdf

Global Survey of Broadband Service Providers in the world: http://www.arcchart.com/reports/dl/BWAOperators_promo_ARCCHART.pdf

Iran News (News Paper): http://www.afranet.com/App_Themes/images/About/Press/press22-origin.jpg

Collection of 60 newspaper Articles about Afranet: http://afranet.com/App_Themes/images/About/Press/Afranet-in-Media.pdf

The company is pretty active in social activities and accordingly, has many searches for that, which makes it essential to be available in Wikipedia too. (look at http://afranet.com/En/Social/Responsibility.aspx ) The company provides free internet to schools in deprived areas, Free equipment to Schoolnet, Financial and logistical support for rural kindergartens (in cooperation with Unicef), Financial Support Program for orphans (in cooperation with the I.K. Relief Foundation) and much more of social activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChazzI73 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really buying the argument for a separate article at this stage, I'm afraid. When I checked a random sampling of the references provided, I couldn't seem to find the kind of sources appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Is anyone aware of a credible secondary source? I'm open to being convinced but sceptical of the long list of passing mentions, or references to Afranet itself, listed above.

  However, I also think it's inappropriate for this to be a redlink when it could be a redirect to Communications in Iran#Internet, so I'd suggest we discuss the possibility of redirecting. We should probably consider protecting the redirect, since it was necessary to salt the article title.—S Marshall T/C 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the time you spend. I want to bring your attention to this list of independent references about Afranet, which has some names as big as "United Nations":

United Nations report on Iran: http://un.org.ir/sites/default/files/docs_pub/3970/doc_attachments/post_report.pdf

Business Week: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=51800721

Tehran Times (Announcement of IPO): http://old.tehrantimes.com/PDF/11206/11206-4.pdf

MacMaster Times: http://www.afranet.com/En/App_Themes/images/About/Press/MACMASTER.jpg

Tehran Times Newspaper (report on ISO 9001): http://www.afranet.com/En/App_Themes/images/About/Press/tehrantimes-iso-ceremony.jpg

Global Survey of Broadband Service Providers in the world: http://www.arcchart.com/reports/dl/BWAOperators_promo_ARCCHART.pdf

Iran News (News Paper): http://www.afranet.com/App_Themes/images/About/Press/press22-origin.jpg

Iran Investment Magazine: www.turquoisepartners.com/iraninvestment/IIM-Aug11.pdf

Collection of 60 newspaper Articles about Afranet: http://afranet.com/App_Themes/images/About/Press/Afranet-in-Media.pdf

Tehran Stock Exchange: http://en.tsetmc.com/loader.aspx?ParTree=121C1412&inscode=52792903131341205

Financial Information Process of Iran: http://www.fipiran.com/CompanyBalanceSheet.aspx?lan=en&FinancialInstrumentId=4415&CompanyId=756

Gilan Foundation: http://www.gilanifoundation.com/homepage/128/Asia%20128/Iran%20128.pdf

Second point that I want to emphasize is presence of competitors on Wikipedia with much less credibility including Parsonline (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Parsonline ), Sepanta (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Sepanta) & Shatel (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Shatel ). Do you think it is appropriate?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChazzI73 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While the article isn't perfect, I do personally believe that the subject has more coverage than it had in 2009 (due to the initial public offering) and should be in the article space. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples in Farsi, all in independent newspapers:

Farsi Articles about Afranet:

Economic World (Donya E Eqtesad) Newspaper:

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=262541

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=262898

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=257408

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=300670

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=266799

http://donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=274017

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=296201

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=289202

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=281562

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=263219

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=301515

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=266948

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=300126

http://donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=283956

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=278979

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=292064

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=294887

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=300280

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=297685

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=295495

http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/Default_view.asp?@=289007

and many more

Keyhan (The World) Newspaper:

http://www.kayhannews.ir/901011/4.htm

http://www.kayhannews.ir/901022/4.htm

http://www.kayhannews.ir/890416/4.htm

http://www.kayhannews.ir/870715/4.htm

Khorasan Newspaper:

http://www.khorasannews.com/newssource/17688-890810/pdf/11.pdf

http://www.khorasannews.com/newssource/17667-890715/pdf/11.pdf

Fanavaran (Technocrats) Newspaper:

http://www.itmen.ir/index.aspx?pid=10319&articleid=5314

http://www.itmen.ir/index.aspx?pid=10319&articleid=4552

http://www.itmen.ir/Files/104/Document/NewsPaper_PDF/1390/8/8/d33cb6589ca943d1b2905dd75728566d.pdf

http://www.itmen.ir/index.aspx?pid=10319&articleid=2553

http://www.itmen.ir/Files/104/Document/NewsPaper_PDF/1390/10/11/a46df0dafcf4499d961d5d599fee5c0a.pdf

http://www.itmen.ir/Files/104/Document/NewsPaper_PDF/1390/7/24/740051d35c2048358e366114cd7682db.pdf

http://www.itmen.ir/files/104/document/newspaper_pdf/1390/9/9/12cc6c3c08ea4c0d91684f2e7a2bb068.pdf

http://www.itmen.ir/Files/104/Other/NewsPaper_PDF/1390/5/29/7b30b08bac7e41008568f78f31d3ae6c.pdf

http://www.itmen.ir/Files/104/Other/NewsPaper_PDF/1390/7/11/26c5de961ace49e4b01fb603af78a14d.pdf

and many more

JameJam Newspaper:

http://www.jamejamonline.ir/Media/pdfs/1390/02/25/100843591385.pdf

http://www.jamejamonline.ir/printable.aspx?newsnum=100843584378

http://www.jamejamonline.ir/printable.aspx?newsnum=100004187710

http://jamejamonline.ir/Media/pdfs/1390/02/25/100843591456.pdf

http://www.jamejamonline.ir/Media/pdfs/1389/04/20/100880136525.pdf

http://jamejamonline.ir/archnewstext.aspx?year=1387&month=9&day=21&newsnum=100956682421

http://www.jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?newsnum=100947782269 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChazzI73 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are much more to add, probably like 200 more newspaper and magazine articles in Farsi. I can add the links too if you think it makes a difference ChazzI73 (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably spend some time incorporating new sources you have found into the article. About half of the sources you are currently using are primary sources and some others aren't entirely reliable. Replace anything that you can with a more reliable source from a news organization. One example of an unreliable source is the source from wikibin you use for Fereidoun Ghasemzadeh. As the CEO and founder it should be easy to find a reliable source. Also remember that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not an argument. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Speedy close as not rising to the scope of DRV. The nominator (or anyone else) should move it to mainspace and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would be the next step? I already incorporated a few of the sourced to the original article, even though they are not in English. ChazzI73 (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, what else is there to do? It cannot be moved to the mainspace because the page has been salted. It cannot be unsalted at requests for page protection because they told us to come here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that it was salted. Why was it salted and what has changed now? I'll look into that now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was salted because it was repeatedly recreated. It was deleted in AFD for a lack of reliable sources. I believe that the IPO caused enough reliable sources to exist that the article can be recreated; furthermore, it is written with an encyclopedic goal in mind. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow re-creation. This is much more than enough to justify a fresh AfD if someone disagrees. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt and allow recreation - Obviously, significant new information has come to light since the AfD deletion. If you think the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article, request an admin to undeleate it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can we do that? ChazzI73 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help here? I really don't know what is the next step! ChazzI73 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its all a waiting game here. An admin will make a decision and close the discussion at some point. I'm sorry that your experience with Wikipedia has been so difficult. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and allow recreation Afranet is mentioned in quite a number of reliable sources, and appears to have a large influence in Iran. Article meets corporate notability standard. NJ Wine (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How it could happen?ChazzI73 (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Custance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Seems eminently notable. (Page was prodded.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• • Expired prods can be restored on request, and I have done so. I have no comment on actual notability, but it can go to afd if anyone has doubts about it. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand national football team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

History was not preserved as a result of the 2007 AfD; the old article was deleted and replaced with a redirect. Request recreation of pre-2007 history for the following reasons:

1. The AfD should have been closed as no consensus rather than redirect; there were roughly the same number of keep votes as delete or redirect ones, and the keep ones had more of a basis in policy
2. Some of the arguments used in deletion five years ago wouldn't wash in an AfD today; plus consensus can change, and certainly enough time has passed to revisit it
3. Additional references to assert the team's notability have come to light since the AfD, due to the team resuming playing international fixtures since the 2007 AfD (See refs 64 and 65 in the Sealand article) pbp 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, Restore the history, but endorse the redirect. There was consensus for the redirect, and redirect is still suitable because there is room at the target to say what little there is to say about the national football team. If a section on the national football team becomes large, it may be spun out as a separate article. Undeleting the history is reasonable, assuming that there was useful content there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a football side redirects to the entity it represents is highly unusual, however, particularly since the side passes GNG (there's more than "a little"). I think if references were added, it wouldn't be redirected or deleted in an AfD now. And I want to add said references pbp 04:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The football team passing the GNG is not quite obvious. Can you make a userspace version? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather fix it in mainspace and start with the information in the old article. Userspace is just adding an extra unnecessary step pbp 15:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting as the original deletion nominator: Just restoring the history is pointless unless you want to do something with the historic content, i.e., either restoring the article or merging the content somewhere. If you want to restore the article or re-argue the AfD based on new notability standards or references, you should draft a userspace stub that includes the references that you believe are now sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  05:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below comment pbp 15:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the original AfD closure. Today there is a lot more emphasis on passing WP:GNG, and about the only argument for retention put forward was that Sealand is a member of the N.F.-Board. However there does seem to have been a bit more coverage since then ([54], for instance), so someone wants to write a userspace draft based on it it might be OK to move it into article space. The topic is already mentioned at Principality of Sealand#Sports, and it may be better to improve the coverage there instead of creating a stand-alone article. Hut 8.5 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The combo of [1], 2, 3 is enough to pass GNG IMO. And I'd like any userspace draft to start with the information that was in the old article, such as the kit (which I'd rather not recreate from here). And to be honest, I'd just rather fix it in mainspace, if that's alright with y'all. Also, while the keep argument may be flawed, so is the delete one, which amounts to "the N-F and Sealand are bogus, so this must be too". That's a total judgement call. pbp 15:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC report is ok, but the second link is a press release and I don't know how reliable sabotagetimes.com is. I'm not sure that this is enough for an article, but if this discussion agrees that it does, the article can be restored as far as I am concerned.  Sandstein  15:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't actually anything preventing you from overwriting the redirect with a new article about the team, provided it is not substantially similar to the version which was deleted at AfD. I'm not really persuaded that there should be a separate article as opposed to a paragraph or two in the article about Sealand. The deleted version only cited a few team websites that have since gone dead and this stats site (which sort of confirms they once played a match, though they don't seem sure). Though the page did have the kit displayed it didn't cite any sources to show that really was the Sealand kit and the reformed team may well have a different kit, so you shouldn't just copy the kit from the old article unless you've found something to verify that it really is the Sealand kit. Hut 8.5 15:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sabotage article contains a photo that matches the kit pbp 16:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't actually match the kit in the article, since the photo has a white stripe that wasn't in the article version, and a picture of them wearing the kit can't act as a source for the statement that this is the team's official kit, or that this is their home kit. Hut 8.5 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have a userspace draft up now at User:Purplebackpack89/Sealand, which contains five references and also five interwiki links. With your blessing, I will move it into mainspace pbp 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well [55] is a forum post and definitely unreliable, and I'm not sure about [56]. Again a picture of the team wearing some kit isn't a source for the claim that this is their official kit. Apart from that I think it could be moved into mainspace, though it may be subject to a new AfD or merge discussion. Hut 8.5 15:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You should add more content to Sealand_national_football_team#Sports and N.F.-Board. I don't see this team as sufficiently notable. However, that is properly a discussion for AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure N-F Board is the place for information about individual federations pbp 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think N.F.-Board#Members needs a little expansion for every time on the list. The other two associate members are red linked. Why? Does this suggest that associate membership of the N-F Board is not much in the way of notability? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously an other stuff doesn't exist argument; but associate is higher than provisional, and six provisional members have bluelinks. Several N-F Board members were deleted around the same time Sealand was (five years ago), but no effort has been made to ascertain if they've met GNG since then. Sealand and a number of other N-F Board members do have articles on other Wikipedias pbp 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since two of the three other editors have expressed sentiment for giving mainspace a go and seeing what happens, I'm going to...give mainspace a go pbp 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I support letting you do this (normally you shouldn't while the DRV is ongoing, and I thought it was a protected redirect??), and allowing any editor to take it to AfD. As the single AfD was so long ago, you shouldn't need to come to DRV to recreate. I still think that the old history should be undeleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

• Endorse AfD - Closer determined consensus correctly. Also significant new information has not come to light since the deletion. No reason for a new AfD since the notability issues of the first AfD have not been overcome. The editors bypassed DRV process to post the article to main space and no effort has been made to get the information accepted into the redirect target article Sealand_national_football_team#Sports. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant new information has not come to light since the deletion." That's completely inaccurate. Most of the references in the article occurred years after the AfD you mention occurred. Since two editors have suggested mainspacing, I've leaving it in mainspace, and if you think it should be deleted, take it to AfD pbp 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Endorse" arguments are invalid, topic should either be relisted at AfD or kept Why? a) This is a completely different article than five years ago; the references used in it hadn't even been written yet; b) consensus can change. Five years is a long time to be reinforcing a consensus that was weak to begin with pbp 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD the redirect seems to have been the best overall solution here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This list article was brought to AFD on May 2 by Axem Titanium over concerns that it violated WP:GAMEGUIDE, may have violated WP:COPYVIO, and had no references to support its notability. Independent sources were added during the course of the discussion, which rendered WP:NOTE a non-issue, and shifted the discussion to the two other concerns. Sandstein, who closed the discussion, noted that "There is clearly no consensus" about the GAMEGUIDE argument. As these two concerns were not motivating factors in the close, this DRV is not an attempt to address either one.

OrenBochman (BO) replied first with a Keep, contending that the nominator's argument for copyvio was "unconvincing" and giving an explanation; the nominator did not contest those points. I responded next with another Keep, noting my agreement with this copyvio argument, and as Polisher of Cobwebs and Robbstrd both also indicated Keep per me, I will assume that they therefore also agreed with OrenBochman's arguments. Jclemens next replied with a Keep, asserting again that the list is not a copyvio. Sangrolu also replied with a Keep, and also contended that the article is not a copyvio. All of these responses are to the original nominator's argument regarding possible copyvio.

Masem added the first Delete response, and was also the first to begin any detailed discussion about why he felt this was a copyright violation, and discussed this with Sangrolu and Postdlf. Masem approached Moonriddengirl on her talk page for input, which she provided, with addition discussion on the subject. Orangemike and Shooterwalker both argued to Delete the article based on WP:GAMEGUIDE; neither one addressed the potential copyvio issue. Postdlf, however, was ultimately convinced by Moonriddengirl's argument and responded to Delete.

After her input, David Shepheard (Big Mac) and Daranios both argued to Keep based on disagreement with the nominator's other arguments for deletion, but after discussion both also noted that they did not feel the list is a copyright violation. Hobit and Webwarlock both also argued to Keep based on the list not being a copyright problem. Marikafragen also contributed to the discussion about copyright violation, and although the repsonse is inline, also argued to Keep. There is a fair amount of discussion of the issue after Moonriddengirl's initial posting, and I have only summarized the nature of the respondents here.

Sandstein's rationale for the close mentioned Moonriddengirl's "prima facie persuasive case" for copyvio argument, although he admits that "I myself am not sure that I agree with it". He also contended that because almost all of the "keep" opinions "do not address her analysis but at best only assert that the list is not a copyright violation, without giving reasons why. These arguments are not persuasive and must therefore be discounted." It is not clear from this description which Keep opinions were counted or discounted or why they were or were not persuasive. I did not respond to Moonriddengirl's analysis because I had already made my feelings on the issue of copyvio clear and did not feel the need to repeat myself; I can only wonder if anyone else did the same thing. If I had known it was necessary to counter all arguments, I would have done so.

All eleven users responding with Keep did address the copyvio issue in some form (two by deferring their responses to me) as I believe I have demonstrated, most disagreeing with the rationale or calling it into question, and several of them offered their own persective on the issue. Of the five people indicating Delete, only three offered their thoughts on the copyvio issue. Is this a consensus to delete based on copyright violation? That is the only issue that needs to be determined here; not whether you agree with one rational or another, just whether this AFD had come to the consesus that the closer posited.

It could be argued to Relist the AFD, but I am concerned that this discussion Masem started could taint the results. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article should be Overturned to at the very least a No consensus to allow it to be rexamined again in the future. BOZ (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin's comment: I closed this as a "delete" because Moonriddengirl (supported by others) made a good case that the list amounted to a copyright violation. Almost all "keep" opinions that addressed this issue simply asserted that there was no copyright violation, without bothering to explain why. Copyright is a serious and rather complicated issue; it depends not on editorial judgment (as with most AfD issues) but on legal arguments that apply the relevant specialized policy as well as U.S. statutory and case law to the content at issue. The "keep" opinions failed to do so, perhaps with the exception of Marikafragen or one or two other people. So, to summarize, among contributors who appeared to have given thought to the problems surrounding copyright in lists, there was sufficient concern about this being a copyvio that I had to delete it. Now, I suppose the copyvio discussion could well come to a different conclusion, if it were to occur in more depth, which is why I suggested in my closure that DRV could be the place for that. (Or perhaps here?)  Sandstein  17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Well within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I rethought my question above about consensus, and I feel that an even better question to ask would be "Was there a consensus that there even was a copyright violation?" BOZ (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a perceived copyright violation, no amount of consensus can overturn that. We are proactive to remove these once discovered. It's fair to argue (again, I was expecting this DRV and thus started the noted discussion) so that there may be a reason to readd it, but until we know that it is clearly not a copyvio, we have to remove it. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • not so. If there is an obvious unmistakable copyright violation, sure. But if there's only a possible copyright violation, the community decides by consensus whether it is a sufficiently clear copyvio for deletion. Calling "Copyvio!" by itself is not enough. Quite the opposite, until we decide it is a copyvio we do not remove it. If there is no consensus that it is in fact a copyvio, we do not remove it. that would be copyright paranoia. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Who else is going to decide for us? (unless it's an office action, which this was not). there is no presumption that an ambiguous case is copyvio. If the admin closed on that basis, it must be overturned as contrary to policy --and contrary to reason also. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I point to Sandstein's call above that based on the copyvio arguments (whether it was or not) that the arguments weren't convincing that it wasn't a copyvio. Ergo the reason to delete is appropriate, until such time that the copyvio issue is resolved. That's why I started that new discussion because I recognized the straw-men arguments that could result and that we're going to need better clarity. (I do note that our NFC policy is also similarly proactive in removing content that may be against fair-use though can be restored later if that was determined to be at fault). --MASEM (t) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, no. Here's the thing: the article was closed on the premise that Moonriddengirl made the case that there was a WP:COPYVIO. In fact, Moonriddengirl agreed with my assessment that the article was fair use, but qualifying that at wikipedia, we need to be more conservative that US fair use guidelines. That being the case, what decides what is "conservative enoough" other than consensus? Given that the commenter that the closing admin says demonstrated WP:COPYVIO in fact agreed that it was fair use, I don't see how the closing admin is justified in deleting without consensus. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I agreed with you that "fair use" was the only avenue we had to make use of the material. :/ I actually evaluated the fair use criteria and myself felt, as I said, that "While only a court could determine definitively, I think that this list is likely a substantial copyright problem." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As the closing admin says, a rational case was put for regarding this as a copyright infringement, whereas no rational case was put for not regarding it as such. The earliest "keep" arguments simply asserted that it is not a copyright infringement without elaboration (e.g. "Not a copyvio" from Jclemens, "The article as a whole is not a WP:COPYVIO" from Sangrolu). Later, attempts were made to go further, but they did not actually provide any reason. For example, we have "The list of Toyota cars is not copyrightable - that's factual data. Names are not copyrightable, but trademarkable" from MASEM: however, the issue is whether the list is copyright, not whether the names on the list are copyright. Then there is "I don't think the list is subject to copyright any more than a list of characters or list of actors for a show would be" from Hobit, but "I don't think the list is subject to copyright" does not give any a reason for believing it isn't. I don't know what I would have said had I been closing the discussion, but there is absolutely no basis for regarding the actual decision as being outside the range of discretion that an administrator is expected to exercise. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit's argument is a perfectly good one and should not have been discounted. Whether a list like this is copyright is a matter of judgement, and his is as good as yours. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As good as mine? I have no idea whether the list is copyright. What is at issue is not whether it is, but whether the closing admin correctly assessed consensus in the discussion. According to Wikipedia's concept of consensus, what matters is not just how many people express an opinion, but the strength of the arguments advanced. "I don't think the list is subject to copyright" without any reason advanced for holding that opinion is about as weak an argument as it is possible to come up with. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, in Hobit's defense, he asked "what makes this different from a list of characters?" (all completely fair devils advocate questions). I'm not saying that's necessary a strong argument either way, but he expressed more than just a "I like it/I hate it"-type opinion that is generally ignored. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse we can't take chances on copyvio material, and the encyclopedic value of a list of monsters appearing in one edition of one game hovers right around zero anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I rarely disagree with Moonriddengirl about copyright, but in this case I'm not seeing a consensus to delete in that discussion, and I find the argument that this is a copyvio totally unconvincing. We're merely producing a list of the work's contents in alphabetical order, and that's all. If we were reproducing game statistics then sure, this would be a copyvio, but a simple contents list? I don't believe a word of it.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In MRG's first comment, she writes, "I see no critical commentary here; it is a page by page index with explication which incorporates by explicit link many detailed descriptions of the TSR versions of legendary creatures and their original ones." She later clarifies that she is concerned by the system of articles: the list and the individual monster articles. If the articles are considered together, they are awfully similar to the Monster Manual. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is my concern, yes. The last time I checked with legal, there was no known precedent for whether or not articles should be judged in isolation in terms of "substantial similarity" or whether spreading the contents of one book over multiple articles was a factor. I note that when we received a complaint from the publishers of the DSM-IV a couple of years ago, we were called on to judge in aggregate rather than isolation, but other factors may have influenced that (including complaint from the copyright holder and the fact that many of the articles would probably have infringed copyright on their own). I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this situation if there was more critical analysis or other transformative content to support our use of the material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good points, well argued, from both of you; but I'm afraid I remain strongly of the view that this should be overturned. The argument is that if the articles are considered together then they resemble the Monster Manual to too great a degree. In fact as far as I can see the Monster Manual is an eclectic cobbling-together of (1) material to which nobody can claim copyright (giants, dragons, vampires, zombies etc.) and (2) undisguised or thinly-disguised ripoffs of material originally generated by others (notably JRR Tolkein, Fritz Leiber and RE Howard). At the time of publication the new and original aspect of the Monster Manual was the way it converted fictional creatures which were almost without exception not original to the author, into what I understand as game pieces. Wikipedia makes no mention of the game statistics so can be no violation of TSR's copyright.

        I see this as related to the much bigger question of to what extent Wikipedia can consist of abridgements of copyrighted works, and whether it's possible for Wikipedia to be anything but a series of abridgements of copyrighted works given how closely we enforce WP:V. I think that if we decide Wikipedia articles cannot be abridgements of copyrighted works, then there's a lot more urgent things to delete than this list!—S Marshall T/C 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Most of the monsters in the monster manuals are likely derivative works of tropes and the like that have long-entered the public domain or equivalent realm. That's a fair assessment. The problem is that because these are not (necessarily) slavish reproductions of the public domain work and include new creative elements, they have a brand new copyright assigned to TSR/Wizards. That it: TSR does not have a copyright on the idea of a zombie, but they do have a copyright on the D&D version of a zombie. So this is still a copyrighted work regardless of the basis. And because TSR published this list in its entirity in one place, it is defining the creative nature of the monsters and NPCs that inhabit its world, and ergo a creative collection itself. The reason other lists of characters/etc. aren't a problem is because it is very rare for the creative work to publish this directly themselves, and the compilation is a new work that is separate from the original fiction and thus not in the same boat. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not "likely" that giants and dragons and vampires and werewolves are "in the public domain or equivalent realm". It's fact: copyright in these things belongs to no-one. It's certainly true that TSR's successor company Wizards of the Coast have a copyright on the "D&D version of a zombie", but the "D&D version of a zombie" is inextricable from its in-game attributes that we do not reproduce on Wikipedia. Essentially the D&D version of a zombie is not an original work of fiction. It's a gaming piece, described in a table format and (if I understand this correctly) represented by a small lead miniature figure. Our article on D&D zombies does not and cannot possibly infringe, either as an individual article or as a part of our corpus on dungeons and dragons, because there is no way to get from the content of Zombie (Dungeons & Dragons) to a usable gaming piece, and there is no way that TSR's successor company can claim copyright in Zombies except in the specific context of their game. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • TSR has created a creative setting which those game pieces are used. You are most likely right that game rules and concepts can't be copyrighted, but the creative world around it can be. Calling the D&D Zombie a "gaming piece" is drastically understating the creative aspects used by TSR to take the public domain aspect of a zombie and make it work in their creative fiction, even without considering any of their specific gameplay elements or statistics. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me go back one step further. The reason the copyvio appears to be the case is exactly why we removed the Time 100 lists. Time doesn't own the copyright on the people on said list (obviously) but they own the creativity needed to assemble that list and place the people on it in that order. Thus, our recreation of that list, in whole, without transformation, is a copyvio. The same applies to this monster list here, it is a direct comparison. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I’ve seen this example brought up a few times, but I don’t think it’s a very accurate example in terms of similarity. If a company had published a list called “Our top 50 favorite D&D monsters”, and if someone reposted that list in its entirety on Wikipedia, then that would be more like reposting the Time 100 list. Posting the entire content list of a book of monsters would be more like posting the entire cast list of a movie instead of just the main characters, which is something IMDb does all the time. BOZ (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The problem is that the starting list, the list of monsters in 1st edition D&D, is also creatively selected. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem, you said, You are most likely right that game rules and concepts can't be copyrighted. That may be true in US law, but it's probably less useful to us than it sounds at first sight. My view is that the way the rules are presented can be copyrightable and indeed copyrighted. I'll explain this in terms of computer games because that's easier to envisage.

    In a computer game, a zombie would have certain attributes. It would have a movement rate and an attack speed and a certain number of hit points. It would have a certain probability of hitting its target, and so on. These underlying "attributes" can't be copyrighted. But in the game it would be represented by models and sound effects which certainly are copyrighted.

    Now, in TSR monster books, zombies are, I believe, detailed in a similar way, having a movement rate and hit points and an attack speed and all the rest of it. These attributes are not copyright. But they're presented in a table format which is copyrightable, and supplemented by copyrighted artwork and text.

    Thus irrespective of whether game rules are copyrightable or not, we can't produce the in-game statistics. Neither can we reproduce the text that TSR's authors used, nor a close paraphrase of it. If we did those things, then we would be in breach of copyright, no argument at all. But my point is different. It's that TSR never owned anything to do with Zombies except for specific kinds of Zombies used as playing pieces in their game. Therefore we can't possibly be breaching TSR's copyright if we don't reproduce the data needed to use the creature in their game.

    The argument that we're breaching copyright by reproducing the table of contents will not survive scrutiny and can be dismissed out of hand. The more subtle argument that originates with Moonriddengirl, i.e. that our table of contents together with our articles somehow combine to breach copyright, is more defensible but I still don't buy it, I think it's overcautious. If there's a breach of copyright then those taking the "delete" position need to point to a specific article or passage that does breach copyright. A vague wave at a whole topic area saying "that's too detailed, copyright breach!" seems like a most dangerous thing to allow.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not talking about hit points or the like. It has been a long while since I had to crack open my D&D manuals, but even my vague memory tells me that for many of these creatures (generally, the more mythological ones), there are backstories and "flavor text" that enhance the world setting. That is a creative element, even if they directly pull the monster from Greek myth, for example, and do nothing to its backstory. The combination of all that fills their world with color and flavor, and hence is one core of the creative setting TSR had made. A full list of the monsters, therefore, is outlining their creative world. So immediately one needs to recognize that this is an issue of fair use to start, period; from that, we apply all the tests and at that point, we recognize that we're using the whole list (even if absent of stats and other details), and we have no transformation of the work, both points against the list.
    • Again, I bring up the Time 100 list verses the List of Time Person of the Year. The former is a creatively-constructed list, so inclusion in full is, to WMF's eyes, a copyvio. The List of Time Persons of the Year, on the other hand, is not a creative-constructed list though a list of creatively-selected people over time. It is still factual, and thus not protected by copyright, ergo inclusion in full is not a problem. The same analogy here: The list of monsters in the specific book is a creatively-constructed list; a list of notable monsters from all of D&D is not. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I understand you here. You seem to be saying that this list of monsters breaches copyright in Dungeons & Dragons' implied setting. But that can't possibly be right because even though you use the singular, there isn't one particular fictional setting for Dungeons & Dragons. If I understand this correctly the situation is that each game master comes up with his own dungeon that's set in a fictional world of his own devising. There isn't a "creative world" associated with Dungeons & Dragons. It's a toolkit for end-users to make their own "creative worlds".—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but they provide a toolkit via the monsters that given one type of fantasy setting. This setting is far different the fantasy setting of other works like Lord of the Rings, A Game of Thrones, or Diskworld, even if there are common elements in terms of monsters shared between them. When players create their own adventures, they are creating a derivative work of the D&D world. Add to the fact that TSR has published numerous official "modules" that build on the core rulebooks to create an interactive fiction. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I was younger, I played the computer games Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment. Each was ostensibly based on published Dungeons and Dragons materials, but the settings were very different indeed. I also played Morrowind, which was set in a world based on the game author's D&D campaign. From these experiences I think the argument that all D&D worlds are essentially one world based on their monster lists is rather a stretch.—S Marshall T/C 08:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The AD&D campaign includes multiple settings, and there are many creative variants. As my billions of Planescape reference works (loved the computer game as well) attest, they are all pretty exhaustively documented. In terms of this particular situation, though, I think it's important to remember that what we are actually doing is discussing the book. :) Explicitly, by title. This is an article about a single, specific book which may have "weak" copyright protection in many elements (those incorporating public domain material) but nevertheless does have its own creative spin and its compilation protection (because, of course, even if all elements are public domain, a mural formed of them is copyrighted). I believe that there is room for a discussion of this specific book and certainly for a discussion of monsters in AD&D (specific campaign worlds or varied) - although it would be great to see some actual critical commentary - but I think if we are going to discuss the book, it is essential that we bring something new to the table rather than a distillation of its contents. And I believe the more of their creative content we use, the more we need to balance that with something new. I don't think that a descriptive list of the contents of this book is the best way to go about this. A comprehensive article about monsters in AD&D could avoid the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, what? You say: the book.  :) Explicitly, by title. This is an article about a single, specific book and this tells me we're talking at complete cross-purposes. What I am talking about is a list that gives a sort of table of contents from six separate creative works, called List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. I agree that a comprehensive article about monsters in the game would be desirable but I do not understand how this precludes a list. I'm also of the view that reproducing the table of contents is fair use.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're still reproducing without transformation, hence making the conflict with fair use even worse since you now have 6 books you're borrowing from. Remember, we are stricter than fair use law to avoid potential conflicts and to assure that our text is CC-BY. Again, the problem here is that while the table of contents could be considered factually, it is still based on the same creatively-selected lists that appear in the books, and thus is still a creatively-selective list itself. Without transformation, that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right; it's not a single work, but a collection of several from one edition. We are summarizing not one but several books (sorry; late night, early morning.) Reproducing a table of contents is generally perfectly fine, as tables of contents usually just lists titles and titles are not copyrightable ([57]). (This is why we can get away with tracklists in album articles.) This isn't a table of contents, though, and doesn't stop at listing the monsters. I myself think that a simple list would be okay, but - again - I personally am concerned about the web of details and images interlinked (I do not believe legal precedent has been established there yet, as I've said). I don't think we would create a list without the links to the various monster articles, and I think the best way to support such a list would be to add critical commentary and other transformative material to support the fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • A small amount of critical commentary for several monsters, taken from reviews on the books themselves, had been added to the article during the AFD - that was a start, at least. BOZ (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's good. And I don't actually argue with the existence of the article (although I think the list format is risky). I just think it needs to be very carefully balanced to support the fair use factor. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Though I would argue the critical commentary has to be about the list itself. If it's about the individual monsters without considering the whole of the rest of the list in terms of defining the game world, that's better support for trimmed version of "notable monsters from D&D" and the separate article on the monster itself. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • As this list was never published by the publisher in the form of a list, I think that finding critical commentary on such a list would be impossible. At least, I've never heard of anyone doing a book review on the book's table of contents. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let me ask a question. If this had been a single aggregate list of monsters appearing throughout the first edition books, instead of a segmented breakdown of the contents of each book individually, would there still have been a copyright concern? BOZ (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Possibly, yes, more likely depending on how much critical commentary/transformative nature there is of the lists. A counter example (that I specifically asked about at NFC) is the List of Pokémon (1–51) and its numerous index (up to 650 now?). To borrow from what Jheald stated there: In the case of the Pokemons, TV characters and TV episodes, I would say: no, because in those cases the lists are derived from the original fictions, rather than being the essential nature of the original fictions themselves. Presenting such a list is therefore transformative in a way the AD&D list is not. It is also only a comparatively small taking from those original creations; and not likely to impact at all on their original market roles. The J.K. Rowling case is perhaps useful: it was ruled that it was acceptable in general to produce an Encylopedia of Harry Potter; but what was not acceptable was to substantially reproduce what essentially was itself an annotated fictional listing, viz the content of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, nor to closely reproduce actual prose from the original novels. That was the material that had to be heavily re-written before the book was re-issued. Applying the argument to the full list of 1st Ed D&D monsters, the more we can add to the list to transform it, if possible, the better we get away from the copyvio. (At this point, then there becomes the GAMEGUIDE issue which, if this is relisted, is going to be focused on). --MASEM (t) 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fair enough, if you can agree that it may have been possible to fix, then it should not have been deleted based on the copyright concern. BOZ (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The Time 100 was a possible list to fix, but we were asked to delete it. We are proactive on copyright. I don't argue that there's a potential version of this list - maybe not in the same form - that would minimize the copyright issue, but we can't let sit the known problematic list until that one comes around. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you all for your input. With your help I've finally arrived at the kind of position I can sum up with a word in bold for the closer's benefit.  :)

  Overturn and relist because the closer said he took Moonriddengirl's arguments as a prima facie reason to delete the list. It's emerged from the discussion above that Moonriddengirl's position is that the list is fixable. Therefore, while Sandstein's close is very understandable in the context of the discussion, it's also clearly mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Relist - It doesn't seem to me that many people in the discussion agreed with Moonriddengirl's analysis that the article was a copyright violation. It also doesn't seem clear to me that Moonriddengirl's analysis presents a reason to delete the article entirely as opposed to possibly trimming the content to remove excessive detail. At lot of the discussion was focused on WP:GAMEGUIDE, and I think further specifically on the copyright questions would be useful. I don't think there was a consensus to delete the article on copyright concerns, so I would favor a relist of the article with a comment making it clear that the relist is to come to a consensus on whether the article should or should not be deleted on copyright grounds. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but allow userfication and re-creation of a substantialy restructured page. I agree with the comments of Moonriddengirl, specifically that the page is a derivative work, with insufficient transformation of the primary source material taken directly from the copyrighted guides. Derivative works of fictional materials, if not a copyright infringement, is also really bad article writing. There has to be some transformation, using sources that discuss the monstors from a perspective outside of the game. A lot of care is required, and in the end it may be impossible, because transformation without enough sources falls foul of WP:NOR#WP:SYNTH. The best advice on how to proceed is found at WP:WAF, which the deleted article didn't follow at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Something completely different In a case where a Wikipedia page has a problem that's FIXABLE, deletion is probably not the best option, especially when everything else in Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters and its WP:SS components has the exact same problem. Rather, what's probably needed is a detailed rewrite of ALL of these pages, to remedy the copyright objections. Which, for the record, I disagree with Moonriddengirl's analysis, especially of clause 3, the amount of "copying" permissible under fair use. BUT, seeing as how a reasonable challenge has been identified, let's fix it. This decision eviscerates our coverage of D&D monsters, and really can't be allowed to the final word on the matter. Some of the "endorse"rs above may have lost sight of the fact that we're an encyclopedia, and need to cover things--if our current presentation is problematic, we need to fix it, not amputate large swaths of good content. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list wasn't fixable even with serious trimming - even if it was turned into a bare list of just the monsters as listed, it hit the copyvio problem. As I've said, the option of a list of notable D&D monsters in connection with their articles that include transformative use is appropriate, but not a straight-up list from the books. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it was fixable... but not necessarily via trimming, but by adding commentary as you describe below. BUT, I disagree that even without that it's a copyvio, since it omits not only the game stats (as MRG noted), but the descriptions as well. Furthermore, there's no clear decision--just an argument--that the amount reproduced constitutes copyright infringement. Per this, I would argue that by omitting the pictorial and literary material (pictures and notes), what is left mostly constitutes uncopyrightable game rules and ideas. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What commentary could be added on the list to make it transformative? I agree some monsters themselves may have notable aspects to make the inclusion of their creative aspects appropriate in WP, but the full list of monsters from one rulebook? And there is still the fact that I mention above that the collection of the monsters and the like - even if just names - creates the backdrop and setting of the D&D world for them. What if TSR used ponies and bunnies and birds instead of zombies, ghouls, and dragons? You claim their game pieces, but clearly there's creativity in winding down what available creatures (mythological or real-world or otherwise) to create their setting. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per BOZ. Basically it's a flawed close as just claiming copyright isn't enough, there needs to be an accepted case that there is a copyright problem. If instead any reasonable (but almost certainly wrong and generally rejected argument) is enough, there is easily a similar claim for Dr. Who or any other major series. And I assume that's where we'd be going (as the arguments are a LOT stronger there). Are we really talking about walking that route? Dr. Who has way way way more detailed and complete information about plot, characters etc. and certainly is more likely to interfere with commercial opportunities (the plot summaries allow people to catch up without paying to watch while this list doesn't have any of the material one would expect to want to know, nor (AFAIK) it the product still on the market. It would make me sad to walk that way, but I'm not seeing how we could do anything else and be consistent with this decision. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that this specific list is a copyvio is two-fold. One is the lack of transformative information: there's nothing to discuss the significance of this list to the reader beyond "it came from the 1st edition book". Most of our other lists (lists of characters, episodes, etc.) are used in conjunction with development and reception to transform that information into something new. But the second factor is best explained by Jheald's response to the same devil's advocate questions I poised at WT:NFC. Specifically, this list is fundamentally and wholly part of the original creative work (it's straight out of the book without omission). In the case of episode lists or character lists, these are generally built up by multiple parts of the fiction (numerous episodes, etc.) and thus the list itself as made for WP is not a fundamental part of the creative work, even if the elements of the list are copyrighted. If the monster list was an assembly of all editions of D&D and only those that were notable (read: transformative information about said monsters on their respective pages) it wouldn't be a problem. But the whole recreation of the list of monsters from a single book without comment is copyvio. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I see nothing wrong with this close. AfDs are decided on strength of argument not vote counting or similar hence I think it's more than reasonable to weight Moonriddengirl's opinion heavily - she's one of (if not the) acknowledged text copyright person here and is also the person to discuss the issue with the WMF attorney. If everyone else was arguing that the article wasn't a copyvio then I might agree that the close was bad but there was support for her views. There is consensus that we err very much on the side of caution when it comes to copyvios and so deletion is reasonable even if there is less of a consensus than would normally be necessary for a delete. Dpmuk (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ever hear about WP:OWN ? all editors are equal, and are judged in each discussion on the basis of what they say there. If we're going by reputation instead, I consider MRG to have a reputation for excessively strict interpretation of WP:Copyright, and the difficulty in counteracting her established Ownership is why I rarely work in that area. In a doubtful case, I would not see any reason to follow her, though I would certainly listen to what she said. Suppose I had closed, and given that as my argument--I hope it would have been reversed here. Copyright does not have privileged status for deletion, unless it's undoubted copyvio--in which case I've deleted a few thousand articles: I strongly agree with basic copyright policy. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WMF asked us to remove the Time 100 lists, despite the fact that if you or I did it on our personal websites, no one would blink. Just like with NFC, we take a stronger , proactive stance on copyright per the WMF direction. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have heard of WP:OWN (by weird coincidence I've already referenced once today on something completely different). I don't see this as an ownership issue at all but rather accepting that someone has shown, thorough their on-wiki actions, what is generally considered a good understanding of the subject. I have not said we should follow her view regardless rather that we acknowledge expertise and take that into account. I take your point about "what they say there" but if we applied that strictly across the board are you also arguing we shouldn't label comments from people with "few or no other contributions outside this subject" which we regularly see at AfD. If you're arguing that we should only take into account what a person says in a discussion then surely these should go to.
        I also disagree that copyright does not have privileged status. It's one of the few areas that could get us into real legal trouble and I think it would be incredibly dumb of us not to err on the side of caution in all areas that could cause us legal troubles, be it WP:BLP, copyright problems or something else.
        As a slight aside I actually disagree with Moonriddengirl's assessment that this is a copyvio and think it's probably not. I do however think that it could be a copyvio so think erring on the side of caution and deleting makes sense. This is, of course, a moot point for a DRV as I should have mentioned it at the AfD not here.
        As a final aside I don't think Moonriddengirl acts like she owns copyright - I've always found her open to discussion when we disagree. However there are very few editors that work copyright problems so she does inevitably end up dealing with a lot of it and I can see how this appears as ownership. Only having a few editors dealing with the area is obviously a bad thing as it hardly allows consensus. So instead of just moaning about it why don't you try helping out and if you still think there are problems try to improve things? Dpmuk (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:DGG, this is the second time that you've more or less pointed WP:OWN at me in a forum recently, but you've yet to talk to me about it directly. :/ I was pretty shocked the first time; I don't ever recall having rebuffed conversation with you...certainly I never would have intended to. I've never attempted or even wanted to own copyright work on Wikipedia; I just do my best to fill a need. Honestly, it's a bit of a headache. :) I ask for second opinions and assistance all the time and have repeatedly advertised for more people to work in the area. That said, I want to be clear here that my opinion in this AFD was only ever offered as my opinion...complete with "I think" and "I don't believe" and "my concern." If I thought it was a clear-cut, blatant copyright problem, I would have blanked the content with {{copyvio}}. I do that at AFD when I see clear need. My interpretation here is conservative, based on feedback I'd received in compiling Wikipedia:Copyright in lists and on the policies at WP:C and WP:NFC, which strongly encourage us not to push boundaries with copyright. I might have come down on the other side of the question in this article with my own opinion if there were just a more transformative material here. I don't think this is unsalvageable. And I could be wrong in either direction - as I said at the AFD, only a court can determine definitively. And given the number of appeals we see, only a high court, at that. If these matters were easy, there wouldn't be so many lawyers working on them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • all careful debaters use such apparently tentative wording as a rhetorical device, to the extent that it can be difficult to tell when someone is truly unsure. And if I am going to challenge someone's opinion on something I'll do it where the matter arises, not on their talk p.; I'm not challenging them. . I try to not use individual's names in AfD discussions except when needed for clarity, but here I was challenging the use of your name by someone else. Anyway, I do not mean to challenge it as your opinion only, for I think we should delete as copyvio only that which is very probably copyvio. Otherwise, calling something copyvio is a license to remove anything. Saying something is legally too risky is the prerogative of the WMF office. I only challenge someone's views if it's something I would come across in my usual course: if I participated more at Copyright problems I would be too often coming into conflict, especially as I would usually be in a minority. I try not to be too persistent about it, but I will state my view once in a while nonetheless, if only to show there is an alternative position. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do feel that a wider discussion of the copyright issues raised here is warranted. However I also feel that we should err on the side of caution and keep this deleted until that discussion has taken place and a consensus has been reached. I would have no problem with this article being restored (without another DRV) if the consensus at any copyright discussion was that articles like this are not a concern. Dpmuk (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. By following all the conversation here the best thing would have been to delete the "Description" column. Once that is gone then it becomes a list of monsters with publication notes. Still useful. Honestly this is why we should be editing articles and not deleting them. Web Warlock (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the core problem is that the list of monsters - irregardless what other aspects were added on - is what the copyvio is, not the descriptions or anything else. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's what you are claiming is a copyvio, not what is a violation. You really need to adjust your language to acknowledge that (unless your a certain in which case I'd really like to know how you can make such a claim). It is per S Marshall, very very unlikely a court would ever find the material to be a copyright volition. Further, given the utter lack of a "potential market" in this context, the non-profit nature of the use, the fact that this doesn't have any of "new" part added by TSR (substantiality of the original) it would easily be fair use. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, it is being supposed as a copyright violation which can only be determine via court of law. But again, given that the WMF has asked us to proactivity consider things like full-scale inclusion of the Time 100 lists as "copyvios" (a term of art used on WP to indicate potentially infringing material) and that are to be removed, then we have to follow the WMF, which like with NFC, can set a stronger standard for inclusion than U.S. Fair Use law. And my argument is that this case is directly comparable to the Time 100, so the same standard and approach need apply. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:Copyright violations (usually shortened to "copyvio", violations of WP:Copyrights policy) is not the same as copyright infringement. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. I think it would be impossible for TSR's successors to claim copyright infringement because (1) they've released the names and in-game statistics of almost all these creatures under their Open Game License and (2) under that licence they're widely-reproduced on gaming-related websites such as this one, giving rise to an excellent defence. This whole debate needs to be focused on the question of whether the article complies with Wikipedia policy. Which is a good job, considering we're trying to decide without legal advice.  ;)—S Marshall T/C 13:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • We do have legal advice, pertaining specifically to the Time 100 lists, which WMF counsel had said would be problematic in terms of copyright. We're apply the same logic that was discussed then to here. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, we have legal advice pertaining specifically to something different. It's pertinent that the Time 100 lists weren't released under an open licence by their copyright holder...—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither were the 1st edition TSR books, regardless of what the license on D&D property is today - it is a fundamentally different piece of work. So it is exactly the same scenario. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, no, with all due respect, it clearly isn't a fundamentally different piece of work. If I'd invented Monopoly and then released Park Lane under an Open Game Licence in 2000, but then I stood up in a Court of Law and tried to tell the judge that my version of Park Lane in Monopoly from 1977 was still under copyright because it was a different edition of the game, then the judge would peer at me over his glasses and ask if I was trying to be funny. If Wizards of the Coast were going to claim that their 2000 edition of the game was a "fundamentally different piece of work" then they shouldn't have called it Dungeons and Dragons. Thus, with all due respect, it clearly isn't exactly the same scenario as a Time 100 list.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Except that it is. There's a reason that people clarify what versions of games they are running by the D&D version because there are fundamental differences between each. They aren't just reprintings of previous work, it is a new work. Now, Wizards or TSR *could* retroactively re-release the older works in an freer license, but there's no evidence of that, so those works are under normal US copyright laws. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a reasonable interpretation of consensus when you look at the policy based arguments. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Moonriddengirl's copyvio argument looks reasonable to me and it was not addressed during the discussion. Many keep !voters simply stated that the list was not a copyvio, but that's not an argument. There were comments along the lines of "it's hard to claim copyright om lists", but that view is overly simplistic. It is hard to claim copyright on lists which contain purely factual information and no creativity is involved in creating the list (which covers the vast majority of the lists on Wikipedia that can be found in an external source), but this list was fundamentally different in that it was a duplication of a central part of a creative work. Copyright is not an area where taking risks is a good idea. Hut 8.5 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as original nominator and per Moonriddengirl's comments. I noticed the copyright concern, which is why I nominated the list, but I'm not terribly familiar with the specifics of copyright. Moonriddengirl put it best, that this list is not transformative. I am not opposed to Masem's suggestion of a "List of notable D&D monsters" of some sort but creating that would not require the overturning of this decision. Jheald also had some eloquent things to say about the topic at WT:NFC, which is relevant to this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete. There was no consensus on the specific issue of copyright violation as it was addressed by multiple experienced editors who !voted Keep and even the closer said that he didn't agree with the copyvio argument. The claim that the list significantly impacts the commercial sale of that edition is ridiculous because that edition is now out of print and has been made obsolete by multiple later editions. This level of copyright paranoia is dangerous to the project and should not be accepted without a stronger consensus than we saw here. For example, consider the current FA: Limbo (video game). This contains considerable detail of the play of a game which was intended to "keep you guessing". This includes the ending of the game and that's a complete spoiler which eliminated all desire on my part to purchase and play the game, which had initially seemed intriguing. Shall we delete that article too? Warden (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference, as has been pointed out, is the amount of transformative use we have done with the list or the game. In the case of the game (since I was the primary editor on that) we're describing the game in the presence of critical commentary, discussion, and other aspects of it. As such, discussing the plot (and spoilers) or gameplay elements even at the depth and length relative to the game easily fall within fair use within an encyclopedia. In this list, all that was presented was the list of monsters with some more primary information, but no critical discussion of the monster list or the like. At that point, since the list is creative to start with, we are doing no transform on it and thus makes it a likely copyvio - one that we have WMF's advice to act on. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you asserting that Moonriddengirl is posting in her capacity as a WMF employee and making a specific pronouncement? If so, that's different, but I do not see that. I see a particular, risk-adverse interpretation coming from one person who doesn't claim to be the foundation's counsel or giving legal advice on the matter. I'm certainly not posting as an ArbCom member--just as another editor in good standing with an interest in the problem an a familiarity with the principles involved. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the advice from WMF counsel came during the discussion of the Time 100 list. Because this is nearly the similar case (a wholly-inclusive list created with creative elements, with little to no transformative work), we can apply the same WMF advice to this. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's not a nearly identical case. This is more like the table of contents of a book, rather than an ordered list of elements where the list order is part of the creative element. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Strip the ordering, it would still be a creatively selected list and still not included in whole on WP without transformation. So it is the same case. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Strip the ordering from the Time 100 list, and WMF counsel would never have encouraged us to remove it in the first place, because the ordering of importance is a key element of that article's copyright issue. Please stop trying to pretend they're sufficiently the same that a precedent applies. It doesn't, multiple people have explained why, and your protestations are starting to enter WP:IDHT territory. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, I just checked [58] There is no ordering on the Time list. So, yes, it still is the same. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The list is bulleted instead of numbered, but it has no obvious order. I skimmed the blurbs for Jeremy Lin (first) and Stephen Colbert (last) and found no indication that either was #1. The three-member "Rogues" section is not presented relative to the other 97. Moonriddengirl rejects merely alphabetizing the list at WP:Articles for deletion/2012 Time 100. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use is quite debatable when you reach the level of an FA because it is the nature of an FA to be comprehensive - to tell you everything worth knowing about a topic. For another example, take today's FA, Fanny Imlay. The subject is obscure and so the FA explains that there is only one biography of her. The FA is necessarily compelled to loot this extensively and so it might be argued that this is now a derivative work which, by its deliberately comprehensive nature, has a significant commercial impact upon the principal source. So, an FA goes beyond fair use by trying to do it all and so, while a fair use review would hold back on spoilers because of their commercial and ethical effect, the FA deliberately spoils the work by revealing the ending. The beef against this list seems to have been that it was comprehensive in a similar way. That argument seems comparatively flawed because the list was a summary which did not include the key information required when playing the game - the game statistics. The information was not originally presented as a list and so the formatting as a list does not seem significant; unlike the tables of wandering monsters, say, in which the list-like structure and ordering is significant. Anyway, the main point here is that the copyvio argument was quite fanciful and was applied in a draconian way which is not applied to other articles. And when the closer himself said that he didn't accept the copyvio argument, I really can't see any logical basis for the close. Warden (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spoilers and endings have absolutely nothing to do with fair use; its the amount of the work, not where from the work the fair use was taken. The FA you point certainly does not do this (there's two books repeated cited, each with 250+ pages going by citations, so no way is this an extensive republication of the work in whole, plus there is obvious transformative use). It doesn't matter that this list lacked statistics or anything else: the list was a creative element generated by the game designers to flesh out their world, and as such is a list generated from creative elements and thus does have copyright protection (as opposed to databases of factual information). That means that it wholesale inclusion in WP must be strongly backed by transformative use, otherwise, to the WMF, it reflects a potential copyvio they don't want on their servers. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also a definite difference between citing a biography for facts and citing a creative work in this case. For Fanny Imlay, it is a fact that she was born in Le Havre on 14 May 1794 and named after Fanny Blood, her mother's closest friend. These are facts which use the biography as a WP:RS to verify those facts. Biographies of course always have historical interpretation (creative) but the Wkipedia article, as a NPOV entity, necessarily avoids those sections. This is analogous to the example from Wikipedia:Copyright in lists where "estimates which are based on a repeatable calculation, such as trend analysis or interpolation" are acceptable, but "ordered rankings based on judgement, such as the top 50 most influential Muslims" are not. The former is based on facts; the latter is based on creative selection. Citing a Fanny Imlay biography supports facts; data mining a D&D book for monster names infringes on the creativity of the author. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's nothing creative about saying that the beholder, say, was an original monster in D&D - that's just a plain fact. Nor is it at all creative to provide a list of such monsters. And what's absurd is that we will continue to do both these things in the beholder article and navigational structures such as category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures. This AFD seems to have been quite arbitrary and, as there was no consensus for the deletion, the content should be restored. Warden (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is factual that a beholder is a creature used in D&D. It is creative to assemble a grouping real and mythological creatures from several genres to create a fictional setting; again, as I've posed, if they used ponies and bunnies and butterflies as their creature set, it is an entirely different setting, and even moreso when you contrast the D&D setting to other fantasy settings that use a comparable set of creatures. Again, look to the Time 100: it is not a random list of 100 people or a factually selected list of 100 people, it is a creative list that critically praises specific people, and as such the grouping of that people is creative. Same thing here.
          • Now, as has been pointed out, if this was a partial list of D&D monsters, those with their own pages and perhaps throughout the entire 4 editions, then there's something of transformative use in play (this also justifies the category). That is, this list now serves as a navigational aid to specific monster articles that discuss the creatures in- and out of game context (well, arguably, there's a few creature articles that would fail PLOT, but let's work that that's not the issue here for right now). Or, alternatively, I can see critical discussion of the D&D game system that discusses their choices for monster inclusion not necessarily focusing on a single one but calling out highlights of specific systems. I don't see that happening specifically for the 1st edition D&D books, making the ability to transform the list difficult to imagine. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: The discussion here has pointed to ways of fixing problems with the list. As already stated by others, I think the comparison with the Times 100 list is not fitting, because the Time 100 list itself, the placement of the individuals relative to each other and to the rest of the world, is the important content, while the information about these individuals can be gotten by other sources, too. In the monster list, we basically have tables of contents, with no more internal information than the tivial "this monster appeared in that book". The descriptions on the other hand, can be gotten exactly from the book and sometimes nowhere else. Representing tables of contents is fine, however, as was stated by Moonriddengirl. So would we solve the copyright problem by restricting ourselves to tables of contents, i.e. removing the descriptions? My idea would then be to organize the list alphabetically, (keeping the "Variants" column and) changing the "Other appearances" to "Appearances". This kind of sorting and indexing would be, in my opinion, at least a minimum of transformative nature. If something like that should be the solution, we would then need to decide if we had other problems like conflict with gameguide policy. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case I also feel there has been enough debate on the issue here to assume that the article can be fixed and a deletion was the wrong choice. As far as descriptions go, most of these creatures do not differ very much from there mythological antecedents. Web Warlock (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the closer correctly discounted the keeps relying on unsupported assertions. Sangrolu gave Moonriddengirl's argument due consideration, and Hobit attempted to engage on the merits, but their arguments boil down to invalid WP:Other stuff exists comparisons to plot summaries and lists of characters. I think that it will be possible to restore the list in some form, but the broad implementation – e.g., removing all non-notable (no separate article) monsters, removing the description column, combining the lists across editions – should be determined before undeletion. On the other hand, this AfD, if upheld, shouldn't be taken as precedent for open season on similar list articles. I'm not sure how fixing the list will work, as copyvio is disallowed from all namespaces, including hidden in the page history. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no particular reason why "I don't agree with your logic" is any less policy based than a speculative set of legal arguments by a non-lawyer. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you point out specific comments (diffs would be helpful) that you found compelling? Sangrolu's second-to-last comment compares the list to plot summaries. One of Hobit's later comments makes comparisons to "directory-like information" and character lists. These are rebutted by 1) the format of the original works like Monster Manual that lack an overarching narrative and 2) the creative selection of the members. In addition, both view the list in isolation without considering the linked articles on individual monsters. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My "second-to-last" statement that you seem to be tarring with "Other stuff exists" is based on the notion of being "more conservative than fair use". Just how conservative is this? The standard being presented here is such that we could not have plot summaries or character lists were we to apply it to novel. Hence it's a non-functional standard and we should not be operating by it. As for actual WP:COPYVIO, this notion that a list of creatures somehow represents the "creative heart" or is something that I am not aware of in any settled copyright case law. If anyone is aware of any cases that show this principle in use, I would invite you to share it with me. As it stands, this seems like jumping at copyright boogeymen to me. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are taking this action not based on any established copyright case law, but on the request of the WMF based on a near-similar situation that they have stated is, to their eyes, a copyright violation. As long as they are the ones paying for the server space and the like, we need to play by their rules even if it sees like paranoia; eg WP:NFCC is purposely stronger than US Fair Law law for this reason, to protect themselves from crossing the fair use line in the first place. If we never had any input from WMF on this, I would agree it would be a case of copyright paranoia, but in this situation it is not that. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, you've said many times that you find that situation "similar" or "near-similar". One hopes the closer will see the difference between an assertion that's been accepted, and one that's merely been repeated.—S Marshall T/C 14:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that I have sufficiently explained the difference between this list and a character list. Wikipedia has ample guidance for plot summaries: WP:NOTPLOT (policy), WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries (guideline), and WP:Plot-only description of fictional works (essay). A summary is roughly the same form as a novel, text organized as prose. Considering that each two-page monster description is condensed into half a sentence (ignoring the separate articles), I think a fair comparison would be a plot summary with one paragraph per chapter. Any plot summary affected by this precedent would be excessively long and already covered by the existing guidance. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. While I don't fully agree that this leads to a copyright breach, I agree that your position is a very arguable objection to the list as currently written. But isn't it the essence of the "keep" argument that the problems are fixable? A list with this title would not need the half-sentence description.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that the copyvio issue makes this a special case. If the list is restored, we can't leave it unchanged indefinitely – WP:There is no deadline doesn't apply – and another AfD is inevitable if the list is not fixed. Regarding the specific change of removing the descriptions, the obvious next step seems to be removing non-notable monsters entirely, as their names aren't very useful to a reader who doesn't know what they are. I think that severe cutting is necessary, and thus I expect that the discussion will be drawn out. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's a tempting point of view. I must say that I wouldn't want the allegation that this is a copyvio to lead to the list's deletion pending a consensus, though. That seems quite back to front in view of Wikipedia's normal position that material is kept until there's a consensus to delete.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have to grant you that point. Comparing to WP:Biographies of living persons, "no consensus, default to delete" for WP:BLP1E low-profile individuals has not gained consensus. We differ because I see a rough consensus to delete at the AfD and have been assuming deletion as the initial state. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn per S Marshall. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (changed !vote per statements below including closing admin). Relist for complete discussion of the copyright issue. If noone appears to have discussed or considered MRG's arguments, we cannot pretend it was accepted by the pedia. A "cast list" or "character list" is usually not subject to copyright, so further discussion would appear in order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, Sangrolu and Hobit discussed Moonriddengirl's comments, and other keeps came after her original comment. BOZ wrote in his DRV nomination that he chose not to respond. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The close said there was a prima facie case made on Copyright. 2)Prima facie means "on its face." Thus there was no in depth discussion of the issue. The closer also did not agree with the prima facie case and suggested there be more in depth discussion on the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The copyright arguments are severely undermined by the presence of the SRD (System Reference Document), listing the vast majority of these monsters as Open Game Licensed properties. The only monsters reserved as "Product Identity" under the legal document at that page are "beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti." I'm not even sure all of those are reflected in AD&D 1st edition, but even if they are, this list represents a small fraction of the total content of the list. No pro-copyright argument yet has taken this legal use permission into account, and thus all should be disregarded if they haven't specifically addressed this permission grant by the copyright holder. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably I'm not sure if the SRD is 100% compatibly with GFDL/SS-BY (it would seem to favor compatibility, but there seems to be some uses more restrictive than ours, but not sure on those). That said: this applies to the d20 systems of D&D (as indicated by the header) which to the best I can tell is v3.5 and after (I know my time with earlier D&D was 3d6 stat roles). So no, the SRD does not retroactively apply the contents of the books in the 1st edition. And to that end, while the monsters in the 3.5 and 4th editions may be under an open license, their counterparts, or the listing of their counterparts in the earlier editions still falls under standard US copyright laws which do not give the same permissions for reuse. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SRD and the OGL cover D&D 3.0 and 3.5. D&D 4.0/Essentials is covered by the GSL. The exact same list of monsters (minus Beholder and Mind Flayer) are considered to be 100% open and have been reprinted by such products as the Castles & Crusades Monsters & Treasures book, the Pathfinder Bestiary fro Paizo and the Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games/Frog God Games. There are more, but these are the big three. None of these companies is TSR/WoTC. Web Warlock (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But again, we're talking the 1st edition, which as best as I can read, the SRD does not cover - though the current copyright holder, Wizards?, is completely free to transform that license if they wanted to - they just seemingly haven't. Arguably we could include the list of 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 monsters as long as we credit the SRD (as I read it), and the issue becomes a GAMEGUIDE problem, but for this list that's not the case. And to be clear as an example, were I to make up my personal top list of public domain books or other works, that list is still copyright to me regardless if the entries on the list can't be copyrighted. So the argument that "all these monsters are SRD-free" still doesn't clear the list of the copyright problem. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Masem: this is a reasonable argument for list(s) covering the compatibly-licensed editions, but I see no reason to assume that the free licenses cover 1st edition. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel that what we should be discussing is the list's compliance or otherwise with Wikipedia's policy on copyright. I do think that in the real world WOTC would not have a claim against Wikipedia for publishing this list, and not just because of what JClemens says—but Wikipedia's copyright policy sets the bar rather higher. It seems to me that if we're over the bar for Wikipedia's policy then we'll very likely be safe in a real-world copyright action, and if we're not over the bar for Wikipedia's policy then it was right to delete the list in the first place. Therefore I think the Open Game Licence is a red herring; it's not CC-BY-SA or GFDL so it doesn't help us keep the list.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the later editions have the same characters then the first edition, than they either fall under the license or they fall outside of copyright altogether, because a non-copyright holder cannot license and a copyright holder that later licensed the same characters has licensed the characters. But even were this list copyrightable, which character lists generally are not, it would still be subject to the educational or transformational purposes of fair use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you've misunderstood, or I can't parse your grammar. Each edition has its own copyright status. And the material that was licensed (not released from copyright) was the mechanical aspects of the creatures, not their creative descriptions. And some of the most iconic creatures were not released under the OGL. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The above discussion says descriptions were omitted, so it would not matter if the description was copyrighted, since it's not included. Also, as any writing is copyrightable, than the normal process is to put the information in words that are subject to wikipedia's license, that is the words of its users with citation for the information to the copyrighted text of another, where the information was found. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That... has nothing to do with the point I was making. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As according to the close, this was deleted solely on the arguments on copyright, and as this discussion has gone into detail of copyright issues, and it is pushing the scope of a DRV discussion, I think maybe we should undelete and run an RFC on the copyright issues on the article talk page. The discussion may lead to a demonstration of a solution. The discussion also may well be precedent-forming for many similar pages. I don't think there is any suggestion that the alleged copyright problem is immediately egregious, but if any stakeholder, such as the copyright owner, feels there is a real problem, I'm sure they will be listened to in such a talk page RFC. I am quite sure that the page didn't qualify for WP:CSD#G12. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I replied to S Marshall above, I expect the discussion to be long, too long to leave a copyvio problem lying around, especially if it sputters out without a solution. A RfC is a good idea, but I think it should go in WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons space. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but we need an editable page, WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, is fine, because it is through editing that a solution, if possible, can be demonstrated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Due to the length of the list and its table formatting, I think that discussion would be a more manageable start and vastly preferable to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. A short prototype would work also. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly. I was not advocating BRD. The sheer length of the article highlights much of the problem. The difficulty of editing a table, yes, that's another big problem. However, I think a decent prose lede section, discussing the contents of the table, is an early step in improving on the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comment we keep throwing around the Time Top 100 lest, but that is not applicable here either. The creative value of such a list is how the elements in the list are ordered. This is a list of monsters in alphabetical order. This is closer in terms to a table of contents than a top 10 list. I think there is has been enough discussion here to show that there is no consensus. In that case the default position should be to Keep. I still feel the original AfD took two unrelated issues and closed despite there being no consensus there either. Web Warlock (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds right. The individual entries on the Time 100 list were not copyrightable (absent unique expression in words of those things, and that could be answered by expressing them differently, in any event), what is protected is thier ranking of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Time 100 list was not ordered (I thought I was even, but I double checked [59]). It was just a collection of 100 names, and yet that was still a problem from the WMF counsel to include on WP in full, because, as noted, they creatively selected those names. Even if we re-ordered the Time 100 in alpha order, we'd still be duplicating it in full. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say "ordered" I said ranked. They ranked them above other things and that was unique enough, in full (although not in summary) for the WMF, probably because that ranking above other things (in full) is why one would be interested in buying the magazine (or clicking on thier website). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that we still have multiple articles for the Times lists including Time 100 and Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century. This demonstrates that, whatever one makes of the copyright issue, deletion is not the established precedent. All that seems to happen in such cases, if anything, is some summarisation. To do this in this case, instead of listing the creatures from Greek mythology, we might just give some examples such as minotaur and medusa and refer to the list of Greek mythological creatures for the rest. Warden (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a very misleading comment. Time 100 describes the yearly articles and repeat appearances and, as far as I can tell, has never had copyvio issues by including a full list. Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century survived WP:Articles for deletion/Lists of Time 100 (November 2007, two other articles were deleted) only after the full list was removed. The related/duplicate article List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century was deleted in February 2006 for copyright problems. All of the existing year lists are blanked pending processing at WP:Copyright problems, which will probably delete them. Deferring to another list is a good idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I voted to relist above, and I don't really think this is the right place to discuss the copyright status of the article (other than discussing what was already brought up in the AFD). However, since it seems a lot of new discussion on the copyright issue is taking place here, I thought I should express my opinion now. I disagree with Masem's opinion that directions from the WMF related to the Time 100 list are applicable to this list. For the Time 100 list, the main point of the list is just which people are selected for it. If we duplicate the whole list, then there is no real reason for anyone to buy Time's version of it when they can just read ours. For the D&D monster manuals, however, the main point is as a tool for playing Dungeons and Dragons. Since our list did not include all the stats and rules for each monster, it can't be used as a substitute for the actual product that TSR/Wizards of the Coast sells. If you want to play 1st edition D&D, you still need to buy their product. I think that is a major difference between the two cases, and means that we can't assume instructions related to the Time 100 list apply in this case. That doesn't necessarily mean that the D&D list doesn't have copyright problems, but just that, in my opinion, the situation isn't very comparable to the Time 100 list. Also, I want to echo S Marshall's comment that just because Masem has repeated his opinion many times doesn't mean that it is accepted by everyone else. Calathan (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn own closure to no consensus, and work on a usable policy about copyright in lists. Thanks, all, for the insightful comments. As I outlined, I closed the AfD as "delete" because a good prima facie case was made, and not satisfactorily addressed in the AfD, that this list is a copyright violation. As the DRV discussion has shown, there are good arguments for either opinion, and we have no clear consensus about the circumstances under which we deem a list of elements from a work of fiction to be insufficiently transformative and therefore a copyright-violating derivative work. Personally, knowing too little about the applicable law, I have not been able to form a clear opinion about that. But it appears likely to me that there is no clear-cut answer under U.S. copyright law as it currently stands. Under these circumstances, I believe that we should work on developing a policy about these issues, perhaps based on the essay Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, but guided by advice from Foundation counsel whose responsibility (and not ours) it is to decide what level of legal risk the project should take. Until we have agreed on such a policy, I believe that, when in doubt as here, we should err on the side of our interest as a project to supply encyclopedic information to our readers, and delete lists as copyright violations only when they are clearly non-transformative derivations of a creative work and impair that work's commercial prospects, as in the case of the TIME 100 list, but probably not in this case (if only because the 1st edition of the game is long off the market and the list is no substitute for the published materials for the purpose of playing the game.) If restored, the list could be edited to remove its most derivative aspects, as several people have argued above, but a broader application of this to other similar lists should wait until we have agreed on a policy.  Sandstein  06:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the tone of this discussion is moving toward some kind of "List of notable D&D monsters". As far as I can tell, that is not something that requires undeletion since it would be primarily prose, rather than a table of monster names, descriptions, and page numbers. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Sandstein immediately above and also DGG and S Marshall. In my opinion, as a non-lawyer, the list is not copyright infringement: without including the game statistics, it doesn't replace the original work in any way and is best seen as a (limited or incipient) commentary on which monsters were chosen. The argument that this is comparable to the TIME 100 list is reasonable, but not decisive in the absence of consensus. There are important differences, as well as similarities, between the two lists. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind: the decide to remove the content of the lists from the Time 100 articles was not driven by consensus but by WMF counsel. If they tell us to do something, even if it is stricter than fair use allows (which is a reasonable argument) we need to follow it, irregardless of consensus. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then this should be overturned until such time as the WMF says this article should be treated otherwise. This was deleted based on a premise of a faulty understanding of what is, isn't or may not be copyright violation. Web Warlock (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the WMF really wants to delete this specific type of list, and not just ones vaguely similar to it, then I’d really rather hear that from them, instead of this continued grasping at straws. Meanwhile, if Sandstein is fine with overturning to work on the article, then I don’t see why there should be an impediment towards doing so. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, the WMF has the authority to decide what content they will host, regardless of my personal appraisal of its copyright status, or even a considered consensus. My point was that there were no substantial free standing copyright issues and that the similarities to the TIME 100 list are not sufficient to mandate deletion based on what was done there. If the WMF Counsel thinks that there are issues they should say so, or issue guidance that more clearly covers this type of list. Until then there is no overriding reason to delete and "No Consensus" defaults to "Keep" as normal. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist the AFD debate had poor arguments on both sides, the closer kept to account that many of the keep voters had no policy based agreements, like meeting WP:LIST without giving much of a reason on why it does. But the main reason why the article was deleted was because of a copyright concern which was proven to be a flawed argument that wasn't really discussed policy based as well. Clearly a no consensus close here, but because of all these flawed arguments from both sides in the original AFD, a second AFD is needed to decide a consensus. Secret ^account 07:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Closing administrator did not abuse discretion. Neutrality^talk 14:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you address the closing administrators !vote to overturn his own close? I think that if you are deferring to the admin's discretion in the AfD, you should address why you don't think you should defer to that same discretion in the DRV. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. This was within reasonable administrative discretion for a complex closure. While I agree that we should work on a more specific policy on copyright as it applies to such lists, the policy now says explicitly that we must be conservative when claiming Fair Use. (To the comments above - It is not necessary for WMF to restate that position on every infringing page - WMF has already said it via the policy page - be more restrictive even than what is strictly allowable under US Copyright law.)
  The arguments that the page exceeded Fair Use were cogent and well-researched. The arguments asserting Fair Use were less persuasive (with several, including some stated here, being demonstrably false and/or demonstrating a lack of understanding of what Fair Use really is). The conservative approach is to leave the list deleted until we have greater certainty that such lists are legally defensible. Yes, that runs counter to the normal Wikipedia position of "default to keep", but when dealing with serious legal implications like this, I am inclined to agree with the policy position of 'be conservative'. Rossami (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the basis for your claim of serious legal implications. How long did the article exist? In the time that it existed did anyone with authority in the matter (its holder or licensee) raise any concern whatsoever? A copyright holder/licensee acts to protect its copyright, when they do not act it is a strong implication that there is no basis to act upon (or they are fine with the treatment). Also, what is the basis for the claim that the article was not conservative in its treatment of the matter, or that it could not be made conservative enough?Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment was that the concept of copyright has serious legal implications to the project and therefore that the usual Wikipedia rule of "default to keep" is overruled by the policy instruction to "be conservative". The question of whether copyright applies to this matter is a question of judgement. And if this were tried in court, the questions you are asking would certainly apply. The policy instruction, however, is to be more strict with ourselves than the legal limit in order to ensure that we do not get there.
      To your specific points, you are correct that only the copyright holder has standing to bring a copyright claim to court - by definition, that means the copyright holder must act to protect his/her copyright. However, there is no adverse possession rule in copyright - you do not lose your copyrights merely through the lack of enforcement. Your statement that "when they do not act it is a strong implication ..." is untrue. The copyright holder's lack of action is proof of nothing. Rossami (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comment just elided between legal proof and implication in logic. Logically, if a copyright holder/licensee does not act to protect its rights then the logical implication is there is nothing to act upon because they are the party most concerned in the matter. At any rate, as to the legal issue adverse possession does not exist in copyright, and while there is abandonment of copyright, I was not refering to that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. You are applying the legal standard that requires the copyright holder to act. Our standard is (and should be) stronger. Our standard starts from the legal position that, while the copyright holder may act to protect its rights, those rights are not lost because the holder has not acted yet. They may choose to assert their rights at any time (up to the absurdly long limits of copyright - but that's another rant) and we, the alleged infringer, can be held liable for all that infringement back in time even to before their complaint. The logical inference then is that we should take actions stronger than are absolutely required in order to avoid the expense, bad publicity and reputation loss that a legal action would entail.
          That is not to say that we must be risk-averse to the point of paralysis or to betraying our core mission as an open-source encyclopedia. But this page (in my opinion) did not add sufficient encyclopedic value to the project to justify the infringement risk. Rossami (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm? I didn't apply a legal standard, so, I don't know why you insist I did. At any rate, as risk aversion is a matter of judgment, I agree that judgment should be excersized, and that involves critical evaluation, of unmade claims of copyright infringement. One should also, probably demonstrate a better understanding of the legal process regarding risk: a claim of infringement is usually perfected by a letter to "cease and desist" from the infringing conduct, not a lawsuit. On another matter, since the assertion has been made, above, that this is central information to this little area of the world of all human knowledge, you should probably address that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • A C&D is not a required element of copyright law, however (Tell that to the various RIAA defendants); it is a scare tactic to avoid the cost of lawsuit.
              It is also not central information. It does make up, in whole, the creative world of D&D 1st ed, but it is not central to it. Knowing that D&D has, in summary, monsters like dragons and other mythological creatures borrowing from several cultures, as well as its own unique creatures and those based on real world, is. That's it, not a full listing of them. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Required element? I don't recall anyone saying cease and desist is a required element. But in assessing risk, it is the overwhelmingly probable risk because that's what people who have rights to protect do. It's also cheap and easy. If anyone with authority had any interest in sending an e-mail to ORTS, that's the kind of thing to expect, as far as risk is concerned. And the fact that it has not occured raises the probability that it is both unlikely and remote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point that's been said before is that the WMF put more value on heading off possible copyvio/excessive fair use at the pass before it actually gets to the point where even a C&D is possible (though to wit I believe they still get one or two now and then by overzealous copyright enforcers, something that you can't avoid). They obviously put high value on outright copyvios (word for word without attribution) but the other cases where the actual copyvio is questionable and possible not a violation at all, but they want to avoid those aspects. The whole non-free image resolution is designed to set a higher bar for inclusion than fair use allows. Similarly, removing the Time 100 lists in whole is being proactive even though I doubt Time's publisher would care. Similarly, I doubt TSR/Wizards would care about this list (they would seem completely cool with it to start), but it is the principle of purposely being on a more restrictive side with respect to copyright handling that needs to be upheld; this is part of the overall mission to be a free content work. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • US Copyright law does not require proactive enforcement; only trademarks require proactive action. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion despite withdrawal of it by closer, on two grounds. Firstly is that when it comes to copyright questions, we generally err on the side of "better safe than sorry." If WMF counsel would be willing to provide some guidance on this subject (list copyrightability in general, we don't need to bug WMF staff about individual articles), I think it would be very helpful, but we should leave the material deleted in the meantime, or restored to a non-indexed area if salvageable. However, the other issue here is that the GAMEGUIDE issue seems to have been decided based on nose count, no one really refuted that one either, and no one could have. This thing could be used as an example for the GAMEGUIDE page, as exactly what it's intended to prohibit. Even if copyright turned out not to be a problem, or to be fixable, I don't see how that's fixable. The "keep" arguments seem to be fans assessing from that perspective. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]