Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 16-31

< December 1-15 2006 Deletion review archives January 1-15 2007 >

31 December 2006

[edit]
Angry Nintendo Nerd – Speedily closed, no new information – 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft – Deletion endorsed, article currently userfied – 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I made the article after Ace Combat X Super Aircraft was deleted to improve the article to make sure it met the requirements that were given then it was speed deleted with no reason as to what was wrong with it so I remade it and posted on the talk page asking what was wrong with it but it was speed deleted again without telling me what was wrong with it so I could fix it.Sam ov the blue sand 17:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion Pointed the AfD to point to the AfD mentioned by the deletion log. Anyways, primary sources ("play the game") cannot be used to argue for an article's existence (WP:OR) and there's no third-party reliable sources. It's also written in a way that nonplayers cannot understand what's going on, violating WP:FICT. Find third-party reliable sources that talk about this subject in detail, keeping in mind that fan websites, blogs and forums are not reliable sources. ColourBurst 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second Eletrosphere is a good source it has more info than us I always take away the fanfiction from it though but its not that much. Please point out any fanfiction (Fancruft also) you see there. I guess I could find a source to replace the Ace Combat place I'll get working on that. And how am I supposed to fix the article when I cannot edit it to make so that nonplayers can also read it.Sam ov the blue sand 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "Eletrosphere" thing you're talking about? You never mentioned this in the original AfD. Unfortunately, quantity of information doesn't always imply quality of information, or even reliability of information. ColourBurst 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acually I made this article without first obtaining the aircraft in the game so at first most of the info came from there then I added my own info. Eletrosphere has both quanity and quality only some of the info is fan based and I always delete that info.Sam ov the blue sand 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Reliable sources are needed, and you do not have them. Having lots of info does not imply reliability. -Amarkov blahedits 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are articles on in-universe information which is mostly derived from primary sources (the game itself). Sections like this are split out when they get too long for the parent article, such as List of Final Fantasy X characters. For example, the featured article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, includes plot and character summaries which given your incorrect application of RS means they should be deleted. RS isn't the be all and end all, primary sources are valid. Now, if the entire subject (the game) lacked reliable secondary sources, then it probably isn't notable, of which this is not the case. - hahnchen 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there are absolutely no sources outside of the game which give the plot of MGS3, or the characters in FFX? -Amarkov blahedits 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, game guides are definitely going to have information on them and fan sites. But generally, reviews and critical commentary are not going to cover the characters and plot. You're certainly not going to find a plot synopsis of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask on LexisNexus. It's not just computer games for which this is the case, but with other articles using primary sourced information, such as the plot synopsis in Dog Day Afternoon. I'm not saying that the outcome of the AFD was incorrect (yet), just that your reasoning seems flawed. - hahnchen 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fansites, if big enough, I consider acceptable sources, although not enough to ever get FA quality. I could be mistaken, but I don't think any good fansites gave this information, either. -Amarkov blahedits 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For a series as long running as Ace Combat, there's bound to be fansites and walkthroughs published in the gaming press. But that's not even that relevant as the primary source for the article (the game itself) is perfectly adequate and can be verified in game. As in the example articles mentioned above, why should fan sites be cited for plot synopses when we can use its primary source, ie the film/game itself. - hahnchen 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well, there are several schools of thought on this. One would prefer plot summaries and character summaries not from the primary source material itself, but I realize it's hard to get this kind of thing without violating copyrights (of whomever writes the plot summary). I looked at Spira (Final Fantasy X), and the only WP:RS there is the Ultimania guide (my guess is that this is enough to satisfy WP:V). The other school of thought is that until somebody writes critical commentary on the subject of the planes in Ace Combat (this isn't impossible; people write essays on the impact of games and plots all the time, though how many end up in academic journals (or even in RPGamer and such sites) is unclear, due to the anti-modernist bias of most literature departments.), that aspect of the game is not verifiable. It might also be pertinent to take a mergist attitude and cut down and merge the planes into the Ace Combat article itself (and by this I mean one line per plane). However, I cannot accept The Electrosphere (the fansite that sam was talking about) as an RS because there is material that is known to be unreliable there. ColourBurst 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per ColourBurst and Amarkov. Fails WP:RS
I understand that and I will find one if not two but when I find them how will I edit the article when I can't edit the article?Sam ov the blue sand 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask an administrator (try asking at User talk:Proto as Proto deleted it) to userfy you a copy, that is create a copy of the deleted article at User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. You can edit it there to add the sources and come back here when you're ready. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, you stated when the article was deleted for the third time that you have a copy saved (plus you have been able to recreate it already on multiple occasions). Proto::► 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually after the first time I had to find all the info again and rewrite it then I made the copy onto a disk as I do with all other articles I care about (better to be safe than sorry), so yes I have the info. But can someone create a link to where I can write another until its ready to come here. Sad I can't find any links all of them are complete crap like "This aircraft is believed to be able to fly in outerspace". I f somone could stumple upon one that would be great.Sam ov the blue sand 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you even voting I don't think people care until I'm done with User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft so why vote on an old thing?Sam ov the blue sand 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of famous men who wear briefs – Speedy endorse – 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of famous men who wear briefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

There are sources that clearly prove this is a notable list. The closing admin let his own judgment get in the way when he closed it. He was acting in a very very biased manner. This article should be undeleted so it can be expanded upon. It is not "listcruft, as you call it. KeyLigger 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Khalil Kalfat – Article userfied at User:Meno25/Khalil Kalfat – 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Khalil Kalfat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Sources found to establish notability [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. cab 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize what they say? ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read arabic, but the autotranslator did pick out his name in sources 1-3, 5. The French source #4, in taking about another writer says that Khalil Kalfat strongly influenced writers in the 1960's. I don't know if it is the same person or not. --Bejnar 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my reading is
"d’autres écrivains et critiques, comme Khalil Kalfat qui a contribué largement à jeter la lumière sur la génération d’écrivains des années 1960."
"other writers and critics, like Khalil Kalfat who has largely contributed to shed light on the generation of writers of the 1960's"
I don't think that's sufficient to overturn the AfD decision. Not sure how to proceed with this one. Userfy if someone with Arbaic language skills asks for it? ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, pending someone who reads Arabic to translate. -Amarkov blahedits 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First find someone to work on it that reads Arabic, then userfy for them. Until that person steps forward, endorse closure. I note that the DRV requester here has babel boxes, not including Arabic. GRBerry 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I raised the DRV to assist the original creator who is new to Wikipedia. I'll wait for him to respond, as my Arabic is minimal and he's already insulted my skills in the language once. BTW, I believe that's his picture on source #2. (Matches what's on arwiki: ar:خليل كلفت). "cab 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Undelete. I am a native speaker of Arabic. I have read the Arabic sources (but not the French as my French is not very good) and confirm that the subject of the article is notable. Google gives 17 300 results for his name in Arabic All of the given Arabic sources are about the same person. The link to the Arabic Wikipedia is also correct. Also, I would like to add that these sources are not trivial. The article is within the scope of the newly formed WikiProject Egypt. In addition, I am ready to translate any text from Arabic to English or vice versa.--Meno25 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any administrator can copy the article and paste it at User:CaliforniaAliBaba/Khalil Kalfat for example until the article is well translated and sourced then it is moved to the Main name space. After all, as you know, the best result of an afd is a rescued article.--Meno25 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

30 December 2006

[edit]
Team Final Boss – Overturned, changed to no consensus – 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Team Final Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

As I expected, my Merge/Redirect close was vociferously contested by the editors who voted strong keep. Looking over the provided sources I still think they're either 1. unreliable, 2. interested, or 3. discuss the team only in context of the league. But I agree this might be controversial so I like to hear community opinions on this. I'll keep the article restored for the run of this DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse whatever-the-thing-you-did-is-called. Reliable sources must provide the information. Reliable sources which only document existence and purpose are not enough. -Amarkov blahedits 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - How this was ever closed as anything other than a no consensus is beyond me. Sourcing concerns were addressed on the talk page, as well as in the AFD itself. I can't believe that we have to jump through policy hoops on DRV just to overturn a closure of "redirect" whereas cleanup would encourage the improvement of the article. - hahnchen 00:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Because 90% of cleanup-tagged articles don't get cleaned up, and unilaterally reverting a closure decision isn't tantamount to improving an article. There is ample space in the MLG article to develop a viable section on the team and then to spin it out once the team has established notablility by itself. The idea that my decision would keep you from improving the article is nonsense. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe if the closure had actually reflected the thoughts expressed in the AFD. You talk about the perils of unilateral action, whereas you've taken a no consensus vote and slapped your own unique action upon it, which seems to be a enforced redirect. How this will encourage improvement over cleanup tags is beyond me. Enforced redirection over article evolution doesn't exactly seem to all too wiki friendly. The AFD is full of sources which are "better than urbandictionary" and the talk page hints at more. I didn't bother replying to DJiTH's point about "interested media" coverage and WP:V#SELF because I was already sure that the article would be heading towards a keep. A TV show on USA Network does not fall into the category of "self published". Merging all the teams of a league together, was not suggested by any who voted. Like the very similar AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Str8 Rippin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Carbon (2nd Nomination), this should have been closed as a no consensus keep, allowing editors to continue working on them. - hahnchen 04:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you take a look at the show, you will find that it is in a large part hosted by one of the owners of the MLG company. Of course, it will be impossible for us to find out who paid who, e.g. whether USA Network bought the rights from MLG, or, the to me more likely option, that MLG paid USA Network for some publicity. After all, even for competitive video gaming standards, the MLG is a very young enterprise, which targets a small niche. I don't consider it very likely that a tv network would buy the rights for that rather than a more serious and mature competition. This, combined with the fact that most of the cited sources in the article refer to the MLG's own website leads to the remark of using self-published sources. -- DJiTH 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "vote "? What ever gave you the idea that AfD is a vote? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "allowing editors to continue working on them" — Get this out of your head that you're not allowed to work on the topic. You're just not allowed to unilaterally revert an AfD closure. You're even allowed to draft up a sourced version in userspace if you feel like it. About the other closes, no two topics are alike, so no two closures are alike. Btw, if US Network has a financial stake in the broadcast, it's not an independent source. ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete The AfD clearly should be keep or no consensus. The more important factor is the fact that I have added multiple independent sources. Although USA Network and MLG may not be independent they are certainly reliable in this case. Both of these entities are however independent of Final Boss which is the subject in question. Valoem talk 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, the article wasn't deleted. Also, if money changes hands between them they're hardly independent. ~ trialsanderrors 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure MLG and USA network are separate entities. USA Network will have paid MLG for the rights, USA Network think that MLG matches are worth showing. This isn't self publishing as described in WP:V#SELF as a user mentioned in the AFD. - hahnchen 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:N: "The "independence" qualification excludes (...) others with a vested interest or bias." WP:NPOV: "Commercial bias, including (...) the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media." CBS praising Katie Couric is not an independent source, even though the two are separate entities. The Washington Post writing about CBS' hiring of Couric is an independent source. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not about praise and bias, it's about whether it's a suitable source for player information and competition information. Just as information on professional wrestlers can be sourced from the WWE Raw program, information on these gaming clans can be sourced from the show too. - hahnchen 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This can be handled well enough within the parent article, given the lack of WP:RS. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you enlighten me on what the "lack of reliable sources" are? I think that everything in the article can be sourced from reliable sources, from roster changes to competition results, via sources covering e-sports such as Gotfrag and others mentioned the the various AFDs. - hahnchen 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GotFrag news articles alongside the television show should satisfy the sourcing needs of the article, I believe that the RS guidelines can be adequately met. I don't think however, that the AFD debate favoured a redirect. No one had suggested a merge or a redirect in the AFD, nor in the similar ones mentioned above. I think that the administrator closing the AFD should have acted upon the consensus formed, and that certainly shouldn't have been an enforced redirect. I seriously doubt that WP:CSDUA is ever going to be implemented (something which this would pass anyway), and yet, that is what is effectively being enforced in this case. - hahnchen 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because GotFrag reports from every major e-sports tournament, is considered a respectable source by the competitors (hence the numerous interviews) and has the internet streaming rights for CPL (leading PC e-sports league) matches. This of course, can be used in addition to the show which USA Network airs. - hahnchen 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotfrag meets WP:RS because it is well known (Alexa rank of 7,373[6] and independent. This in addition to what Hahnchen has mentioned above. Brendan Alcorn 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:RS specifies "well known" (and in your case only in the context of Alexa) as a criterion for being reliable (just the fact that a lot of people look at it doesn't mean it's reliable). Some fansites have a better rank than gotfrag, but they wouldn't be considered reliable. What matters is the editorial oversight and fact-checking used. From their staff page it looks like they have copy editors, but not an editor-in-chief or other position that would help fact-check the articles. ColourBurst 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete (or whatever the appropriate word is at this point). In reviewing the debate, I find that there was sufficient argument in favor and that at a minimum a no consensus result should have obtained. I agree that the article was poorly sourced, but not that it required immediate deletion. I don't know if additional evidence is permitted in a deletion review, but, in a quick Gale-Thompson search I found one brief article "News Brief: Major League Gaming's contract with Final Boss" Promo (Online Exclusive) (June 29, 2006) From Business and Company ASAP, that is independent and has established reliability. Disclaimer: I did not participate in the original debate, I don't care for sports or electronic gaming, and no one asked me to make my comments here (I just happened upon it when looking for something else). --Bejnar 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new article: Major League Gaming has been signing a lot of groups recently, in multi-million dollar deals. This argument will continue to be made everytime the group reaches a certain fan treshold. I propose that a "Notable MLG Groups" page be created with sections for the different groups. If this is not possible, then separate pages should be made and kept for each group. Paul D. Meehan 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: per Valoem. Brendan Alcorn 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Brendan Alcorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn per Bejnar- WP:RS met. Team has been the focus of numerous articles and has gained enough recognition to be considered notable. Brendan Alcorn 08:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirect without deleting history is effectively a keep or no consensus close followed by an editorial decision to redirect. That editorial decision is subject to the usual editorial process; disagreement about it should be at the article's talk page or the talk page of the redirect target - just don't edit war about it. This doesn't really need deletion review, as no deletion occurred or is requested. GRBerry 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Potential sockpuppeteering issues, see WP:ANI#Possible sockpuppet attempting to disrupt AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There's no way this should have been closed as anything less than a no consensus. There wasn't a single person who argued for a merge or redirect, and the keep !voters asserted the notability of the team. -- Kicking222 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PGNx Media – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Procedural reset, article temporarily deleted and protected per original AfD
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PGNx Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Advocate's initial statement

WEB:Notability #3 Infomanager 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It meets #3 in notability. The page has been extensively re-written and redesigned in the past few hours. Wikipedia's guidelines mention that a website is notable if it meets one criterion (of three). I strongly believe that it meets criterion #3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" because PGNx Media's content is distributed by Rotten Tomatoes

Comment: I conditionally restored the article, for the purpose of discussion, paying respect to the civilized behavior of the author. I don't remember what tag should be placed on the article in this case. Please assist. `'mikka 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it with the right template; now it's supposed to be protected, which I can't do. Please protect. -Amarkov blahedits 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no opinion yet I have two major problems: (1) visibity; for an online thingy to have only 127 [unique google hits] is a red flag. (2) No reliable sources provided that independently assert the notability of the site. `'mikka 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Mikkalai, I would appreciate guidance in further fleshing out your second issue. I quoted the website inclusion policies of notable reviews syndicators and PGNx Media did meet their standards for notability. In turn, those affiliates met Wikipedia's standards for notability, as implied by the fact that they have their own webpages. As for your first point, I also created the page for GameTab.com. If you take a look at its unique Google hits, you'll find that there are only 102 uniques. However, the article I created remained on Wikipedia. You have to take into consideration the rather narrow focus of PGNx Media: they are primarily a reviews website and have a strong syndication network. I would appreciate your help in improving the article to make this clearer. Infomanager 21:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Actually, the linked Google search for Gametab returns about 945,000 hits and has an Alexa rank of 17,130[7]. Although Alexa rankings are notoriously unreliable, note that pgnxmedia.com has an Alexa rank of 290,068[8]. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:RS is far more important than WP:WEB, so if it doesn't meet the former, it's out. It doesn't. -Amarkov blahedits 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The information on the article comes from PGNx Media itself or its affiliates. As noted in the article, its affiliate have strict guidelines for what they consider to be a notable website. The fact that they choose to carry PGNx Media's articles implies that they consider their content to be notable. Further, its affiliates have pages on Wikipedia, which are linked to in the article. Please take this into consideration.Infomanager 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Don't see that RS guideline is a problem here. The claims made are not extraordinary, and don't need extraordinary support - many corporate claims are primarily self documentd, e.g. names of the board, etc.. Some are self supporting, for example, the Rotten Tomatoes claim. Do we not think that RT is reliable about it's sources? Same goes for Ziff Davies. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42 30 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Overturn I think that WP:WEB has been proven. As for a reliable source, I believe that Rich is correct in that the claims are not extraordinary. Most of the information can be found on the website's "About Us" page or by poking around. Other comments, such as its status on affiliated websites, can be found by clicking the links the article provides to its affiliated websites. Thinkjose 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid that you are mistaken in the reliable sources issue: every student dorm homepage have reliable sources of the same validity. The issue is not about information who/when/what, but about asserting of notability. That it is linked from other webpages means zilch. There are plenty of webrings iof dubious wikipediability who refer to each other. Please show me a reputable reference that says this site is kewl. `'mikka 23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mikka, did you mean to respond to Rich? Do you think that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are reputable references? Both of these pages have a Wikipedia entry so they are not of "dubious wikipediability". Infomanager 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question, I believe that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are reputable references. By including excerpts and full text of PGNx Media's original content, they are placing their seal (so to speak) on the website. Do you disagree? Thanks again for taking the time to look at this. Infomanager 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification of independence:' of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. There appears to be some confusion because Rotten Tomatoes carries some full-text reviews and Metacritic provides excerpts. These websites choose to do so independently; they are not ask them to continue or stop. They choose to do it because they respect the reviews and for no other reason. They do not share owners or editors, and neither website has a vested interest in the success of the other. Infomanager 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Please note that Thinkjose is the founder of the PGNx site, and so there are potential concerns with WP:COI. I should also point out that Infomanager is one of Jose's classmates at Yale. Combining the conflict of interest with a very low Alexa rank, I seriously question the notability of this article. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn per WP:WEB. This website should be considered for its importance as syndicated review source. WEB #3 is met as both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes (as well as Game Rankings, Gametab.com, and others) are well-known, independent and distribute its content. Paul D. Meehan 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Rich Farmbrough. Brendan Alcorn 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Brendan Alcorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: PGNx Media's review archive is currently at 1,223 reviews. It has the 23rd largest archive on Gamerankings among active websites, 25th largest archive among all websites, and 35th largest among all websites and print publications. [9] Infomanager 03:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Those numbers are impressive, but keep in mind that the reviews are manually linked to Gamerankings. As such, it isn't clear whether or not they're using Gamerankings as a public media repository by the review authors to make up for a lack of primary site traffic. I apologize if I'm coming across as suspicious, but I'm still concerned because the original article was primarily structured as a vanity/self-promotional piece. This doesn't make the subject inherently non-notable, but I'm not yet personally convinced that it's *independently* notable. --Alan Au 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a few problems with your comment: 1) Gamerankings editors add or approve all content on Gamerankings. PGNx editors cannot add or link to (?) any content. 2) Are IGN, GameSpot, and GameSpy also using Gamerankings as a public media repository? Suggesting this about PGNx Media, exclusively seems to be against Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. 3) I wrote the article to mimic how other website articles are written: Introduction, History, Coverage, Staff. If you have specific improvements, or concerns please let me know. 4) Gamerankings, as I mentioned above, is independent. There are no connections -- shared owners, editors, revenues, etc -- that can make you question its independence. As as side note, I apologize if this is not the case but it seems like you're taking "they're damned if they do and damned if they don't attitude. It appears that you have a pre-conceived idea that the website is not notable (a personal disagreement with an editor, perhaps) and evidence to the contrary isn't having any effect. Infomanager 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarification. Actually, anyone who registers a user account on Gamerankings can add links to reviews from other sites. Also, I have no complaint if you want to rewrite the article as an independent third party editor citing sources--my primary concern is the conflict of interest generated by the original article authorship. As for the personal accusations, I'm taking it to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the discussion here. Thanks. --Alan Au 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Further clarification: Anyone with a registered account can add links but they need to be approved by a GR editor before they appear on the GR website. I am the original author of the article (I wrote it this summer), but I since lost the txt file which is why thinkjose had to submit the first version. I apologize for what can be perceived as a personal accusation; it was hypocritical of me after citing good faith. I thank you for the civility you responded with. Infomanager 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: It seems that most of the concerns that people expressed for deleting the article have been addressed at this time. Infomanager 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry I didn't bring this up earlier, but after checking around, I remembered that this article had gone through AfD twice (which is why it was on my watchlist). For reference, here's the second AfD for this article. To be fair, it was closed via CSD without a full cycle, but re-reading the comments there, I would like to recommend that this be relisted for regular AfD in the hopes of generating a more through discussion. --Alan Au 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: This should be clear from the above, but after reading the proposed undeletion page it italized that the person who proposed the undeletion has to be in favor, so I thought I would make it clear. Infomanager 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:WEB and WP:RS, the two essential policies that matter when dealing with websites, have been met. My personal notability requirements regarding websites (importance to its field and age) also appear to be met. Looks good to me. --- RockMFR 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MacDade Mall – Re-delete – 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MacDade Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD 1|AfD 2)

User:DavidLevinson unilaterally undeleted the MacDade Mall article with the edit summary: "39 revisions restored: notability not a criteria for deletion, article is verifiable. Notability only criteria for article improvement". I take that as a clumsy attempt of a deletion review, so I am opening it for him here. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-delete and talk to undeleting admin about going against consensus with admin tools. And yes, notability is a criterion for deletion, or we end up as a directory. -Amarkovblahedits 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Amarkov, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Anyway, you've misunderstood what the directory thing means. Why shouldn't I be able to find out what MacDade Mall is like? A directory would simply list it and give its address. An encyclopaedia can tell me all about it. Grace Note 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And do you have reliable sources for this "all about it"? If you don't, we kinda can't have an article on it. -Amarkov blahedits 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete What Amarkov said. We can't have admins unilaterally undeleting articles in this way. --Folantin 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete as per above. Out of process restoration with non-consensus opinion about notability guidelines. Previous afd was a strong delete consensus. Bwithh 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete per Amarkov. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; notability is a requirement for inclusion. Its absence is therefore grounds for exclusion. There was a clearl consensus at last AfD in favour of deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability it not a requirement, notability is terribly subjective. Verifiability is a requirement, Neutrality is a requirement. There is no policy on Notability and no consensus on the subject. Notability should be established of course for it to be a good article, and a Notability tag inserted to help make it so. However, any shopping mall of sufficient size will inherently meet the notability guidelines suggested at WP:CORP. Leaving that aside, no consensus was reached on the previous discussion, a majority of deletionists thought it good to delete. However, the idea of just tagging articles for improvement if you don't like them never seems to arise (remember don't bite the newbies), there are very few subjects if properly written that cannot make a good encyclopedia article. This one still needs work, but that does not justify deletion. For an example of references obtained with just a little bit of work ... Philadelphia Inquirer article. dml 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for notability to not be a requirement for inclusion seems rather odd given that lack of notability is the primary argument used to delete articles. Of course it is partly subjective. That is why in a number of areas there are notability guidelines. --Bejnar 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn un-deletion. DavidLevinson was wrong to act unilaterally as he did. I don't think there was any malice, but if a lack of notability isn't grounds for deletion, we've been going about things the wrong way for a hell of a long time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hit bull, win steak (talk • contribs)
  • Re-delete. I'm sure David acted in good faith, but I also think he was wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDade Mall (second nomination). Admins (or indeed anybody else) should not unilaterally overturn AFD decisions. >Radiant< 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete. There is no reason to undo the verdict of the last AfD process. If the article were better-sourced there might be more cause for thought here, but a thin article about a disappearing mall seems unnecessary to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston 05:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete per Amarkov. Fails WP:RS. As Ed mentioned above, the story itself seems interesting and someone with an interest in the subject should work on improving the article and resubmitting one in the future. This incarnation of the article is not fit for an encyclopedia. Paul D. Meehan 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline. Guidelines are a notch below policy, but they are far more than a recommendation. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus." While the occasional exception to a guideline can be made, when we've measured consensus for a specific article at AfD, that should not be overturned unilaterally. If you believe that you can write an article overcoming the problems identified in AFD#2, then do so, and if you used any of the history undelete that history underneath the new article. GRBerry 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete, the versions restored were those that the community, as a concensus, decided to delete. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete per Amarkov and Radiant. Of course notability is a criteria for deletion: see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and WP:5P. AFD decisions should not be unilaterally overturned in this fashion. That's what DRV is for. Moreschi Deletion! 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete per Moreschi. Fails Wikipedia:Notability Brendan Alcorn 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Brendan Alcorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Re-delete. Ral315 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete. Notability is a criterion. This is an encyclopedia, not a phone book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valley2city (talk • contribs)
  • Re-delete; if I'd spotted this earlier, I would have speedily deleted it under G4. Proto::► 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Delete Notability IS a citeria for deletion and is NOT SUBJECTIVE. Per WP:N Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. As an admin, he should be well aware of ALL wikipedia policies, if not have them committed to memory. WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective. It fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate Directory. I also believe that the admins are held to a much higher standard than the average editor, and as such should be punished in a harsher manner. Looking at RfA's, people are very picky about potential admins. An example is if someone 'canvasas for votes' (letting people know he has an RfA up), it is frowned upon and the potental admin is admolished for not being more aware of policies (and more often than not does not pass the RFA). One comment I found enlightening is Canvassing is simply a symptom of a larger problem - either their is a lack of knowledge of policy, a lack of understanding of policy, or a disregard for policy. None of these are desirable in a sysop. Here we have an admin that DOES know the established manner and process of Wikipedia but chooses to ignore them, or if we choose good faith, has a lack of knwledge of policy or lack of understanding of the process. I believe the Admin knew the policy in place, otherwise they could not be an admin or should not have been voted for as an admin in the first place. I belive this admin should be stripped of his admin powers for this blant run around estabilshed policies he knew were in place. I have a problem assuming good faith as he has been an admin for a while and (like I said before) it is resonable to think he should be aware of the process --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This admin has a history of ignoring the processes in place. He was warned previously about listing "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" for deletion (AfD) without first starting a discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Votes for deletion. He was warned by another admin on this instance. Later, he protected Category:Science twice when there was only a single instance of vandalism each time. He never templated the page, put a note on the category talk:page explaining why he protected the catagory, nor listed the protects at Wikipedia:Protected_page#List_of_protected_pages. He was warned by another admin about this. His comment back was "Protect this page ought to automatically put on some standard template if it is in fact standard". Later he merged the Mathmatics portal and catagory page together quite carelessly, upsetting quite a few editors, stating to their comments that they should feel free to fix up the new article and that "This being wikipedia, we act before we talk. It looks rather nice to me right now". Now I have a very colourful history myself and some may say it's the pot calling the kettle black, however I'm not an admin. I'm an average user. (I wouldn't want the extra headache) I'm a hot head I admit, but I am not upset right now and am using logic to suggest this admin has serious issues with policy, dealing with editors, and following the correct processes. I STRONGLY recommend his adminship be stripped from him. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete per the rest. I'm not sure where this meme that "Notability is not a criterion for deletion" comes from, but I think it's dead wrong. We're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge here, not a compendium of everything under the Sun that someone decides to enter into an edit box and press "Save page". As such, we must have some criteria to discriminate what does and what does not belong in our collection of freely redistributable knowledge. Notability is one of these criteria, along with verifiability, neutrality, etc. --Cyde Weys 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Desert Ridge Junior High School – No consensus closure endorsed, renomination remains editorial decision – 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Desert Ridge Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I had a feeling that, no matter who closed this AfD, it was going to be the wrong decision (and to be perfectly honest, I have purposely not looked at who closed it yet). The article asserts absolutely no importance for the school, and the only independent sources provided are trivial. AfD, as we all know, is not a vote, and literally every single keep !vote in this discussion falls under one of three categories:

  • "There are no currently-accepted notability standards for schools, so none should be deleted." Well, that doesn't make any sense. If WP:BIO didn't exist, and I wrote an article (with trivial sourcing) whose content was "Kicking222 smells nice," that still wouldn't make the article suitable for WP.
  • "If we delete this, we have to delete every school," a.k.a. "All schools are notable." That's obviously not true. Some schools are notable. Just because we delete one does not mean that no school deserves an article.
  • "This school is notable." If anyone who stated this opinion gave reasons why, I would accept it. Of course, this was not the case.

This decision should be overturned, and the article should be deleted (or, perhaps, merged). The closer notes that AfD is not the venue to argue notability guidelines, and I agree, but no matter what guidelines one would favor, this school is still non-notable. Kicking222 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Schools are inherently notable" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument for inclusion. At least one school I attended is so far from notable that I cannot even verify that it ever existed. Another is the only school in the English speaking world to have educated a pope. To suggest that both are "notable" is to mistake notability for existence, something we do not do for any other kind of content. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, non-trivial coverage by multiple sources not demonstrated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No non-trivial secondary sources, therefore no way to expand the article in an encyclopedic manner. Schools have been deleted, so it is patently false that "there is no consensus to delete schools" or "all schools are notable." Re: badlydrawnjeff, the onus is on those seeking inclusion to provide sources showing notability, not on those favoring deletion to prove non-notability. This was not done in the AfD. Shimeru 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, per Silensor. Also, I am semi-new here, but what is the purpose of AFD if a DRV is opened before the AFD is even closed? This seems to negate the need for AFD all together. As far as I can tell there was no error, or new information, so why was this opened before the AFD closed? While the nominator takes the high road above claiming that he is just here because he feels that the debate is going to be closed wrong, I think it is pretty clear that he simply feels that that article is not going to be deleted as he wished (he was right). This is in effect an end run around the AFD consensus process and should not be tolerated. The admin closed the article as no consensus and was right, there was, and is still no consensus on the issue. KnightLago 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC) For some reason I read the nom as starting this before the AFD closed. Kicking222 has pointed out this is not the case. So I have struck my above comments and offered my apologies. KnightLago 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Silensor]] and others. --Myles Long 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Doc glasgow. Reasonable articles about schools should be kept under there are stricter guidelines for their inclusion. Paul D. Meehan 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, those arguing for deletion failed to make any compelling arguments to support their position. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Guy. --Calton | Talk 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I'd have deleted it, I think it should have been deleted, but more to the point the only assertions for keeping were non-arguments. Must I again did up the analysis that shows that there is consistant block "voting" on schools? - brenneman 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus closure An admin is supposed to close the discussion in light of the arguments and evidence brought forth, plus the relevant policies and guidelines. They are encouraged to disregard arguments that contradict policy or guideline. Here, we don't yet have a topical guideline. Delete arguments aren't strong from policy. BJ did introduce some independent sources to the AFD, which went almost undiscussed. A keep close I'd have seen as a reversible error, but not a no-consensus or delete, both of which were within the range of reasonable discretion. Also, merge is a completely legitimate editorial decision after a keep or no-consensus close, so that could be done now. GRBerry
  • Overturn, delete. Proto::► 09:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Doc. -- DS1953 talk 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, administrator was within his/her discretion and article content met relevant policies and guidelines. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per above. There are no notability guidelines, and the article is well-written. Brendan Alcorn 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Khaleel Mohammed – No consensus closure endorsed, with encouragement to relist if the article doesn't improve. 02:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Khaleel Mohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This AfD was closed as "no consensus" even though WP:BIO and WP:PROF failed for lack of WP:V and WP:RS citations. During the AfD, the author tried to provide one by introducing a {{copyvio}} from the subject's website (see Talk:Khaleel Mohammed#Copyvio) that remains unaddressed. Dennette 09:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As the closing admin, I provided some commentary on the situation on the article's talk page. However, my main rationale for closing the nomination as "no consensus" is that I honestly could not perceive a rough consensus to delete in the discussion. In any case, it seems to me that the debate on this article has been somewhat sidetracked to issues of notability, which after all are just guidelines, when the real issue would be whether the article meets, and whether it can be made to meet, the core policies of WP:V and WP:BLP. Yes, the article does need heavy editing. On one hand, the copyvio sections and any unsourced potentially derogatory statements should simply be removed; on the other, the various links presented as evidence of notability on the talk page, the AfD, and anywhere else should be turned into proper references for actual statements in the article. Eventually, if both sides of the notability debate are willing to work on helping the article comply with our policies, I'd hope we could have a brief, well-sourced article that hopefully asserts (with references) at least some notability. If this turns out to be impossible, the article may eventually be renominated for deletion — hopefully with a better chance of achieveing an actual consensus at that point. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There was disagreement as to whether they did meet WP:PROF. You can't ask for something to be deleted because it didn't meet WP:PROF when others claimed it did. -Amarkov blahedits 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The copyvio material and template have been removed, but there are still no WP:RS citations establishing WP:N for the subject ... WP:PROF is just a red-herring to draw attention away from the real issue (WP:V), because none of the "claims" of notability are supported by independent 3rd party coverage, unless you're willing to include an academic homepage and the biography from a PR firm as reliable sources. Dennette 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article. I nominated this article on the fact that there was no clear mention of any notability given in the article. I really didn't see anything in the discussion. Though, there was no consensus, the Keep side did not provide any basis for its position (ie good evidence to support notability). The only support was that his views are controversial, which I do not believe (I may be wrong) is not inherently notable. From my understanding, this should not be a vote. Just because, there are many who like the guy (possibly due to his beliefs) does not make him notable. They must provide arguments. Nlsanand 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but relist after the copyvio issue is resolved (which of course can be done editorially since it's a No consensus closure). I find the keep arguments mostly unpersuasive, and the article and discussion low on independent sources, but editors can reasonably disagree over what facts meet notability criteria, and the closure expresses this. He's also just an associate professor, and I corrected this in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Amarkov. Paul D. Meehan 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per closing admin. The article has enough salvageable parts to be useful in rewritting. Brendan Alcorn 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, then you can start salvaging it by adding his year and place of birth to the introduction ... the article has been around since August, and no one has added that basic information yet ... if he's so Notable, then it should be trivial to locate and Verify. --Dennette 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) – Overturned, relisted at AfD – 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Overturn There are many reasons the foremost is a violation of Wikipedia is not a vote. Second he is clearly notable. How is the highest ranked Halo 2 player not notable. Despite the many votes against the inclusion of this article I have brought evidence proving that he passes WP:Notability. He has been cited multiple non-trivial independent sources. [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Second, he is currently ranked as both the national champion for 1v1/FFA and is apart of the number 1 team, Team Carbon. He has been interviewed by USA Network and currently is a star on MLG's pro circuit series on USA Network. The precedence has been set many times before, see Daigo Umehara, Ken Hoang, and http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Category:Magic:_The_Gathering_players. The top ranked players in any genre is notable. I personally have no interest in Magic players, but that doesnt mean I think they should be deleted Valoem talk 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. "AfD is not a vote" means that people whose opinions ignore policy, guidelines, or evidence should be ignored. It does not mean that people who happen to disagree with you on interpretation of the evidence may be steamrolled over. -Amarkov blahedits 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am saying they did not give reasons for deletion therefore they are voting, not arguing and I gave a clear reason why that page needed to be kept. Every person except myself and DJiTH said "delete per nom" without any rationale. That is clearly the book definition of voting as oppose to arguing. Therefore, the result should be no consensus not delete. How is the highest ranked player of an extremely popular game, Halo 2, not notable? Also based on precedence he should be kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Walsh. He is not even the top ranked player and his page is kept. Ben Jackson has also been feature on a weekly basis on USA Network on the show MLG Pro Circuit. MLG is an international league and the largest league for Halo 2. If this deletion review fails then all sport competitors must be deleted. Valoem talk 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: All sports players? I think there's a fairly clear difference between a "professional" video gamer and a baseball/football player. This difference is noted in WP:BIO. Unfortunately, I didn't close the aforementioned deletion discussion. I suspect the result could have been quite different. How again do you alone override the accepted opinion of 6 separate Wikipedians? Coincidentally, the article is almost purely cruft, without reliable sources. Hell, it even includes a section about his "first gaming memory". alphachimp. 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Sports players extend beyond major professional sports leagues, you forget to mention less mainstream sports whose players are more than notable enough to warrent an article. Take look Bowling and Ping Pong. There are articles about players of these sports who are not even the best in the field. How about Magic players who have repeatly survived AfD and receive much less coverage than MLG players? What about poker players who win only one major title and are not even signed? Ben Jackson is not only the best of a major video game, but also a signed player. If there is cruft in the article it can be cleaned, deletion is not the answer. Furthermore his "first gaming memory" was covered in an episode on USA. Please view the television episode at www.mlgpro.com go to Boost Mobile Major League Gaming Pro Circuit: Episode 7 Full. Valoem talk 10:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you will look at my talk page User talk:SkierRMH you will see that there are concerns about the inclusion of electronic sports players. It isn't even clear what category they're be included in... and depending on what category they're in, there doesn't seem to be any consistency on inclusion/exclusion. I think that this should be clarified before another rash of these hits the AfD. Therefore, I'm remaining neutral until there is some clarification. SkierRMH 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I'm commenting on my decision, not the arguments...seeing as DRV is a review of the admin decision. Obviously AfD is not a vote, but it's ridiculous to ignore the obvious consensus of 6 editors (vs. 1 dissenter) that this player fails WP:BIO and does not meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. alphachimp. 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is relatively clear that the people who "voted" did not research the subject in question, hence they simply "voted" instead of bring counter arguments. You even said so yourself that they were "votes" not arugments therefore the votes should not be counted. Ben Jackson passes the professor test with flying colors and has been cited by multiple independent sources. The best players in any field is notable. Therefore Ben Jackson is notable and passes WP:BIO. Valoem talk 07:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've never used the expression "vote" in relation to this deletion discussion. I'd really hesitate to judge the underlying research and motivations of those involved in the deletion discussion on the simple basis of the length and depth of their comments offered. Such a judgment would run deeply against WP:AGF. Perhaps they simply saw no need to differ from the reasonable arguments offered supporting deletion. alphachimp. 07:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment (moved from talk page) Thanks for your response, but I had already countered the initial reason for deletion by showing how he passes WP:BIO "cited multiple non-trivial sources" and "the best in his field". I was wondering how Ben Jackson fails WP:BIO when other people who receive considerably less coverage such as Daigo Umehara, Kai Budde, Randy Buehler, and David Williams (card player) are kept. Also a prime example of a person who was kept based on receiving coverage from "multiple non-trivial independent sources" is Ken Hoang see his AfD. He is considered the top ranked and most sucessful player in Super Smash Bros. Melee (a game that is considerably less popular than Halo 2). In fact this page became so famous that the article itself was cited in a news article: http://www.thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=28078&page=5
          • Ben Jackson is the undefeated champion of the 2006 season of MLG ffa/1v1 and 2005 champion. I hope you will reconsider after this. Valoem talk 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment He is not the subject of a multiplicity of published works. His league is not fully professional. Not all members of his team merit inclusion. In ten years, nobody will remember or have any interest in him. alphachimp. 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment His league is fully professional. Jamie Gold the currently WSOP champion has had no notable achievements besides the 2006 WSOP winner. If he does not win anymore tournaments will anyone remember him? That statement "In ten years, nobody will remember or have any interest in him" coming from an admin is shocking. It is clearly a very bias and opinionated statement. How could you say that? Anyone who plays Halo will most certainly remember him and even more importantly if he continues his achievements people out of the gaming community will remember him. Also if you viewed my citations you will see that he has been sourced by multiple published works. Valoem talk 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. "They all disagreed with me" isn't a valid reason to challenge. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason Jamie Gold was mentioned was because he has achieved less in his field then Ben Jackson has in his field. Jamie Gold has only won one WSOP event while Ben Jackson is the undefeated 2005 2006 champion in a very popular game. No one has nor will be able to counter the fact that Magic The Gathering players have their own articles and received less coverage. Also Ken Hoang and Daigo Umehara have both survived AfDs and are less notable then Ben Jackson. Until you can give reasons why they can have articles and Ben Jackson can not, you have no argument. I have a much stronger argument then "They all disagreed with me". Good job at reading what I wrote and trying to discredit me, Bull. Valoem talk 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not voting, but I'd be open to deleting them as well. However Daigo was in a documentary and Ken I guess was covered on MTV. A nationally distributed source for your person could steer me your way. Although to be honest there's a certain arbitrariness to all this. Nupur Lala, the winner in Spellbound (documentary), was kept according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nupur Lala. However you won't find her article as it was reverted back into a redirect without comment or objection. Frank Neuhauser never had an article even though he is notable for being the first winner and lived long enough to be interviewed in the film. (He might still be alive, who knows?)--T. Anthony 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good reason why Ben Jackson can't have an article: Not enough people care about his title for his possession of it to confer notability. No members of the media noticed when he won, and no members of the media would notice if he lost. Some honors just aren't notable. If my cousin won Miss America, she'd be on every news wire in the country. If she won Miss Seedless Guava, it might make the local paper if it was a slow news week. You see the difference? That difference is the same difference between someone like Mr. Gold and someone like Mr. Jackson. I'm not trying to be rude, but there it is. As for your other examples... I'm not convinced that they should have articles, either. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. There is extensive media coverage from multiple major media sources, the single argument by Valoem should have trumped any of the !votes which failed to take this into consideration. It looks as if this was pure vote counting, sadly. Since this was closed without comment by alphachimp it is difficult to tell either way. Silensor 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my arguments above. Quite frankly, I saw no need to explain consensus via a comment. alphachimp. 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So long as the ostriches rule the asylum, or at least outnumber everyone else who is bothered (not many of us, of course, given the thousands with better things to do), this will keep happening. Obviously should be overturned because it is of absolutely no account to alphachimp whether this encyclopaedia includes this guy or not, but unfortunately that clear piece of common sense will not prevent him, and others like him, from impoverishing it and upsetting contributors who want to add stuff that they have noted, even if others haven't. Grace Note 04:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider your attacks noted. I see no reason to include such a non-notable figure on Wikipedia, per the logic expressed above. Perhaps you would be interested in reading it. alphachimp. 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Attacks"? I'm sorry, but I'm just too busy laughing at how precious that is to be able to read any "logic". Please though, spare me. I know what the "logic" is and have read it many, many times. Try having a crack at mine, which is that it's absolutely nothing to you whether he's in or out and destroying someone else's page is simply hurtful to the contributor who wrote it without any actual benefit to you, barring the small thrill of tearing down what someone else cares about but you don't. If you feel "attacked" by reading that, maybe a short period of reflection on why would help, given that it's presented to you in the kindest way, without any intention to hurt you, merely to share another perspective with you. Grace Note 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment (neutral on the actual nomination itself, because I haven't reviewed it enough), nobody WP:OWNs pages on Wikipedia (by necessity), so applying ownership is not appropriate. In addition, every single edit you make is prefaced with "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Too many people already get the idea that "their" version of an article is the one true version of the article and is immovable already, and we should really discourage that kind of thinking, because it's detrimental to the building of an encyclopedia. ColourBurst 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment toward Hit bull, win steak You seem pressed in stating that Ben Jackson was not covered by a major news source when he was. What do you call USA Network? I have a direct citation disproving your statement. Why this bias toward this notable character? If you feel that none of the people I mentioned deserve articles (even though they had repeatedly survived AfDs) you can put them up for deletion review. The fact is as it stands right now people less notable then Ben Jackson have articles therefore the precendence has been set. It would not be doing this person justice if he is not allowed an article. Valoem talk 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reality TV series is not a major news source; in fact, a reality TV series is not a news source at all. In the past, with much higher-profile shows like Survivor and Big Brother, the consensus has been to add brief passage on each participant on the show's page, with separate pages only for participants who are otherwise notweorthy for activities independent of the TV series. For one example, look at the participants in Survivor: Marquesas. Hunter Ellis has a standalone article because he subsequently became a TV host for several independent shows on The History Channel. Sara Jones, voted out the week after him, did not, since she's not particularly notable outside of her participation in Survivor. If you wanted to smerge a few lines of the information that was in Mr. Jackson's article into the parent article on the series, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. We could do that with the articles on the other participants as well, if you're worried about consistency. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed this earlier. To be honest I'd still prefer deleting Ken Hoang and Daigo Umehara to bringing this article back. However I guess I vote Overturn then AfD all three of them.--T. Anthony 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


29 December 2006

[edit]
Chicago Race Riot of 1919 – Deletion overturned, article stubified, non-offending material can be restored – 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chicago Race Riot of 1919 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This was speedied with deletion summary sourcing problems (Jay Robert Nash), which confuses me. I've provisionally restored it for DRV consideration. There are five sources in the ref section, so I'm really quite confused about the deletion reason. At the very least, it was not a valid CSD. Kchase T 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. "Sourcing problems" is not a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Speedy criteria are supposed to be objective, thus, "sourcing problems" can not be one. Regardless, lack of sources has never been a reason for deletion, unless there is reason to believe there are no sources. -Amarkov blahedits 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Jay Robert Nash. Nash intentionally inserts false information into his work. If the article is based on his work, then the sources are unreliable. I am not contributing an opinion as to the deletion of this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Jay Robert Nash "Jimmy Wales commented that he would be happy to remove any instances of copying if pointed out, but called Nash's books unfit as sources for Wikipedia regardless of any legal issues. "Nash's work should not be relied upon," Wales concluded, on the grounds that the deliberate insertion of errors "makes it unsuitable as a reference anyway." I suspect that is the issue being responded to. I know I've seen further discussion in the subsequent 8 months, but can't find it readily. GRBerry 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roughly delete revisions made after October 2005 The Nash reference was introduced in these three edits (same user, same day) [18]. We can at least delete all subsequent revisions and have a clean version. I'd look for clearly salvagable portions of the current version though - recategorization, images, etc... GRBerry 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting further, I think we can preserver the images, external links section, see also section, and categorization. I think we have to toss everything else out of the article that was added since October 2005, because we can't know what later edits were are either 1) also sourced from Nash, but don't say so because it was already listed or 2) used only because of a connection drawn from something else. The other three new sources could be mentioned on the talk page as possible sources to check. The Chicago Public Library link in external links offers as second steps multiple further sourcing possibilities, primarily primary sources. GRBerry 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete problematic sections/sources and restore per GRBerry. I must say I don't understand how editors (and many of you seem to be American, unlike moi) can delete an entire article on a signficant epsiode in Chicago's history... based on a sourcing problem with one writer? Maybe I'm missing something but I'm mystified. The event did happen. It's clear it's significant. Tag the article for poor sourcing, edit it till the cows come home, but delete? This should never, ever have been put for deletion in my view. If there's a poor source on Kent State shootings will that disappear from WP, too? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass... I'm really trying to understand how this ever got to the deletion stage in the first place. So if you disagree, help me to see the light. Shawn in Montreal 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Deletion and undeletion are basically judgements of whether the topic is encyclopedic. This one is. This was a major event in Chicago that has been the subject of at least one entire book: Tuttle, William M. (1997). Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0252065867.. So there are certainly reliable sources on which an article could be based. If the article is riddled with subtly unreliable material, re-create it as a stub and start from scratch. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for starting this mess, but the thing to remember is that Nash is not only unreliable, he's litigious: he puts stuff in as copyright traps, and actually honest-to-god for real called the Foundation in Florida to talk about lawsuits. Anything that cited Nash as a source had to go: I've been working with user:MadMax to clean up a huge load of organized-crime-related articles that cited Nash as a source, and we found at least two that were (as best as we could tell) wholly fictitious. If you look at talk:Jay Robert Nash, there's this big mess about the scandal that erupted when we incorporated his "calumny of the burning priests" into 1755 Lisbon earthquake... and then it hit the media. I knew this would be a mess when I deleted the article, and I strongly endorse its re-creation, but any and all Nash-based material must be expunged. I'd be participating in this more actively, but my WP access is limited over the holidays. Okay? DS 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, that explains it. And no apologies necessary as it's always nice not to get sued! I'd be happy to wade in and slash anything Nashian but as there are no actual citations on what is from Nash (right?) and I have no prior knowldge of the subject matter, I'm not sure I'd be much help. Is there anyone in a better position? Shawn in Montreal 04:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and cleanup sources. This article is a lot better written than numerous ones on Wikipedia. It records a significant historical event that is mentioned in standard history textbooks re the black migration to the North. The "Red Summer" of 1919 of which the Chicago Race Riot is a part is a well known item in black history.See for example Nicholas Lehman's "The Promised Land." A quick Google search on this topic brngs up almost 100 links. http://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+race+riot+1919
Related articles like Mass racial violence in the United States provide a references to the event as well. And there is an entire book on it, aforementioned,--> Race Riot: CHICAGO IN THE RED SUMMER OF 1919 by William M. Tuttle.
Recommendation: 1) Undelete, 2) remove controversial "Nash" reference. 3) Insert other references like Tuttle, and (4) place the cleanup-references tag so future editors do a better documentation job.Odinista 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. The speedy deletion button should not be used in lieu of cleanup, making this a technically invalid speedy. If you don't like it, go propose an addition to the criteria at the appropriate venue. Silensor 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete anything before Nash was introduced. Ral315 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my defense, I had used Nash as a source as a reference to support claims made in a related talk page involving criminal involvement during the riots, specifically the claim that members of the Ragen's Colts may have instigated the drowing incident which had caused the riot as well as a possible explanation as to why police declined to arrest them when arriving at the scene. This information also appears in Carl Sifakis's The Mafia Encyclopedia and, I believe, Herbert Asbury's The Gangs of Chicago among others. I would suggest resoring the article prior to my addittions as only one specific paragraph was based on Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime. MadMax 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Sourcing problems do not justify article deletion. If poor sources were used for an article, that's grounds for thoroughly checking everything in it. In extreme cases one could even argue for stubbing the article and rebuilding from that stub. Not deletion. As for Nash's litigousness, avoid lawsuit paranoia; there is, IMO, no valid lawsuit there. Nash presents what he writes as historical fact; he cannot then sue if someone believes him and repeats his lies. Only the text is copyright protected, not the ideas presented. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per several above, most recently Morven; delete problematic material and place a note on the article talkpage warning that Nash must not be used as a source. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Definitely seems like enough reason exists that it at least deserves a full AfD debate rather than a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Overturn) I wanted to link to this for the Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) article which was part of Washington Park, Chicago, which was last week's WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week. This is an important event in need of an article. TonyTheTiger 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Emcee T – Deletion endorsed – 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Emcee T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

HIP-HOP ARTIST featured in NATIONWIDE MAGAZINES & NEWSPAPERS Emceetstaff 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band is notable - has numerous singles, projects and a music video available at nationwide record stores. Worked with artists who have gone multi-platinum (Rappin' 4-Tay & Ray Luv). Featured in SF Weekly Newspaper - has toured on East & West Coast. All images are owned by me, that is copyright and taken by me. Please advise.

Naturally, as soon as I delete something, it winds up here.  :) Definite self-promotion; on my way to spread a bit of salt, especially given the original poster's username. - Lucky 6.9 08:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gay potatoes – History restored behind redirect – 11:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gay potatoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Deleted because band was deemed "not notable" after proposal for deletion. This band is notable, passing the following criteria from WP:MUSIC: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. (These bands are most notably Fountains_of_Wayne, Lloyd_Cole, and Mark_Mulcahy). Additionally, one of their songs is(or possibly has been) considered for use in a Broadway musical. [19] pmppk 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Premature ejaculation – Speedily closed; premature request, article still exists – 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Premature ejaculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I'd like to have an external link on this page back again because I don't know about spamming policy. I just saw the other relate article and need to add my site as external link also because I'm belive that my web site has a useful and benefit content for the person who looking for it. I did't mean to make a spamming to wikipedia. If possible, please add my link back to this article again. I'm so sorry for my mistake and in the future it will not happen again. Thank you for your help. Ebiz4life 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bryan Reynolds – Deletion endorsed without prejudice – 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bryan Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I'd like to contest this deletion because a) I believe editors at least made a case for no consensus, based on a majority of Keep votes and arguments made b) the administrator User:RoySmith who decided to delete is a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and seems to me to have a bias towards deletion even in light of majority Keep votes c) lit. theory types and practicianers of "poetics" (god, there's a word which deserves an apology) are rarely able or interested in applying their work to actual living theatre, the fact that he has done so also sets him apart from many non-notable scholars. Thanks Shawn in Montreal 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a point of reference, his seminal work in Theatre Journal 1997 got six cites. In any case, edit history is restored if someone wants to check the quality of the provided sources. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, although I reject the nominator's reasoning. Being a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (or the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians for that matter), while not something I agree with, doesn't invalidate one's WP activities or call one's motives into question. That said, I think there's enough notability that it's worth undeleting or at least re-running the deletion debate, as a lot of the best points were brought up after the majority of deletion votes were already in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would similarly like to contest this deletion. According to the Afd discussion here, there are, I believe, two different consensuses reached, an earlier and later one.
1) With the exception of one Delete vote, the Delete votes were cast in a 10 hour period, from 20:13, 23 December 2006 to 05:49, 24 December 2006.
2) The Keep votes, in contrast, were cast between Dec. 24th and Dec. 29th, a 5 day period.
This disparity between the Delete and Keep votes is explained by the changes made to the entry on Dec. 24th and Dec. 26th. These two sets of changes addressed the issues of WP:NPOV, WP:PROF, and sources, the criteria by which the article was initially marked for deletion by AndyJones. I would like to submit that following theses changes, no further challenges were made to the entry on the above mentioned issues. In fact, as the Afd discussion shows, the main issues were those of hagiography, editting and clean up, not deletion.
I would, thus, like to point out, similarly to Shawn in Montreal, that the administrator User:RoySmith did not take into account the consensus of the community when deleting the entry, whether based on a strict tally of votes, or based on the discussion that reflects "a sense of community." And, certainly, User:RoySmith did not consider the changes that were made on Dec. 24th and Dec. 26th, that improved the article as is evidenced by the Afd discussion.
There is no doubt in my mind that the entry still needs improvement. Yet, as the entry's history hopefully shows, the entry was continually be changed in the spirit of making it a valuable entry for the wiki community. Sincerely, Gregorthebug 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse deletion. I'm not convinced that it was a substantial enough change. -Amarkov blahedits 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from the closing admin (me). First and foremost, there were NO votes to keep. There were similarly NO votes to delete. AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion leading to a consensus. Next, the comment about my membership in ADW is just plain silly. It's a joke, man. Get a life. Finally, I didn't look at the raw numbers (see my first point) so much as read the arguments and the article and come to a conclusion. I discounted some of the Keep sentiments; one was a single-use account (i.e. sockpuppet), and another was a first-person-plural essay. Who's we? Was the editor representing the interests of some group? Very strange. After all that, and my own reading of the article, I came to the conclusion that a consensus had been reached (and which I agreed with) that the article didn't meet the notability guidelines. Anyway, just an explanation of where I was coming from. Do whatever you want. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I was just coming to DRV to list this myself. There was absolutely no consensus to delete. It was the opinion of most editors that it STAY. I wouldn't say there was a consensus to keep the article, but it's ludicrous to suggest there was a consensus to delete. I wasn't especially shocked when I saw that the closing admin is a member of Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Honestly, I don't think administrators who are strongly deletionist or inclusionist should be making controversial closures such as in this case. What the hell happened to policy? Lately AfD is just about administrators acting out their own biases in complete disregard to the will of the community. Owen 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion' and keep deleted. The changes made to the article during its AfD wouldn't affect my vote, at least, and apparent sockpuppetry, or at least votes from brand new accounts, accounted for some of the Keep votes. No real evidence was provided that Reynolds is more notable than many, many other professors. I don't think the closing was out of process. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I won't vote on this matter, since evidently my account is a single-use account, and seems to cloud the issues more than benefit them. In the hopes of clarification, I will say the following. The Bryan Reynolds entry was the first wiki project that I have worked on. I have done my best to cross-reference the entry with other valid entries. I have done my best to improve the entry according to any suggestions recieved. As of yet, I haven't had the opportunity to work on other entries, but I certainly had every intention to do so. And hopefully, the entry on Reynolds has shown that I am quite dedicated to trying to improve an entry to the best of my ability. I have used the plural pronoun at times, because, yes, with some friends I have collaborated on the entry. The list of references alone took us quite a long time to research and collect. In this respect, I don't see what is wrong with a group of friends working on a project together from a single account (If I am incorrect here, please advise).
It's not really apropos to this review, but as a meta-issue, sharing of accounts is contrary to official policy. I don't see anything wrong with several people of similar interest collaborating on a project (in fact, that's probably a good thing), as long as they don't actually share an account. Each person should log in and make edits under their own account name. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I've been the only person to ever log into my account. And actually I think it is perfectly apropos to this review - just look back at your comments. Your justification to delete the entry almost squarley rests on excluding the sentiments of some users. For clarification, please explain how the entry does not meet the notability criteria? Gregorthebug 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You asked if there was anything wrong with a bunch of people working together from a single account. I answered your question. I'm not going to get dragged into a long drawn-out argument. i explained why I did what I did. If it's overturned in review, I'm OK with that. Really. I have no stake in this. The only reason I made my comments on the DR at all was because it seemed impolite to not explain my thought process, and then again later in direct response to your request for information about wikipedia policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting my intentions aside in this matter, I find it frustrating that the merits of an entry are evaluated according to its editor, and not the content of the entry itself. If you refer to the Afd discussion, I thought the notability of Reynolds was addressed, and the wiki notability criteria reached:

Further to WP:PROF, note that: 1) Reynolds is seen as an expert in his field, 2) by independent academics in the field; 3) his work is well-known; 4) his work is widely cited, 5) Reynolds has come up with a new concept -- a critical theory and methodology: “transversal poetics,” and 6) has received two notable awards/honours for his work. From this it is clear that Reynolds passes every category of the WP:PROF and not just one as required: “If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.”

In terms of what Rbellin has said: "No real evidence was provided that Reynolds is more notable than many, many other professors". The contention has never been that Reynolds is more notable than "many, many other professors". At the same time, it is clear that Reynolds is a specialist within early modern English studies, at the very least, if not contributing to theatre and critical theory studies, as well.

He was awarded Chancellor's Fellow in 2005 by the University of California: "Chancellor's Fellows are faculty with tenure whose recent achievements in scholarship evidence extraordinary promise for world-class contributions to knowledge, and whose pattern of contributions evidences strong trajectory to distinction." http://www.ap.uci.edu/distinctions/chancfellow.html

In 2004, he was named by the University of Alabama’s Hudson Strode Program in Renaissance Studies, directed by Gary Taylor, as "one the six most brilliant Renaissance scholars in the world under 40," "for work on ‘transversal poetics.’" http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/1926.html

Now I could understand an argument claiming that it is not sufficient to be notable in early modern English studies/Renaissance studies to warrant a wikipedia entry. I do not think a claim can be made that Reynolds is not, as a professor, notable within his field. Gregorthebug 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow relisting after rewrite in user space Afd is not a vote and there's nothing scandalous about calling oneself a deletionist which is a pretty reasonable thing IMHO. I believe that the closing admin's decision was fair enough. I am concerned that the current version of the article is wading deep into resume territory (the page number by page number mentions/references section is a little silly for an academic who is supposed to be world-class). It is not clear to me at all that his work has been "widely cited". I think though there has been sufficient changes in the article to warrant a relisting given the time disparity between delete and keep votes (this is a subtle detail, I think, and perhaps something a closing admin is not necessarily expected to take note of?). On the other hand, the article needs a good cleanup and pruning to avoid the resume/faculty bio/book author page feel it currently has, as well as the jargonese. Recommend rewrite in userspace before a relisting Bwithh 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion CV bloating trying to do an end run around WP:PROF. But the closing admin was quite right. Eusebeus 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see a consensus supporting the original deletion. I am neutral (weak, weak keep), but beleive the article should never have been deleted. TonyTheTiger 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) – Deletion endorsed, article userfied – 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

What is the big idea??? Bacl-presby 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The "big idea" is that, after seven days of discussion, there was nothing added to the article which explained how the church is anything more than your run-of-the-mill church. And please see the top of this page, which explains what WP:DRV is. It is not "try to get something undeleted without presenting any arguments as to why it should be undeleted". User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment....sorry, I don't know how this is run; obviously in the last five minutes, I'm told that this is "your-run-of-the-mill church"....I'm appealing this hastily swung decision, by folks far from the place, as this is one of the beefs I'm having with wiki; when I find Mercedes McNab getting more space here than a historic church, an integral part of Doors Open Hamilton, and in the overall history of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, it amazes me that one person's tirade against a bunch of Church Stubs, leads to the dismembering of a number of posts....
    Hopefully, the input already recorded, (and remember, the stub was there as more input was going to be added....) and what was added within the recent debate is one reason to keep this intact for now...however, I could be wrong....
    BTW, Does including this into a {{Wikiproject}} keep its life as well??
    Bacl-presby 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Wikiprojects don't trump site-wide policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I posted on my talk page, I'd be happy to userfy if someone wants to expand this. There were a few potential sources mentioned in the discussion, but their actual connection to the church were unexplained so they couldn't get due scrutiny and I couldn't just add them to the article retoractively. The article itself didn't assert any notability whatsoever (other than possibly an implied claim due to its age, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:SCHOOL), so there was no way for me to leave the article in article space. If someone wants to expand this and add a (sourced) claim to notability I have no problems changing the closure to no consensus so it doesn't get G4-ed. On the idea that a local admin should close those discussions, that's a bit, uh, impractical, no? Also, Wikipedia is global in scope so if someone writes an article on a local topic someone with no connection to the place should feel informed after reading the article. And a list of priests without context doesn't really do that. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sure, wiki is a global thing, but there are a signifigant number of users and editors in the Hamilton-Southern Ontario (close proximity to Toronto area, (but DO NOT say that Hamilton is Toronto, or visa versa)....I just find this exercise is a farce.... Bacl-presby 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS--what happens if I just start the article all over again??[reply]
      • If it's the same article it will get redeleted. if it's a different article it might stand or be renominated for deletion depending on content. As for your hope that local admins should close those discussions, it pretty much flies in the face of the idea that closing admins should be neutral and decide based on the merits of the arguments brought up in the discussio rather than on personal knowledge. If they have personal knowledge they should weigh in as editors. In any case, the article is now userfied at User:Bacl-presby/MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton). ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure despite my contrary opinion in the AFD. I tried to add a claim to notability to the article, but apparently it wasn't recognized as such, and it certainly wasn't a great one. I do believe that the article needs almost a complete rewrite, and from my memory any version that had multi-sentence prose paragraphs or used sources would be substantially different, so I didn't object to the close. Since the page is not salted, there is no reason not to just write an article on the subject from the offline sources. Remember that there is no deadline. GRBerry 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Thank you; that's what I'd like to hear (t.i.n.d.); so perhaps a new article on MSPC in 2007, along with other details. Bacl-presby 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, the original deleted article? Paying attention to what...I usually don't spend my time looking at this page, hence I don't know what to do when an article gets deleted!! Bacl-presby 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing here but a list of ministers, none of whom seem to be notable, and none of which is sourced except for the last one. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Sorry, I'm often inclusionist but in this case the WP policy against serving as a directory of things seems to apply. As a Montrealer, I live in a city where, as Mark Twain once famously remarked, you can't fling a brick without breaking a church window. Canada has scores of churches with their own history, with artifacts aplenty, etc. But that doesn't mean WP should be turned into a church directory. Sorry. That's my opinion after reviewing the article in question.Shawn in Montreal 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete In terms of process 1) I see no consensus on this afd 2) the nomination cited 'unverifiability', but that objection was overcome in the debate. In terms of substance, sure the article is bad - but that's a reason for cleanup not deletion. If no good article could be written here, then a merge would have been more appropriate. Notability? See WP:Pokemon--Docg 13:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TrekBBS – No consensus decision overturned, article deleted – 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TrekBBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD2)
  • Overturn and Delete I wanted to start off with saying this review is not that I disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but because I believe the closing admin did not follow Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:
Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
WP:V is not negotiable. The article contains no reliable sources, and is thus unverifiable, then closing a debate based on consensus is not a valid action to take; the article must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. It makes claims that can not be validated. The problem is that there are no reliable sources at all, for anything in the article. No sources means no verifiability. No verifiability means no article. It was said that the article could be made verifiable, but there are no sources cited nor found. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. I have reviewed the AFD and found the keep votes were not based on policy and provided no refuting evidence against the policies that were listed. For an uncited article to be able to survive on the principle that it is verifiable, just not verified requires some showing that sources are reasonably likely to exist. The keep opinions were based on "It's notable" but could not prove it was with any sources. They also ignored the issue of verifiablility, which was the main concern. (This is the AFD in question) --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I agree that the retaining admin. did not pay heed to (unresolved & unresponded-to) issues of verifiability and notability. --EEMeltonIV 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Tough call, actually, but my personal view is that the passing mentions in newspaper articles are indeed trivial, and therefore fail the test. Legitimate difference of opinion, but if we want to improve the quality of the project then we need to be serious about sourcing - without any reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject in detail, we can't verify that the article is neutral. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and delete per policy, as another example of the failures of our sourcing policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the article fails WP:V WP:RS and WP:WEB, editors arguing keep did not prove that this article met any of those criteria, one even arguing that the article should be kept despite failing WP:WEB.--RWR8189 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. What is it with all the "I can just completely ignore guidelines if I feel like it" keeps that I've seen lately? -Amarkov blahedits 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I was quite clear with what I meant. I don't mean that guidelines should be followed to the extent that policies are, but you also can't reject what they say like you can with an essay. -Amarkov blahedits 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. As one of the original 'Keep' voters, I felt that, while the article did indeed fail the various WP guidelines, such guidelines are not intended to be binding in all situations, if the website was notable to the general user. However, upon reading the article again, it doesn't seem to contain any useful information, and is actually a collection of external links, although perhaps a little of it should be merged into the article as suggested by the closing admin. Thedreamdied 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, has there been a culture shift at AFD and DRV towards RS! (Even Badlydrawnjeff is on the deletion side?!) It's a good shift; I like it. Anyway, it's a borderline case; the information merits inclusion, just not its own article. The article was already merged to Trekdom#TrekBBS, so I recommend re-redirection after or in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 23:03Z
  • Comment - Including it in another article doesn't alleviate issues of un-verifiability; if the vote decision is to delete TrekBBS, most of the stuff copy-and-pasted to the Trekdom article (which in and of itself is riddled with OR and verifiability issues) should likewise be axed. --EEMeltonIV 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, but that can be dealt with on that article (it already had a paragraph on TrekBBS); I still think a redirect is a good idea. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:18Z
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jewdar – No consensus decision overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jewdar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

Despite a clear consensus to delete in the AfD, this article was kept as 'no consensus', with the rationale being that several sources had been added, thus invalidating earlier 'delete' comments. However, plenty of comments noted problems with this article in addition the lack of sources, and in my opinion the decision not to delete was the wrong one. Nydas(Talk) 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure The "Delete" arguments were weak at best; I count three "per nom/above" votes, or they quote guidelines, not policy. I see citations in the article from the Washington Post, Salon, and the American Dialect Society, which satisfies WP:V in triplicate.-- weirdoactor t|c 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete The only keep opinion after the article expansion was by the expander - and he offered that opinion two times, so one of them clearly needs to be treated as only a comment. The final opinion refers to the most specific relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, which says that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." That final opinion was that the article should be deleted for failing that guideline. The Salon thing is clearly and obviously a passing mention, not about the term. Ditto the Washington Post article. The American Dialect Society sources are listserv email records, clearly not a reliable source. The very first opinion offered after the one by the article expander was explicit that the article was not yet sourced enough for Wiktionary. The remainder of the discussion was a delete to a no-consensus. Consensus after expansion is clear for deletion. Consensus prior to expansion is similarly clear. GRBerry 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, which is to say, endorse the close. I can see why Brenneman closed as he did, the debate was on the old article. The new one almost certainly fails the same tests ("Jewdar, a recently-coined jocular slang word", um, right) but the close was correct, it should be AfDed in its current form. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. That was most definitely a substantial change, so you can't just assume people have the same opinion. -Amarkov blahedits 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timestamps of all but one of the delete recomendations were prior to the re-write. None of them had returned to say "yeah, still delete" or anything similar. I'm fairly certain that a new AfD will reach the same conclusion, but since sources had been added the proper place to debate them was in a new afd. I'm hardly in love with this article, and I know whet I'd like done with it, but this venue is not afd, and I stand by the close. - brenneman 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussion of the original 2 or 3 sentence version of the article wasn't relevant to the present article and shouldn't still be considered. I think the term "jewdar" is neither clever nor funny, and it invokes unpleasant stereotypes, but is Wik-worthy. I left a longer discussion at Talk:Jewdar. -- House of Scandal 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (endorse) per closing admin (first choice) or Overturn and delete (second choice) - closing as no consensus was reasonable given that the article was completely rewritten after most of the !votes. Personally, I don't think we need an article on every word or phrase that some famous person has invented, but that's a question for AFD, not DRV. --BigDT 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the substantial changes and new sources make it seem like it is no longer a neologism. I could be wrong, but enough has changed that many minds may have changed too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or relist at worst - irrespective of the additions, the article is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia - as the additions were effectively worthless, the closing admin should have closed as a delete. Proto::► 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "the article is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia" - Interesting. "CLEARLY". "NOT SUITABLE". Huh. Do you speak for the whole of Wikipedia, or just yourself? Are there any other articles you'd like to tell us about that are "clearly not suitable for Wikipedia"? I wait with bated breath. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Thompson (researcher) – Merge and redirect decision endorsed and implemented – 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Thompson (researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article vastly expanded see [20] compared to old version [21] Article has been fully sourced with WP:RS sources.

I have recreated the article after examining the previous AfD, and my own vote in that AfD. The general belief was Paul Thompson was not notable on his own. The previous article failed to mention some important facts:

  1. A movie titled "9/11 Press For Truth" was based on Thompsons research.
  2. Thompson has given over 100 interviews including on Fox News and Air America.
  3. Thompson was featured in Esquire magazine in the "Genius Issue" where he was noted as a "terrorism expert"
  4. He has testified to a Congressional Panel regarding the 9/11 commissions final report.

These are issues in which his research in general, not his just his book have come into play. It should also be noted the original reason for the AfD was that he was the author of a book that was going to fail its own AfD, however the book did not.

I would also like to note I originally voted to delete, however much more information has come to light as listed above.

NuclearZer0 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was informed after starting the DRV that "merge and redirects" do not require DRV's [22] Sorry for the trouble, it seems this DRV is out of proccess. --NuclearZer0 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect though I see no reliable source for the 100 interviews, and that was not a "Congressional Panel," it was an informal briefing for Cynthia McKinney and Rep. Raúl Grijalva. The article is better as a redirect to his notable timeline. His person can be discussed in said article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both issues adressed in article already. citation for Congressional Briefing ^ July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (July 22, 2005). and citation for 100 interviews ^ Kristen Matthews. "Tracking The Terror", The Sunday Star Times (republished), March 13, 2005. Quote from last source is "He has done more than 100 radio interviews in the US and was profiled in Esquire magazine's “Genius” issue last December." So I think that covers the issues presented by this user. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/allow recreation. Essentially the status quo. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as redirect or mergeI have never endorsed deletion when political view is involved, but I endorse deletion here because there is not substantial material in the bio article not in the book article, and the two should be merged. The additional sources mentioned are all related to the book. If he write another notable book, then it would be another matter. As is, I think it would be better to move the material to the person, and have the book a redirect, butit doesn't matter much.129.25.135.110 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment added without signing in, but by DGG 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Jeff, we only have one subject here. I don't care whether it's at the book or the author, it's only one subject. And a pretty dismal one at that - the guy very clearly has no qualifications whatsoever in the field, and it's just another example of the "truthers" working backwards from the conclusion. We have altogether too much of this shit. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd Esquire says he is a authority on terrorism, Richard Clarke the former counter-terrorism czar of the US government uses his book to teach courses, HE was invited to a congressional briefing to speak on the topic of terrorism and the final 9/11 commision report. This is all sourced in the article, so it seems your personal opinion on what he knows is outweighed by the resliable sources presented. And he has a book published by Harper Collins, so apparently they think he knows a thing or two as well. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the future please try not to classify people, divisive labels like "truthers" is quite against the idea of cooperation on Wikipedia, and while we are nto censored, please try to tone down the language, if you are stressed out you can always take a wiki break. --NuclearZer0 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AfD as merge and redirects do not require DRV's anyway. I was informed this after I started the DRV, and the admin explained that the person re-creating the article need to do a good job. I examined the votes of the previous AfD and the items listed above address those points. I went on to add 10 WP:RS sources as opposed to 2 from the older version. The older version only had 2 sources and one was first hand, which now there are no first hand sources, and the sources present include newspapers and magazines such as Esquire, The Village Voice etc. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect --Tbeatty 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isnt a vote, it doesn't go by numbers, if you have some points to make you should state what they are so the closing admin can review them. --NuclearZer0 13:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect. To the extent this bloke has any notability under this name, it's because of the book The Terror Timeline, as Paul Thompson is a pseudonym crafted for attaching to The Terror Timeline and associated work. Morton devonshire 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has already been covered, have you read the Esquire article? the whole aryticle is about his research and how it spans before the book, spawning the website, and after the book leading to Harper Collins asking for a second book, and how the 9/11 Press for Truth source specifically states his research inspired the movie, not the book. Then we have the Village Voice article which highlites him not the book, have you read the article? He was asked to testify before congress based on what he knew and has researched, not what was in the book. Then there is the SD BEAT article which talks about him and his past and how he go tinto researching etc. Seems most of the sources in the article are about the person, not the book. --NuclearZer0 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Following votes attributed after Morton pasted this DRV on the controversial noticeboard: [24] Which it should be noted, users coming from that noticeboard were suppose to state they were per the last AfD User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Note they are all regulars, probably explains the lack of explanation and just the vote. --NuclearZer0 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per above. Eusebeus 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per Guy, Morton above. Tom Harrison Talk 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect his notability is limited to the one book which is already covered --rogerd 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As separate article per nom. Notability well established beyond book. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • return to Redirect per Guy, Morton. --Mmx1 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • return to Redirect; although DrV might not be the proper venue, I proposed merging it back again. As "he's" still a pseudonym, his notability dervives from his work. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been covered, we allow pseudonyms, do you have a guideline or policy that says otherwise? Have you actually read the article yet? We had a nice discussion on the talk page where you seem to have not read a single source, hope you had the chance to go over them before voting. Happy New Year. --NuclearZer0 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect.--MONGO 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please present an arguement, DRV is not a vote. --NuclearZer0 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I reread the current version and the version redirected. Plenty of sources in the new version, but no additional assertions of notability. Still agree with redirect; if necessary, delete, redirect, and protect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been addressed in the article and above. Nice to see instead of claiming New York Times, Esquire and House.Gov arent WP:RS, that you moved onto a new arguement. However having a book published, being asked to testify at a congressional hearing, being featured in Esquire in their "Genius Issue", having your research (not book as noted by source) spawn a movie, being featured in The Village Voice and giving interviews on Fox and Air America on your research all seem to say otherwise. Please note Arthur Rubin also is from the same noticeboard as highlited above. --NuclearZer0 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. It still wasn't a "congressional hearing", it was a hearing held by a member of Congress. Not really the same thing, now, is it? His notability is still pretty much derived from the book; if there hadn't been a book, there wouldn't have been any notability. Why not merge it back into the book, anyway? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Congressional Panel, per the source. I think we are gonig to forever not see eye to eye, I have given you sources saying his research is notable and the article sources saying the book came from his research which continues on, not sure why you keep insisting his notability is from the book when the sources seem to disagree. Then again this is kinda like you arguing The New York Times is not WP:RS I guess. --NuclearZer0 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Leykis 101 – Deletion endorsed – 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Leykis 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article Speedily Deleted only becuase it contained previously delted material Greataff 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Keep Article has eveolved from a pedestrian POV article that was poorly written to lesser and lesser by the day article, each day this article was becoming encylopedic. Either this page should be undeleted or User:Pilotguy and other dissenters should give a real reason and take this through a dispute process rather than remove the article on site. Greataff 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion article at time of deletion was some kind of how-to dating guide and would never pass AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks weird. The deletion reason amounts to a G4, although not worded as such. The log is also clean of prior activity, so it wasn't at this title. Using a search, I find a 2005 VFD resulting in delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"Leykis 101". I also notice a merge tag for merging with this article at Tom Leykis. GRBerry 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It was a how-to. A one-para mention in the Tom Leykis article and a redirect might be appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-Up Article was about 1/5 of the programming material of Tom Leykis, a show what has millions of U.S. veiwers. This isn't an atricle about a two-bit radio station content, this is an article about a major topic on a radio program that causes a lot of contoversy. If you look on that vote for deltetion page, you'll notice all of them are from 2005, that vote was taken a whie ago and was not present on this page. None of the merits of the page were imprortant as... "Why was this page delted before a recent vote and proposal for deletion could be made?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greataff (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC).--Greataff 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously Leykis 101 (without the quotes). An AFD previously deleted the article, which is a perfectly good reason for a speedy delete. Ckessler 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been recreated again. Still has no sources. GRBerry 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And deleted again. Oh what fun. This version had sources, but nothing I'd take as either reliable or independent. What a mess. I keep waffling on the fence about endorsing the deletion as a G4 or sending it to AFD again with the sources. If it stays deleted, salt is called for. If it goes to AFD and then gets deleted, salt will be called for at that time. GRBerry 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this should be a clear and obvious redirect to Tom Leykis. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Many say that there is deleted content where? Oh, well becuase it was speedily deleted many who had this on their watch list haven't had a change to comment becuase now it no longer appears. I guess there is no hope for this article in wikipeida. Many however, say that this is a how-to, this article does have merit existing in wikipedia's suster project for how-to's. --Greataff 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki As per my vote on the article's discussion page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Project 490 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't know to what degree a dating technique can be copyrighted, if indeed it can at all, but the article as written uses some very specific terminology and such that might be considered Leykis' intellectual property. Transwiki should only be done if we are absolutely certain that it's safe to do so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
7chan – Deletion endorsed – 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
7chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

has become newsworthy and "reasonably notorious". 72.70.19.171 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the article so I cannot comment if it should be recrated or not but can you provide sources to demostrate its newsworthyness. Being able to provide relaible sources of this will help is substantiang your claims and would make an argument to undelete stronger. Without sources it will only be your word and that will not be enough. --70.48.109.189 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759563/posts and, on his own site, http://www.halturnershow.com/HalTurnerRetaliatesForAttackOnRadioShow.html Hal Turner is forcing 7chan into the news because of supposed "attacks" on his site and show. As i understand it, the previous artical on 7chan was only deleted because of a lack of news. I'm unsure if his personal site counts as a news source, but i believe Free Republic does. 72.70.19.171 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, under the stipulation that a third creditable source be provided. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Keep, Alexa Traffic rankings - !Malomeat 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stipulation not met, try again. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion and keep: Causing major websites to be thrown offline sounds pretty notable to me. All the page needs is some good writers to keep it purely factual. Furthermore, 7chan has been sourced on various sites for the attacks. They are even linked to from the Hal Turner wiki page, and being the source of attacks it is only fitting they have their own page.

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking

And,

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

I think that puts the 'sources' arguement to rest. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Velfarre – Edit history restored and sent to AfD – 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Velfarre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

incoming links suggest an article is needed about this closing nightclub and deleted version was better than current version --Henrygb 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gangsterz2 – Deletion endorsed – 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gangsterz2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Gangsterz 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article should not have been deleted as it did not meet the criteria for deletion. The page had just started and the guidelines clearly state that a new page should not be deleted. We at Gangsterz2 would have edited and expanded the page to make it have alot more information. This article had usful information anyway and it could be of some use to some people. If you would please reinstate this page so we can add more things on. There was no discussion at all and it was deleted without debate even though i put a hangon on the page and posted in the discussion page. Thanks, G2Pie G2Pie 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rafed.net – No consensus closure overturned, relisted at AfD – 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rafed.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Pretty much we have an AfD here where people voted to ignore WP:WEB for whatever reason. AfD is not a vote, yadda yadda yadda, no reliable sources with non-trivial information about this site were presented, just some weblink directories and Alexa results. Clearly precluded by WP:WEB. W.marsh 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you? Is there any particular reason why you should have been informed? -Amarkov blahedits 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, i found some Arabic references from Sistani: [26] Search for this string "مركز إحياء التراث الإسلامي", it can be also found here: [27]. The book "Oil in the Gulf: Obstacles to Democracy and Development" By Daniel Heradstveit on page 140 gives Rafed.net as one of the sites that spread sistanis scholarship. --Striver - talk 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just got confimation that most of [28] is a coverage of the site. Again, notice that the site making the endorsing coverage is seestani.com , the site of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest Shi'a marja and a major political factor in Irak. --Striver - talk 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy behind the WP:WEB guideline for notability is WP:RS, and seestani.com does not satisfy that, nor do any of the non-English language references that you have just cited. --72.75.72.174 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's WP:N, and I think the problem is that it can't be made to fulfil WP:NPOV with these sources. I don't know how someone could expect the site of a Grand Ayatollah to give neutral coverage on anything. -Amarkov blahedits 07:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! ... forgot to wikilink "notability" ... Good Trump with the NPOV call! --72.75.72.174 08:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that it confirms that sitani has a site there... anyhow, ill let him answer that. But how about the book reference i provided, why is that not enough? And in fact, it does not even mater if http://www.sistani.org/ is sistanis page, WP:WEB does not require that, it only requires that multiple third party sources make non-trivial coverage, and i have provided three examples of this. I see many references to WP:N and WP:V here, but i do not see that reflected in WP:WEB. This is totally unjust to demand coverage that is not demanded by WP:WEB, why this double standard?! --Striver - talk 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (web): The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
Note that it does NOT demand that the sources are Notable or Neutral, only that the coverage is non-trivial and that the source is independent of the site itself.And this is all done by the book references i gave, a university scholar referencing an author! --Striver - talk 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, the sources do not have to be Notable, but they must be Neutral and Verifiable, which are policies that trump any guidelines like WP:N, WP:WEB, or even WP:RS ... sources related to the subject cannot be used because of WP:NPOV, the policy that is the foundation of the WP:RS and WP:INDY guidelines ... simply saying that "somebody important said something about the subject" does not satisfy WP:V, the policy that is the foundation of the WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:BK guidelines ... the issue goes beyond the minutia of WP:WEB (which you have previously distained because "it is still in a guidline phase and has not been accepted as a policy") and rests squarely on the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V ... please see the essay Why do articles get deleted? for a clearer explaination. --Dennette 15:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am not satisfied with WP:WEB, but i have to base my arguments on it for the time being. The source needs to be neutral? Were in Gods name did you get that from? Most cerntanly not from WP:NPOV, plase provide a quote. WP:V? Verifiability is about being able to verify a claim. Are you claiming that the book i refered to does not exist? If not, exactly how is WP:V related to this issue? Please go into details. WP:RS is not related to this issue either, otherwise a site like Faithfreedom.org would never have survived its two afds, boasting zero (0) reliable sources. You have just given a host of arguments that are totally irrelevant to determining notability of a site, what you have shown are policies related to writing an article, not to determining notability! --Striver - talk 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Talk:Faith Freedom International ...

This article was nominated for deletion on July 9, 2005. The result of the discussion was delete.

How it came back to survive two more AfDs is not explained on the Talk page or edit history, but

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Dec 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

And even now, the debate for deletion of that article continues (see edit history) ... but that is all off-topic anyway, since Faith Freedom International is judged on WP:ORG, not WP:WEB.
OK, now I understand Striver's confusion ... Faithfreedom.org is a redirect to the parent organization for the website because the website was judged by consensus at AfD to be not notable enough for its own article, just as Ali Sina (judged by WP:BIO) is redirected there as a result of an AfD (redirect and merge instead of delete), but all of that history has been lost in the many redirects ... exactly which survived multiple AfDs is still irrelavent to this discussion. --Dennette 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My misstake, i sought that it failed the latest and was overturned in drw, while in fact, it failed the earlier one but was recreated and became no-conensus in the later, still having 0 (zero) RS or Notable sources. The article is about the site, obvious if you read it, it even as a "Traffic rankings" section. --Striver - talk 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the source of a great deal of frustration from me, i feel that people just throw out random policy reference and think that should somehow be enough to support a delete argument, while at the same time ignoring what i present or take into account what WP:WEB accutaly says, going so far as dismissing a source for not being NPOV, a horribly ridiculous statment!--Striver - talk 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

28 December 2006

[edit]
Memset Ltd – Deletion endorsed – 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Memset Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe the page about my company (Memset Ltd.) should not have been deleted since it qualifies for notability; we have received a fair amount of press coverage, for example our recently winning the PC Pro Best Web Host 2006 award (which should qualify under "published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"), and our leadership of the carbon neutral hosting movement in the UK. We are also arguably the UK's leading virtual dedicated server provider (coverage in The Register), and were certainly the first in Europe to provide Xen-based Windows virtual machines. Admittedly, the page could use some more information on our contributions to Xen and our Miniserver technology, but I cannot extend it if it is deleted. Khcw77 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist for deletion. Per comments by Khcw77 above, and apparent lack of adherence to deletion procedure (No AfD? - was this a speedy delete?) the initial action should be reconsidered at the least, however given the circumstances of the delete and the tenuous evidence presented by the aforementioned user, the article should be relisted for deletion, not overturned. Sahrin 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CSD#G11 is absolutely according to deletion procedure, and does not require an AFD. I've not seen this article in particular, but employees of a company itself have a notoriously poor record in producing articles that don't read like blatant advertising. Fan-1967 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As noted below, there is no information regarding this delete in article history - that a member of the company is lobbying to have the delete overturned is not proof in and of itself that the article is biased, nor that the article does not merit entry in the encyclopedia. Fan-1967, where you involved in deletion of this article? Do you have more information about its deletion? (Was it a WP:COI or as you noted, WP:CSD#G11 issue? Sahrin 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brothers Past – Deletion overturned, article listed at AfD – 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brothers Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Brothers Past has appeared to be speedy deleted instead of having a legitimate AfD review. The band is notable, with a national following in the jamband scene. Other bands on Wikipedia with an equal or even smaller following include RAQ and Railroad Earth. Milchama 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but allow for recreation if proper evidence of notability is given. The band might be notable but the articles never asserted the notability of the band. The 4 speedy deletions (mine being the most recent) do seem to be proper as the articles never demonstrated where the band met WP:BIO. But if you can produce evidence that it meets the criteria, then I'd support recreation. Metros232 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually "they have since continued touring aggresively across the United States, boasting over 650 shows since their 2000 formation" is a quite direct assertion of notability according to WP:MUSIC, and also G4 doesn't hold for prior speedies. Edit history restored btw. ~ trialsanderrors 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD. A7 is not asserting notability, and all I see is not having notability. -Amarkov blahedits 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SEERI – restored, now at AfD – 23:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SEERI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Request undeletion of SEERI and link to Kottayam. Discussion of the importance of this institution with added reasons for keeping it (Gareth Hughes)was under way. The decision to delete was therefore premature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive sweeting (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mother Vinegar – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mother Vinegar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Hello. I hope I am doing this right (!!). I was surprised to see one of my favorite bands, Mother Vinegar, deleted from Wikipedia. For one, the band has a record deal, an internationally distributed album, and has FM radio and satellite radio play as well as a substantial following. I last saw the band in November at a 1,000 seat venue and the two-night stand was sold out. They have toured with national acts and headlined any venues that other artists on Wikipedia have headlined. However, the main reason I feel they should remain on Wikipedia is because of the band's leader, Karl Engelmann. Engelmann is a primary songwriter for Umphrey's McGee - a very popular band that Rolling Stone called (paraphrased) "the next Phish." Engelmann's other band - Ali Baba's Tahini - is also a popular group that features the guitarist from Umphrey's. All three of these bands dabble in the songbook of Engelmann and perform to much of the same audience. Umphrey's McGee and Mother Vinegar are set to tour theaters in the southeast next spring. I read through the "WP: MUSIC" guidelines and MV seems to fit these. Please note that the article was a "speedy deletion" that I feel was made hastefully. The article was online for over a year, and several other articles link to Mother Vinegar, including the Umphrey's McGee, Ali Baba's Tahini, The Pharmer's Almanac, Karl Engelmann, Amfibian, pages and related pages. This wasn't just a local band who wanted to be on Wikipedia...the band has recieved national coverage, has a substantial live fan base, a record deal & album, and members who are linked to other major projects. Thank you! SEGA 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wipipedia – No consensus to overturn, renomination remains as editorial option – 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wipipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Note: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion where they are unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question." For the record, no attempt was made to do this. Amarkov started the DRV and only told me about it after doing so. Nor did he place a {{delrev}} notice on the article as he should have done.--Runcorn 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second was because I was unaware such a thing existed, and the first I think is weird, so I ignored it. -Amarkov blahedits 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF but Amarkov is a regular contributor here and the procedures are clearly stated. It is odd that he is so insistent on sticking to WP:WEB yet feels free to ignore other rules and guidelines that he considers "weird".--Runcorn 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a consensus to keep. There were lots of keeps, yes, but most failed to address the point, instead going on about how WP:WEB could not be used as a deletion reason because it isn't a policy. -Amarkov blahedits 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the closing admin. An AfD is not a vote so the exact number of keeps is irrelevant (for the record it was 9 keeps to 7 deletes); I just addressed myself to the arguments. There had been a previous AfD where another admin had recorded a keep. The reason I marked the second AfD as a keep is that the arguments for delete were weak. The initial reason for the AfD was that it was allegedly in violation of the policy WP:WEB. As was pointed out, this is not a policy; it was proposed as a policy, but rejected. In any case, the notability of Wipipedia was clearly established in the first AfD (in which I took no part) and the proposers of the deletion produced no new evidence to rebut this, while others did provide fresh evidence of notability.
It was also alleged that there was a lot of WP:ILIKEIT. There was one such vote on the first AfD but I saw none on the second. It is true that some of the keeps were from administrators on Wipipedia, but they are substantial contributors to Wikipedia, have every right to participate in an AfD and WP:AGF I took their comments at face value.--Runcorn 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... you just restated what I have a problem with. WP:WEB not being a policy does not mean things can't be deleted because of it. Look at the many articles deleted because of WP:RS. -Amarkov blahedits 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but assertions that an article fails WP:WEB are not grounds for deletion. No new arguments were adduced other than those rejected in the previous AfD; on the contrary, there were fresh arguments strengthening the case for keep.--Runcorn 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they weren't rejected, they were just ignored on the grounds of "But WP:WEB isn't policy!". -Amarkov blahedits 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "they weren't rejected, they were just ignored" in the previous AfD, that should have been raised after the previous AfD, not now.--Runcorn 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurdly bureaucratic. "I'm sorry, but since you didn't see this wrong right after it happened, it can't be fixed!" -Amarkov blahedits 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it absurdly bureaucratic to point out that this is a review of the recent AfD, not one held months ago that has never been challenged? Amarkov himself points out just above this review that old AfDs should not be pursued.--Runcorn 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't believe that these were justified votes. Actually, the following arguements were used for keeping this article:
    • WP:WEB is not a policy.
    • The previous discussion was closed with keep.
    • Informed Consent links and uses information from the website.
    • Removing it might damage Wikipedia.
    • Wikipedia uses content from there and it is often found as a see also.
    • It is a serious effort.
  • I believe that the most of these were nonsensical, while some were completely unreleated to this discussion. The most reasonable arguement was Informed Consent, however, it is a rather trivial website and it uses this encyclopedia only on a single section of it. It is also important to mention that this process was advertised on Wipipedia and most likely drew quite a few of the website's members. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The "keep" was entirely justified because of the weak arguments for deletion. It is emphatically not the case that the AfD was advertised on Wipipedia. AnonMoos put notes on the talk pages of myself and one other person. As we both monitor the Wipipedia article, we knew about the AfD before AnonMoos told us.--Taxwoman 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguements for deletion were not "weak", I gave a reason for why it doesn't pass a single WP:WEB criteria, and the nominator mentioned that it isn't verifiable. The invitations, although were directed to certain users, where seen by public and followed by many of the website's members coming to the discussion as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This discussion will not be helped by serious factual inaccuracies. It is not true that there were "many of the website's members coming to the discussion as well".--Taxwoman 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. An argument was made that it met WP:WEB due to its republishing on a popular BSDM site. "Popular and well-known" must be taken in the context of the audience it serves, and I didn't see much of an argument to debunk that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and move irrelevant philosophical debates to the talk page. Core problem appears to be lack of reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sockpuppetry isn't relevant. Even if many people were sockpuppets, that doesn't make the keep arguments invalid. "Not a vote" goes both ways. -Amarkov blahedits 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist because the closing didn't pay due respect to the established guideline WP:WEB, which is a reversible error by my standards. This is made clear by the closer's statement above. All contributors are supposed to work within the guidelines, unless there are compelling reasons to ignore them in a specific case. From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Because this confusion about what a guideline is has persisted through both AFDs, from at least some participants, the relister should make it darn clear that WP:WEB does apply and is the relevant standard, absent a compelling case for an exception. The argument about redistribution could be the deciding factor, but we need some evidence that they meet the "well known" criteria of WP:WEB - this was discussed somewhat in the first AFD and only the Alexa test has been offerred. Given that I have zero respect for the Alexa test, I don't find that convincing and would want to see independent sources that are reliable establishing that the redistributor is indeed well known. The opionions that it should be kept because it was kept before should be disregarded if they had no other basis; under the policy that consensus can change. GRBerry 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • GRBerry has misinterpreted my comments. A clear case was made in the first AfD and accepted by the previous closer that the article does pass WP:WEB. I fully appreciate that an article that fails WP:WEB should be deleted, but believe that no new arguments have been advanced to change the position of the previous closer. Consensus can change, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion.--Runcorn 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop beating Runcorn, this was a perfectly understandable close but this one is more complex than it looks. It needs more input, I think, and less philosophical debate. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Guy. Let's take another look at this. JDoorjam Talk 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn and delete or relist. Most of the "keep"'s piled together aren't worth the matches it would take to set them on fire. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. A dubiuos "keep" decision when the defenders didn't bother to add a single reliable source to the article between 2(!) votes for deletion, only babbling about "popularity in certain circles". `'mikka 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'd actually prefer a strait up delete to a relist. Failure to meet notability guidelines is a familiar deletion criterion. The Keep arguments ignored or trivialized WP:WEB rather than asserting (let alone showing) that Wipipedia meets it. Eluchil404 13:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe issue of WP:WEB seems central in this debate. The argument about Informed Consent which republishes the Wipipedia and which is used to support the assertion that the article passes WP:WEB has not reached any consensus. Those for the keep result maintain that as the UKs most popular BDSM site (as measured by Alexa) IC is "popular and well known". Those againt the article maintain that having an Alexa ranking of only 15,000 IC cannot be considered popular. The issue must therefore be what is the definition of popular and is it reasonable to link the measure of popularity with the global interest in the subject. Linked to this is the subject matter itself, alternate sexuality is never going to produce publications/sources of the seriousness of more mainstream topics. Again, a decision must be made as to how to apply the standards. BalzacLFS 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate is not whether Informed Consent is popular or not established by Alexa ranks. A popular porn website might use content from the website too, but it doesn't make it notable. The debate is whether Informed Consent is reliable. As I see it right now, it's a trivial website that consists mostly of webblogs, chat rooms, and web forums, which means it isn't an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you dig deeper into the site you will find plenty of articles about the subect matter other than blogs and web forums but that is not the main point. IC is a community site where people share information and knowledge about the BDSM lifestyle. I accept that it does not meet the standard you might apply to other areas of knowledge but kinky sex does not create those sites in the first place. I'm afraid that IC is as serious as it gets when it comes to altsex and the closest you will find to an on-line publisher/magazine! BalzacLFS 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe deletionist feeling was perhaps related to the subject involved. WP does not censor, but the WP articles on the some range of topics are rather innocuous, and Wipi sometimesless so--though still quite mild by web stanards. The Wipi therefore serves as a useful extension of our WP, and maintains roughly similar standards of relevance and quality, though a little freer in the use of some outside links. The notability was shown by the very wide range of referals from outside sites, and as to verifiability--it exists, and everyone can see it and see the notable qualities for themself. The standards are met, and they are met both in the letter and the spirit, and the discussion was fairly judged. 129.25.135.110 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Previous comment added without signing in, but by DGG 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's not what verifiability is. It doesn't matter that you can verify it exists, because an article has to say more than "This is a thing. Which exists." You have to be able to verify information about it, and you can not. -Amarkov blahedits 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgive me if I am missing something obvious here, the article does not contain any information that could not be verified by someone going to the wesite and looking for themselves. If the article was factually incorrect or trying to put across impression of what the site represents them someone would have already edited it to bring it in to line. BalzacLFS 10:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure It's very simple; the main issue was whether the site passed WP:WEB; evidence was presented that it did. The closing admin very reasonably accepted that evidence, so his decision was sensible and should stand. This is not a forum for having a third AfD on an article that has been kept after two AfDs.--Brownlee 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Amarkov says elsewhere on Deletion review (Khaleel Mohammed) "There was disagreement as to whether they did meet WP:PROF. You can't ask for something to be deleted because it didn't meet WP:PROF when others claimed it did." Similarly here, there is disagreement; you can't ask for something to be deleted because it didn't meet WP:WEB when others claimed it did.--R613vlu 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The closing admin rightly points out that Amarkov has not followed the proper procedures, in particular to ensure that those with an interest in the article might be able to find out about the DRV. It is also worth pointing out that "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate." It is clear that the balance of the AfD debate was that the article does pass WP:WEB. The whole thrust of those rejecting the "Keep" decision is that contrary to that debate, it does not pass. It is thus a disagreement with the outcome, not with the closer's interpretation. certainly no new information is offered.--Taxwoman 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I was the first AfD nominator, didn't find out about the second AfD and still think the article should be deleted as failing WP:WEB. However, there was clearly no consensus to delete in this AfD, and as far as I understand our deletion policy, deletion absent a consensus is only permissible if the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV mandate it. WP:N, alas, is not a core policy, so process was followed correctly (except I'd have labeled the outcome as "no consensus"). Sandstein 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per above. While trying to assume good faith, WP:BIAS may apply here considering how much this is being blown out of porportion. The closing admin did nothing wrong and obviously followed proper procedure, as others have clearly explained here. metaspheres 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'm highly disgrunted by the fact that, even though I did not "advertise" the AFD in any sense which would be relevant for the {{afdnewbies}} tag, User:Michaelas10 keeps on constantly accusing me of advertising nevertheless -- and though he has never been able to point to one single concrete example of a "newbie" or "single-purpose account" particupating in the AFD discussion, he nevertheless insists that the {{afdnewbies}} should be kept in the closed AFD discussion, to serve as a constant accusation against me, and perpetual stigma of my supposed personal "guilt" and shame, down into the indefinite future... AnonMoos 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not an accusation. You have been told that many times. Stop construing it as one. -Amarkov blahedits 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • User Michaelas10 has never said that he doesn't consider me guilty of advertising, and it's hard to fathom his extreme rigorous zeal in keeping a now-irrelevant tag in a closed AFD, based on a purely hypothetical speculative possibility, otherwise... AnonMoos 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um... It's closed. Absolutely no action can be taken on you because a tag is in an AfD. Why would he care about keeping it in to accuse you? -Amarkov blahedits 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really wouldn't claim to know why he does care, but he seems to be grimly determined in the matter. 11:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist as above. Ral315 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators – Speedily closed, AfD was endorsed on December 21. – 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was kept after extensive debate around a year ago. Since then the list was extensively improved by a large number of experience wikipedia editors and admins. Over 120 sources were provided, a working definition of dictator was decided upon. Editors painstakingly manipulated font sizes to make the article read well. A system was worked out by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters for discussing controversial entries. Discussions were always productive and lead to quick consensus. The article remained amazingly stable for around a year.

The article was a remarkable resource. And a Google search for "list of dictators" shows what a void has been created in the internet itself.

The article comprised hundreds of hours of work by dozens of editors working in good faith. Tens of thousands of words of discusions about the article have also been deleted.

All this on the whim of an admin who knew of the extensive history of the article User:Doc_glasgow. Active contributors to the article such as myself and Lulu of the lotus eaters were not informed of the AfD, which was timed for the holiday season and we were unable to vote. Despite this there were 11 votes to keep against 4 to delete. A strong consensus to Keep.

Admin Doc Glasgow decided to delete in spite of the strong contrary consensus and making no reference to the previous titanic deletion debate in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. That debate was on a far inferior article which had no sources. The article that had just been deleted was possibly the best sourced article in wikipedia with over 120 sources.

Doc Glasgow along with his friend desysoped former-admin User:172 were active in the previous debate. User:172 spammed over 50 wiki users flattering them and asking them to help him out with the vote. Doc Glasgow was well aware of the previous debate, well aware of his own opposition to the article in that debate. He was also well aware of the immense effort put into improving the article, the relative stability of the article, and its extensive sourcing.

Despite this, he overruled wikipedia policy deleting an article as an admin that he had previously been involved with. Not only did he not recuse himself but deleted the article against the consensus of the vote, using the exact same rationale that he used in the debate a year previously that had been rejected by the community then and now. His remarks in deleting the article are:

The result was DELETE. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this.

With this glib, unprofessional tirade he deleted the hundreds of hours of work against consensus, without declaring his own previous involvement in the article and without noting the immense improvements. The contributors to this AfD and the previous one in fact addressed that very point. It would therefore no be reasonable to delete against consensus because it "offends against a core policy" since that was the very crux of the discussion between experience users and admins.

I implore wikipedia to restore this article its former state. When people contribute to wikipedia they to so from a point of view of one who wishes to share their own knowledge - to codify the knowledge that we all posses. The glib and haphazard erasion of their contributions by admins who do not respect that beautiful impulse which has made wikipedia great, damages wikipedia immensely. If people are not convinced that their work will be considered in a fair and broadly democratic way then they will stop contributing. That is why I also implore wikipedia to strip the deleting admin of his adminship. He did something outrageous, he knew exactly what he was doing, he should of recused himself and shouldn't have deleted the article in any case. juicifer 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

juicifer 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I don't think that people understand that "Inherently POV" means "it can not be fixed, with any improvements". Also, 11 people saying "keep" ignores the fact that at least 5 completely misunderstood the argument. And WP:NPOV can not be overruled by consensus. By the way, the keeps weren't saying "Well, it's already NPOV!", they were saying "Yes, it is biased, but YOU have to clean it up!" Even against arguments that it couldn't be cleaned up. -Amarkov blahedits 19:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. It is salvageable with heavy quotation, citation and reference-adding. The existence of the article does not violate NPVO in my opinion, as "dictator" is a qualifiable and citeable description. —Nightstallion (?) 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Closing admin did not pay attention to arguments for keep, and closure reason reads much more like a !vote than a summation of consensus or argument. Article may need tightening up of criteria to avoid difficulties with NPOV, but closing admin's claim of inherently POV is not a consensus view. Argyriou (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion based on Doc's reasoning. We appear in many cases to be applying 20th Century Western values to either historical or non-Western cultures (Oliver Cromwell being a fine example. Dictator is a weasel term in this context. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Three Great Powers – No consensus closure endorsed – 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Three Great Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The debate on whether the page should be kept or deleted was ended too soon. It was open for about a day, there were many other editors concerned who did not even know it was up for being deleted that would have wanted to express their opinions. I'm asking that the debate be reopened so that more people can express their opinion on the subject matter. Plus, 3 of the 4 people who voted said deleted and only one said keep. Not enough was said on whether it should be kept or delete for the discussion to have ended when it did. I am not asking the outcome be swayed, just that there can be allowed more time to talk about things. Angel Emfrbl 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Closure even though I too disagree with the CA's reasoning of no consensus. The AfD was open for 10 days, longer then the 5 day minimum that is required and proper noticed as placed on the article[29] and WP:AfD[30]. The AfD was also listed on the anime and manga's deletion sorting page on the 22nd[31]. Lack of knowledge about an AfD is not a legitimate grounds to reopen the debate if the debate has been properly noted on the article and WP:AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that there were two merge votes, which are treated as keep in determining AfD outcomes. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I do not see any reversible error on the part of the closing admin; a no consensus close was well within reasonable discretion for this discussion. Merge and redirect is always available as an editorial decision. And after a decent interval (a couple months) another AFD could be done. GRBerry 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, AfD rarely produces a definite result with fancruft (or articles entirely relating to fiction if you must), and seeking consensus for merging and/or redirecting is far more productive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - the AfD had a mix of merge, keep and delete opinions, with no clear consensus. The closing admin was well within his rights to default to keep. Tarinth 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infobox Philippine High School – Deletion endorsed – 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infobox Philippine High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

Restore. Deletion log states "Once this is done (with the blessing of WP:SCH, leave me a message on my talk and I'll delete." ... No blessing from WP:SCH has been attained. Further, deletion of the template has caused errors in various pages. For instance, Xavier School. { PMGOMEZ } 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name the errors and it shall be fixed. --Howard the Duck 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find them. Point is, no blessing from WP:SCH was attained. { PMGOMEZ } 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me the errors? Point is, it was deleted already and you created a new template, Template:Infobox K-12 School. --Howard the Duck 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer bringing it back for the sake of other Philippine High Schools. { PMGOMEZ } 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for tracking all my contribs, even if they have no relation to the point at hand. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your new infobox looks exactly like the one that was deleted. And yeah, that's why the Watchlist lets you see other people's contribs. Nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact, click "the" on my sig and tell me what appears. --Howard the Duck 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I never knew newly created templates could instantly be added to one's watchlist. At any rate, the new infobox solves the prob. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't, but you see other people's contribs. --Howard the Duck 12:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism – Restored and listed at AfD with consent of deleting admin – 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted even though I had put a "{hangon}" on it, and was drafting the justification for its preservation. Briefly, the wikipedian who placed the speedy delete did so less than two minutes after I created the article. That is counter to policy, or at least it was the last time I looked. The instructions say I am supposed to advise the administrator who performed the deletion, but they don't say how to determine who that was. Geo Swan 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Moondance magazine – Speedily closed, Afd ongoing – 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Moondance magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New rewrite is in place. Please review. Am trying to follow all admin suggestions carefully. Want good standard to be encouraged and article to be saved. All thanks. --Lysanzia 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 December 2006

[edit]
Cosmic Flight Entertainment – Deletion endorsed – 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cosmic Flight Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I didn't create the article for it to be deleted. I even said on the article's talk page that I understood that the article was liable for speedy deletion, and I even rebuttled with a statement on the article's Talk Page. My article was titled "Cosmic Flight Entertainment," I cannot type out a whole perfect article that you might expect at the moment, especially when it was about 3 AM whenever I was typing it. This has been at least the third time that I have tried and created the same article, but you ignoramoses keep deleting it.

Your next step is deletion review. I didn't delete Cosmic Flight Entertainment because it was imperfect or unfinished, but because it failed to assert notability.--Kchase T 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I understand that. As stated before, I did intend to further develop my article, so that it may meet the specific guidlines.
Putting "assertion to notability" more bluntly: why should anyone care about this group? Why do they merit an article? What makes them important or significant? Answer that question and you may have yourself a good reason to head to DRV.--Kchase T 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Because I feel that their background needs to be told, I've seen dozens of articles that render the same thing that I am trying to accomplish, and even those, I love reading through. This article is basically for informational purposes, which is what, I think anyway, Wikipedia should be. Yes, you may not understand what I am getting at, but if you un-delete the article, I will show you that I can create an article that "asserts notability" by updating the article with current projects, news, etc. One such article that I belive deserves to be deleted more than my own article is Mondo Mini Shows, just off the top of my head. I mean, even I am willing to create a more relevent article than that, and I will create a more relevent article than that.

Need I say anymore? Un-delete my article.

  • My speedy deletion was the third one on A7 grounds. Other than that, I don't have much to say about the whole thing.--Kchase T 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Based on the answers.com mirror, I see no assertion of notability. Author can offer no claim to notability at the moment, but promises some will be forthcoming at some point in the future if the article's undeleted? I don't think so.Fan-1967 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep your comments to yourself, the information that the page you linked to was not what I had on the page, anyway. And if the page was restored, I would be able to prove that.
  • Endorse deletion. If you feel that you need to preemptively fight off a speedy, it almost certainly is a speedy candidate, and this is not one of the exceptional cases. -Amarkov blahedits 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, if you would just Restore the article I will be able to edit it to it's full potential. I shouldn't have to prove anything, especially whenever there was nothing wrong with the article that I submitted. There was a reason why I put the "hangon" message at the begginning of the article, so that it wouldn't be deleted immediately. As mentioned before, I said that I would edit and update the page on the article's talk page. I had some valuble information that I had put on that page, and now cannot retrieve. If anything, could you send me the transcript of the article so that I may have it filed in my system? This is not what I expected from you, Wikipedia, I thought that you would at least have administrators with the slightest decensy to respect others.

You don't need to have a wikipedia article to show notability. That's circular logic, and it doesn't work. If you'd explain notability here, you might get better results. Empty insistences don't mean anything to anyone but yourself. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Yell that it's notable 'til you're blue in the face. Your insistence won't magically turn a non-notable website into a notable one. Danny Lilithborne 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - if you've to use the existance of a company's Wikipedia article to demonstrate its notability, the article is in deep trouble. And just take a look at the 19 gorgeous Google hits [32] - another telltale sign of a non-notable company. No wonder reliable sources have not been given to assert notability, either in the article or on this very page! Without reliable sources, you can write a billion words of your most fluent English, and the article will still be deleted. That's how important sources are. Kimchi.sg 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Danny and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh - a non-notable company. Please demonstrate notability through verifibility, namely reliable sources, and I will reconsider my opinion. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as hopelessly non-notable. The article's one attempt to claim notability is that the webmaster supposedly recieved a (unspecified and unsourced) compliment from the co-writer of a web cartoon. If that were all it took to get an article, we'd have to totally abandon the very concept of being an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeking advice Could I have done this differently? Was it inappropriate to foist the editor off on DRV so quickly? Replies here, on my talk page, or via email are appreciated. I'm still a newbie admin.--Kchase T 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's usually best not to start or suggest a DRV (or AFD, or RFA, or RFC, or any editor-heavy process) if there isn't a reasonable chance that it might succeed. It would probably have been preferable to introduce the author to the relevant deletion guidelines (e.g. WP:CORP, WP:V, etc) and pointed out some good articles in a similar field that the author might want to work on instead. A DRV is really only for when there's a question of whether deletion process was followed, or if substantial new information arises since the deletion occurred. Neither applies here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GageShoichi tried deleting this discussion. I have restored it. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
George Nozuka – Restored per discussion – 08:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
George Nozuka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

4:3 is not consensus. (I hesitate to add that the article passed the criteria the nom used as grounds for deletion.) Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion The links provided in the AfD [33] [34] [35], would seem to meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC (multiple non-trivial sources), and much of the discussion about them occurred after the argument was added. Though the nominator's view didn't change, the only !vote after that was keep. Consensus can change based on new information (though it's still possible that the others !voting delete saw the dialogue and it still didn't sway them).--Kchase T 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. It's not a vote, but there still wasn't consensus as to whether or not WP:MUSIC was met. -Amarkov blahedits 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly relist, sorry Nick, but I'm not sure if I agree with you 100% that they were unreliable sources. I think the best route here would be to relist in an attempt to determine whether these sources fufill WP:MUSIC or not, by determining whether they are reliable or not. Of course, DRV isn't the forum to do that, and there is every chance that they could be considered unreliable, but for now, concensus at that AfD seems to say that they're not unreliable, and that is what stands at the moment. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete notable Canadian performer who unfortunately makes me realize that I've moved from the Much to the MuchMore demographic. Also no consensus to delete -- Samir धर्म 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Master E.K. – Deletion endorsed – 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Master E.K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My article on Master E.K. is deleted and protected by Admin Zoe. I have provided enough third party links to establish notability and also links to the directly related websites. I have described the article in my own words with a couple of lines still needing rewording. I request any other admin to look into this and help with restoration. This is a genuine article and the links I provided in the deleted page will prove it. Admins please look into this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jalamani (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GuildCafe – No consensus decision overturned, relisted at AfD – 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GuildCafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

AfD is a discussion not a vote. None of the individuals indicating the article should be kept actually provided any material which would show the article meets WP:WEB. Tarinth claimed to have found some via google, but no google searches I did provided any non-trivial coverage of the site outside a bunch of rehashes of the press release which WP:WEB clearly addresses as not being enough to satisfy the criteria for notability. In fact a search is here [36] which shows their home page, a blog, wikipedia, a forum thread, and then the start of a bunch of mentions of the press release. If there IS non-trivial coverage, great. I'd just like to actually see it. Crossmr 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Discounting the absurd slippery slope argument, there was obviously disagreement as to whether the coverage was non-trivial. "AfD is not a vote" doesn't mean "I can ignore disagreement if I'm obviously right". -Amarkov blahedits 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Relist. I didn't realize there was a big issue with reliability, so I didn't bother to check that. -Amarkov blahedits 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEB is rather clear on what non-trivial coverage is, and reprintings of the press release are not it. Outside of that and forums/blog coverage there didn't seem to be anything else and nothing else was presented. Disagreement doesn't give license to keep articles simply because enough people disagree with its removal if the basis for their disagreement is unfounded. That is a rather slippery slope for a group of editors to show up and use WP:ILIKEIT arguments to keep any article under the sun simply because they disagreed with its removal. Claiming a trivial mention is non-trivial is no different than any other argument presented there.--Crossmr 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There were other things presented, you just thought they weren't reliable sources. Obviously, people disagreed. If WP:WEB could easily be unilaterally applied correctly, we'd make non-notability a speedy criterion. -Amarkov blahedits 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And those sources are covered by WP:RS. We're also pretty clear on the fact that forums and blogs aren't reliable, and not being reliable they can't be used to establish notability. Otherwise I could go out and drum up some pretty amazing notability for my big toe and muddle an AfD discussion into no consensus by citing them as sources of notability. We also have a non-notable speedy criterion. WP:SPEEDY#Articles A7. There is no importance asserted here outside of some sites repeating the press release and some blog/forum talk which doesn't satisfy a single criteria required for notability or to assert its importance.--Crossmr 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or delete. As far as I can see, every single one of the cited sources is a press release, and that, without a shadow of a doubt, fails the WP:RS test. I can't see any evidence that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relistor delete, per Guy. Those sources are a very thin foundation on which to base notability, importance, or even existence. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, on reviewing and looking at the sources, I agree that they don't quite satisfy WP:RS. I should have extended debate instead of closing it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 00:52Z
  • Endorse closure because the arguments presented here sound merely like a continuation of an AfD discussion, rather than a Deletion review. According to the guidelines for Deletion review:
"Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate."
During the AfD debate, a number of opinions regarding the reliability of sources in the gaming industry were presented and considered, and there was no particular consensus reached. The admin correctly interpreted the lack of consensus.
That said, some further improvements in the article's sourcing have already been made subsequent to the AfD's closure. Perhaps it would be reasonable to relist the article for AfD after a reasonable amount of time (typically a couple of months?), should editors identify new information that suggests it should be deleted, but as of now no one has raised an opinion that isn't a rehash of the AfD discussion (which comes down to subjective judgments about what constitutes triviality or not, and what magazine publications are good enough to be regarded as a reliable source). Tarinth 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator closing an AfD without properly considering the points raised is a reason for DRV. My contention was that the administrator closing it as no consensus simply looked at the amount of people on each side and failed to properly assess the arguments. By his own admission he didn't properly evaluate the sources presented. I'm not rehashing the AfD I'm saying that the point still remains valid, it wasn't addressed in the AfD, and no sources were provided to show notability during the AfD. If there are valid sources to show notability all I want is to see actually see them. If they can't be provided then there is no reason to keep this article. As it stands every single reference on that page is still either a blog or a rehash of the press release, both or from the site itself.--Crossmr 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:WindowHome – Restored to advertise or userfy – 05:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:WindowHome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

WindowHome template is widely used in Italian Wikipedia. I found nothing similar in English one. Of course, if any is available, I will be glad to use it. Otherwise I would appreciate if you could keep it. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 14:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this used? I don't get it from the deleted history, and the TfD was only based on the lack of pages using this template. Tizio
I began to use it in my User page (which is now garbaged) and I planned to use it in my contribution after some minor refining (as adding an icon in the top bar) since it allows to create a box with an header, a footer, and other features. You can see it in [37], for example. It is very useful and I see nothing similar here.--Dejudicibus 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted so your user page looks proper again. I recommend publicizing it, for instance on WP:VP, otherwise it should be substed into your user page and redeleted. Templates only make sense if they're used across pages. ~ trialsanderrors 19:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JasperReports – Userfied article restored and listed on AfD – 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JasperReports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

I cant find the Afd (there may have been one but I cant see it) and without seeing the Afd discussion, I am appalled that this article has been deleted with 816,000 google hits: this reporting engine is one of the best open source report engines. I have recreated the article as User:Jayvdb/Saved pages/JasperReports from the Google cache[38] in order that I can make use of the material that I saw a few weeks ago. I see, now that I have previewed this Deletion review (and looked at Special:Log), that User:Aaron Brenneman performed this deletion. John Vandenberg 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this as having no claim to signifigance, aka advertising. A number of google hits is not an indication of notability, and the speedy deletion criterion says if something "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" it may be speedily deleted. A "fundamental rewrite" is one that would include sources other than press releases. If multiple reliable third party sources for this are found, then a stub may be re-written. - brenneman 04:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron, I can understand this article being deleted by someone who isn't familiar with the problem domain, as it was worded as if from a press release (a {{advert}} or {{copyvio}} tag may have been more appropriate), but I do expect administrators to go through the hoops of putting a tag on the page for long enough that others can respond. If you bypassed this, and immediately proceeded to carry out your own judgement, and if that is permitted by wiki process, then IMO there is something wrong with the process. A speedy by an admin should be put on the same queue as other speedies, and carried out by a different admin to ensure it passes by two at least two sets of eyes. John Vandenberg 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a longer response on Jayvdb's talk, but the short version is: True, but... We almost always get it right, and there is literally NO ONE who'll object to a well-written user-space article that demonstrates notability from reliable sources being moved into the real encyclopedia. - brenneman 07:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but in the event someone does get it wrong, isnt this the place to come? I dont see why there is any reluctance to have the article restored; it's notability has been easily demonstrated, and this article hasnt been recently created, so there was no impending doom if it wasn't removed post haste. To further illustrate this, it has been linked to from Java Platform, Enterprise Edition for over a year and a half. My guess is that the article history goes back as far, and I would prefer that the history was retained so that people who have linked to specific version of the article are not left scratching their heads. In this case, I do not see that the article text justified deletion -- it was not blatant advertising -- it was primarily informative, but clearly written by a fan. It did not need to be completely rewritten in order to be encyclopaedic, it just needed a tag, like {{sources}} or {{advert}}, and a minor rework by someone familiar with the problem domain to include evidence of notability and other tweaks in order to become a good stub. John Vandenberg 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I havent met archivesearch before, so much appreciated! I will be improving the article as soon as the original history is restored. (t'was my intention to do so today when I was rudely shocked to see a reasonable stub had become a redlink when I wasnt watching). John Vandenberg 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the article. I guess I can see how people not in the field might get thrown off, but this is clearly a notable subject for an encyclopedia article, and certainly does not fit under speedy deletion guidelines. --Cyde Weys 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't do that while discussion is ongoing. I've placed the {{tempundelete}} template and protected the page as is convention when there's contention. There's a version in user space linked above that can get a shiny-fied up if it's possible to do so.
      brenneman 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless reliable independent sources provided, the article is a fair game for AfD, although I agree that speedying an article with a resonably long history is kinda disrespectish to multiple contributors. `'mikkanarxi 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try these Google Scholar hits. Of course JasperReports is notable. It has O'Reilly books written on it. It has over 900,000 Google searches for Chrissakes, and hundreds of them are various tutorials, walkthroughs, or custom libraries. It's obvious that this subject at least deserves an AFD (though what it really deserves is to be kept). Anyone fighting in support of this outrageous speedy deletion is simply wrong. --Cyde Weys 04:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:CSD "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media 'on sight' without further debate." The article was clearly in an advertising voice from start to finish, so it met the speedy deletion criteria under which it was deleted. We encourage but don't require deleting admins to determine if there is a better version in history (not that I see), but don't expect them to do even a google search of research. Speedy deletion of an article does not mean that the topic does not merit an article, just that the existing text is not worth keeping around. The entire article does need to be rewritten to be appropriate for Wikipedia, so the deletion would have been correct if it had cited G11, as the explanation above does (sans acronym). The deletion log shows A7, which I don't think is applicable to this topic. (The second deletion by a different admin of a fraction of the article does show G11.) Since I conclude that the entire article needs to be rewritten, I endorse deletion despite the citation error in the deletion log. If it is indeed as notable as Cyde thinks, recreation will be easy, and will be completed in userspace before this review has run its course. GRBerry 05:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it , this process is intended to allow recovery of articles that have been deleted unnecessarily in light of further consideration, based on the Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. That I can fetch the page from the google cache and recreate it as better version does not factor into this discussion one iota as far as I can tell, and justifying the G11 status it was initially given doesn't help. As I have stated here and on my talk page, I can see why G11 may be used as a reason for the deletion (I see it as justifiably incorrect), but I contest that if G11 was used this liberally across the board, administrators would speedily delete a large percentage of wikipedia on sight, as much of it is written with too many superlatives. Please point out what part of the article is Blatant advertising, and/or why wikipedia would be a better place with the article expunged from the history. John Vandenberg 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should never have been deleted. --Kaoti 16:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted. The supporters had plenty of time for addressing the major concerns of notability. Please don't forget that we are not deleting topics. We are deleting poor articles. If original contributors don't bother to fix it, why don't we just wait another serious person writes a good one? There is nothing unsalvageable in the deleted article, mostly cut and pastes of promotional materials. (That is why it was deleted in the first place, I guess: zero third-party independent evaluation). Mukadderat 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chuck E. Chaos – Deletion endorsed – 03:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chuck E. Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This is an appalling decision after all the work I did sourcing the article. I firmly established notability with the work I did, and I was told only 24 hours ago that it wasn't enough - a point I strongly dispute, and barely enough time for that point to be sorted out. No one told me what was wrong with the article in more specific terms so I could address it. Saying that it failed WP:NOT and WP:BIO without specifics is not enough and I firmly believe it does NOT fail WP:NOT. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 08:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now the article has re-appeared while I posted the above, and yet the AfD discussion still says delete??? CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov I did request more information to back up the claims made in those post update delete notes - and the bad faith nom did have a supporter (and I support the point as well if you check the history of the nominator - I disagree that it is inapplicable because it would create a serious precedent). That's why I say the action was premature because the AfD was closed too soon after my requests for specifics so I could either act or debate the point - whichever would have been appropriate. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is inapplicable. WP:SK prohibits speedy keeps in a case where any delete is made in good faith. Also, your requesting more information does not mean they were wrong. -Amarkov blahedits 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was made in bad faith, Amarkov. By an established sock. By going delete justifies the sock's behaviour which is what creates the dangerous precedent - whether the deletion is right or wrong in admin's opinion. Nominations must be made by credible users. Further, I maintain that they are wrong and because the deletion was too soon after my updates I was not given a chance to prove it - as long as they answered my questions (ie - how did it fail WP:BIO after the update, and how it failed WP:N which I totally disagree with hence my query as to what more was needed). I firmly believe that it didn't fail either, and I believe enough was present and sourced to retain. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? If they think it fails WP:BIO, that means they think none of the criteria apply. Your believing that it meets WP:BIO doesn't mean that further deletes are ill-informed. Also, it is absurd to say that an article must be kept simply because a sockpuppet nominated it. This reminds me of the person who wanted a deletion overturned because the admin who closed the debate has since been desysopped. -Amarkov blahedits 20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point, Amarkov re the WP:BIO. When criteria was questioned, I asked for more information. It never came, because the article was deleted before anyone had a chance. The article was deleted too soon after my update. It was the update that was questioned, and I wanted specifics. Time should have been given for those specifics to be provided. Until those specifics are provided, I believe the comment that it failed WP:BIO to be wrong. Not to mention the issue of WP:N which was also not addressed similarly. As for the sock nomination - if you were to look at the history of the sock concerned (JB196) and all his alias's including BooyakaDell you'll see a history of bad faith AfD nominations. My concern there is that anyone can create a sockpuppet and get an article deleted out of petty spite. Bad faith must be discouraged - whether the AfD is valid or not. And making sure that bad faith nominations do not get deleted is a means to prevent that from happening. It's a smack in the face to WP's credibility if known troublemakers (as distinct from desysopped users) can affect WP's database like that. I hope that explains my point better. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm laying the sockpuppetry concerns to rest here; think what you will. Now, I don't see how the fact that you made an update automatically means it should be extended. If it did, anyone could just filibuster an AfD eternally. -Amarkov blahedits 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm trying to do the right thing by an article that cleary did NOT fail WP:BIO and WP:N. Where's the filibusting in that? I think I'm entitled to ask why time was not given to address what I consider to be frivilous statements by those who made the claims that they failed those guidelines. Is it too much to ask specifically why the article failed in both those respects? CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article did NOT fail WP:BIO and WP:N, Calton. That doesn't hold much water? CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence MSN Live Search comes back with 35 hits on "Chuck E. Chaos" which disproves the failing of WP:BIO by passing the Search Engine Test. [39] CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 23:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... since when was 35 a large number? -Amarkov blahedits 07:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Australian wrestling that is a HUGE number, Amarkov! Most other wrestlers would struggle to make double figures. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 10:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Utter failure of WP:BIO, with 40 unique Google hits this person is just not notable. It doesn't matter if he is more well known than other non-notable persons, the fact stands that he is not notable.--RWR8189 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
American Professional Football League – Deletion endorsed – 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
American Professional Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was listed under Articles for Deletion (see AfD above template), and the majority of users who voted said Keep. However, the admin (Samuel Blanning) deleted it anyway, which I think is an abuse of power. I left a message warning him and informing him that if he did it again, I would inform the proper admins to investigate as to whether he should be desyssopped (did I spell that right?). I think that should be reviewed, as the decision did not reflect the consensus. Tom Danson 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
W00t – Redirect decision endorsed, edit history recreated – 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
W00t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Clear consensus was not shown for deletion. -- weirdoactor t|c 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 December 2006

[edit]
Genocide Awareness Project — Speedy close, the article is being discussed on AfD — 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Genocide Awareness Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The administrator clearly misread the article. The article is about an ongoing pro life project in which pictures of aborted fetuses are posted at university campuses. It is a project that most pro lifers and most pro choicers in North America are aware of it. It is very notable. The pictures rotate from campus to campus. The administrator clearly misread and said the project was temporary, which isn't true. I wrote that the pictures are only posted temporarily at a particular campus. However, the project is ongoing. Therefore, since it is a well recognized on going project, it is notable and should be reinstated onto Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindreamer (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Serbophobia – Deletion overturned – 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Serbophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This is a valid article, which survived three AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination)) but was recently deleted by User:Duja with comment Delete crap. See WP:IAR. I don't see how deleting an article about a valid, encyclopedic topic, upheld by dozens of users in AfDs is "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Note also that Duja already voted for deletion of the article in second nomination, so now he is using his admin abilities on an article he was already involved with. Nikola 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Overturn Evidently a case where admin powers have been abused under a flimsy WP:IAR figleaf. If there are problems with the article, edit the content or submit it for a third good-faith afd nomination (third existing afd was speedy keep due to bad faith) after a proper grace period. Bwithh 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Bwithh, WP:IAR does not create a license to run amuck. Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn, per nom. --Еstavisti 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'll take "Reasons WP:IAR is piss-poor policy" for $200. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm a serial endorser of deletions normally, this one I must say should be overturned, and taken to AFD if wanted. AfD trumps CSD, always, with the exception of WP:OFFICE. That aside, the apparent COI related to the contribution of the deleter to the second debate makes this an open-and-shut case. I actually urge speedy overturn and relist, as this was clearly not the best way to go about deleting this article, crap or not. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As per Wikipedia:Use common sense, a legitimate application of WP:IAR is one that nobody notices. Obviously, someone noticed. The fallback is for the rule ignorer to persuade the community that they improved the encyclopedia by deleting this. I've just now dropped the DRVNote flag on the deleting admin's page, but they have declared a wikibreak, so they may not even return to make their case in a timely fashion. I can't conceive of a solid case for deleting this without taking it to AFD, but I remain open to them making a case. GRBerry 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following comments were added after the closure of this DRV:

Y'all weren't paying attention to this, then. --Calton | Talk 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was announced (and widely acclaimed by the commenters) at AN/I, (see link provided by Calton). A speedy closure of DRV after 4 hours, without a chance of a wider input, and without giving anyone a chance to see a bigger picture. It was an out-of-process deletion indeed, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Oh well, guess I'll have to get rid of this the hard way. Duja► 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about endorsing the deletion since it was clearly out of process (though I share the WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns of the deleter, but I am rather annoyed about the DRV closing so fast. If process is important (as the overturn "votes" above insist surely it is no less important at DRV. 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs).

Yup, I jumped the gun (I make no illusions about that; my bad), but the article is running through AfD right now, meaning that it will be deleted through the proper process soon. I think I'll just stick to !voting in reviews, rather than closing them. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hammarlund – Deletion overturned – 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hammarlund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Historically significant US company, out of business, not advertising, links to amateur radio topics LuckyLouie 19:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Northern Irish people – Deletion endorsed – 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Northern Irish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Objection to POV proposal, or lack of understanding of the subject. Mal 13:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK people - some of you are admins I think. But you haven't been particularly helpful. The following paragraph, from the page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, is how I came to add this entry on this page. It states:

Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, or a request may be made at WP:DRV#Proposed deletions, but such undeleted articles are open to be speedily deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

Perhaps some of you have a problem with the "on a reasonable request" part, and that is why you are suggesting I need "evidence". But I am asking you: evidence of what? That Northern Irish people exist? I can assure you all, most categorically, that we do.

EVula: What is "rather nebulous" about my claim? I don't see that it could be viewed as any more or less nebulous than the claim made at the onset of the deletion process - that claim was that the creation of the article was POV. Indeed, one could take a quick look at the userpage of the person that proposed the deletion of the article, and quickly discover that the user considers his or herself an Irish Republican - a position that is polar opposite to my own stated poitical belief on my user page. One might therefore suggest that this user felt that anything asserting the existance of Northern Irish people is contrary to the stated political idiom of Irish Republicanism which clearly rejects any notion that a separate state could exist on the island of Ireland. Again though, this is irrelevant - we are editors here because we deal in facts. The fact is that Northern Irish people exist. What more evidence do you need?

Don't dare to assume what how I feel about any given matter by the way. I may be "sore", or I may not - that is irrelevant (actually, a rather more appropriate description would be incredulous). Your job is to assume good faith and to be civil. I created the article in good faith, following the examples set by other similar articles already existant in Wikipedia.

Daniel.Bryant: the last part of your comment is hardly very tactful, and I might just as well suggest to you that you don't like it.

The guide for deletion discussions states this: "it's best to base arguments on the policies of no original research, verifiability, use reliable sources and what Wikipedia is not." Northern Irish people, and the existance thereof, is hardly WP:NOR. Nor is it unverifiable. Plenty of sources can be found which prove these peoples exist. It seems to me that anyone who is not familiar with the Northern Irish could be served well by an encyclopedia article on the people who make up that population. Indeed, examples of numerous such articles can be found on Wikipedia and, as I said, I based the creation of this article on some of those.

Finally I would like to say that, as far as I can recall (I can't tell for sure because the discussion took place on the article's talk page, which has also been deleted), the initial discussions with the user who proposed the deletion indicate that s/he had patiently waited for a certain length of time before proposing the deletion, to give me (or others) time to develop the article from its skeletal form. Unfortunately, due to the relative complexity (not least in regard to political sensitivities) and the fact that I became rather more busy in Real Life™, I didn't have the time to improve it. I will have the time in the forthcoming month to get the article up to the standard of similar articles though.

I believe this is a reasonable request for undeletion. If this is not the place to request undeletion, please direct me to the section of Wikipedia that is. Thank you for your time. --Mal 08:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to do the following: (1) get yourself very familiar with wikipedia policies wikipedia:Verifiability, no original research, WP:CITE, reliable sources (2) create a well-sourced draft in User:Setanta747/Draft page (well sourced in the sense or reliable sources that explicitely say that Northen Irish is a separate ethnicity), and (3) come back here well prepared. Easy as 1-2-3 :-) `'mikka 21:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I don't think you understand what Deletion Review is for, Mal, which is why I provided a link for you above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken "Pope" Parry – Deletion endorsed – 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken "Pope" Parry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Reasons not to delete (especially the subject of notability) are detailed on the Talk page.

Unqualified Speedy Delition Paul McDonald 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MIT Resonance, Resonance (MIT) – Deletion endorsed – 01:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MIT Resonance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Resonance (MIT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The decision was keep on the first discussion, and the second discussion was never listed on the main article's page; only the first one was ever listed. At the very least, there should be another (listed) discussion so people have a chance to speak their minds. 71.247.24.74 07:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's incorrect, the nomination with a link to the first discussion was created at 3:45 by User:Ohconfucius and corrected to the second discussion at 3:48:
03:48, 15 December 2006 . . Ohconfucius (Talk | contribs | block) 
03:45, 15 December 2006 . . Ohconfucius (Talk | contribs | block) (AfD)

Is there anything else you challenge this AfD on? Otherwise I will close it speedily. (PS Correct links added above.) ~ trialsanderrors 07:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For one thing, we thought this whole deletion review was over since the first decision was keep. I guarantee that the link to the later discussion was not posted on the main page. The first one was, originally. And then it was clean. Anyway, we listed reasons in the first discussion as to why the decision should be keep. We've been on Best of College A Cappella 2006, we were voted runner-up for favorite a cappella group by the Contemporary A Cappella Society of America (CASA) and our latest CD, Left On Red, was voted favorite CD. (http://casa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=346&Itemid=149) We toured the Northeast in 2005 and toured Florida in 2006. We were also chosen to be Artist of the Month by WERS 88.9. Interview: http://wers.org/articles/?id=213 I can't find the article choosing us as AOTM, but you can hear a recording here: http://web.mit.edu/resonance/www/media/audio/wersresonance.mp3 There have been plenty of reviews and articles written about us in The Tech, MIT's student newspaper. We sang at Susan Hockfield's inauguration (the current President of MIT). I mean, I could go on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.24.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure I see nothing wrong with how this AfD was closed. To the person above... this is not round 2 of AfD and you might want to take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. MartinDK 08:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of how this AfD was closed is that nobody knew about it! The few people who check AfD knew about it, but the people who regularly visit the Wiki page didn't. Look at the disparity between how many comments there were in the original AfD and in the second one. Clearly something went wrong, no? Sure, I know I'm biased, being in the group, but I'm speaking for everybody I've spoken to (including people outside the group). If this isn't the proper forum to get this undeleted (and possibly relisted in AfD) please tell me what is. Mborohovski 08:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I assume that User:trialsanderrors took a look at that issue since he posted the edit history above. Second, it would be very unusual if someone AfD'ed an article without posting a template since the template on the article is an integral part of the whole AfD'ing process. I know from experience that the link can be messed up when you AfD for the 2. time and I believe this is the exact error that User:Ohconfucius was trying to correct. Also, the number of comments on the first AfD was influenced by the fact that it was relisted. If you can ask an admin to recreate the revision just prior to deletion and thereby prove that the template was missing from the article you got a case. Otherwise not. MartinDK 08:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the proper forum to get this undeleted but the nomination is based on a false factual claim, as I noted above. The nomination on the article page linked to the wrong discussion for all of 3 minutes, and then was changed to the correct (2nd) discussion, after which the article was not edited until it was recreated as a redirect to MIT Resonance on December 22 by User:Mborohovski, as a clear and seemingly uncontested WP:CSD#G4 recreation. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Regarding the new or revisited references presented above - WERS 88.9 is the radio station of Emerson College[42] and does not represent a major media channel or an authoritative music criticism source (even if it did, I'm not sure if a "Artist of the Month" interview is sufficient recognition for Wikipedia). If the group does indeed tour regionally, then Ohconfucious's statement that they don't was mistaken. However, given the trend observable in the swathe of Collegiate A Capella afds that took place over the last month or so, I think there's been a rough community consensus that groups that go on tours, get recognition for best CD etc from CASA, get published on the annual Best of... CD from CASA, get written up in the student newspaper etc - that this isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC. So I don't think the contested touring experience is sufficient to overturn this closure. Ideally, article creators should be notified of afd nomination, but that seems to be a minority practice on afd (I always try to do it myself), and I've never seen lack of article creator notification overturn an afd deletion closure (since the main point is to find consensus in the broader community) Bwithh 09:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete We do, in fact, go on tour every year to a different region of the country (and are planning an international tour at some point in the near future). Being relatively new shouldn't make you immediately non-notable. The entire genre of a cappella is new and up-and-coming, compared with other genres of music. This should be reason for it _to_ be on Wikipedia. Like I said, we've recieved plenty of accolades and everything is verifiable. We've been reviewed by the Recorded A Cappella Review Board (RARB) and recieved flying marks (4.7/5). If a radio spot, multiple accolades from CASA, being on BOCA, flying remarks from RARB, touring every year around the country and in the metro-Boston area, etc. isn't enough to be considered notable for a collegiate group, I don't know what is. Oh, I forgot to mention, we also host the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella (ICCA) semifinals every year; it's the largest and most notable a cappella competition in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.24.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure, nn musical group, WP:COI violations abound. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD correctly closed. Nominator might want to know that having an article on you deleted from Wikipedia is not an adverse judgement on your musical ability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're clearly notable within our sphere of influence and our genre. I'm not saying it's an adverse judgment on our musical ability, but it's definitely an ignorant statement to say we're nn just because we're part of a smaller genre (note that I'm not calling anyone ignorant; just that the statement is as such). If we're one of the more notable groups within a cappella (which we are), then we're notable!
  • Endorse deletion, DRV is not AfD round II, no new evidence presented, WP:ILIKEIT arguments being thrown around means absolute nothing here, WP:COI apparent. *breathes again* Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel: There was clearly new evidence presented as there was NO evidence presented at the second AfD discussion. I'm not saying keep the page because "I like it." I'm saying keep the page because the group _is_ notable, and certainly encyclopedically notable if you're talking about the most notable groups in a cappella. Stop throwing the WP:COI argument at me; just because not all too many people read these AfD pages doesn't mean I have a COI. Not to mention that I'm speaking for multiple people I've spoken to.
  • Endorse deletion; whether or not it's notable, it doesn't have sources. Also, the idea that it should somehow be undeleted because a previous AfD was closed as keep is absurd. -Amarkov blahedits 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete It clearly has sources, as listed above. Furthermore, it's absurd that at any point an article may be deleted within a few days just because people didn't visit it within those few days. One AfD should not throw away an article forever, especially if their have been previous AfDs saying keep. That's absurd...someone could just as easily keep nominating an article for deletion until they get lucky one day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.24.74 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per valid AfD, WP:MUSIC, and the overwhelming amount of precedent that student groups at a single school are almost never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn and undelete They pass WP:MUSIC as per the first AfD. That precedent is bullshit; you cannot rate say a group isn't notable just because it is a student group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.24.74 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I'm having some difficulty seeing what the alleged problem with this process was, it looks perfectly proper to me - and the result also seems to be in keeping with precedent, policy and guidelines. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

25 December 2006

[edit]
Template:POV-because – Speedily closed, DRV is not for template usage concerns - use the template's talk page – 02:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:POV-because (edit | [[Talk:Template:POV-because|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe this template should still exist, but be used differently -- instead of being on the main page, it should be placed on the talk page to provide a clear summary of the NPOV dispute in progress so that people do not have to waste HOURS of time squinting through huge reams of posts just to figure out just what is under dispute! Putting it on the talk page would remove the problem with someone "advertizing" some point of view on the main page, and since disputes belong on talk pages, well... Thus I suggest to overturn the original decision and restore the page but demand that it only be used on talk pages. 70.101.147.224 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV is not the place for template usage changes. From what I can see, the template is currently not deleted. If you have any concerns over the use of the template, use the talk page. Naconkantari 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Freddie Kissoon – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Freddie Kissoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Page was speedied within a few minutes of creation. The editor subsequently added significantly more material, but page was redeleted by an editor who made the first speedy. Restore and AfD Denni talk 17:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Veil fetishism – Deletion endorsed – 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Veil fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore|AfD)

Restore it please. I am willing to continue at the arbitration committee if no decision can be made here.

  1. The deletion discussion should have been closed due to lack of consensus.
  2. I reiterate that Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. There are many other objectionable articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to amass vote to have one's way. This was initially being done at the discussion for deletion page.
  3. The article is sound and can be found at the bottom of User:Patchouli for those Wikipedians who aren't administrators and need to examine it.--Patchouli 07:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting and state of denial of evidence is what I had anticipated. There is already close to 20 links that specifically use terms like "headscard fetish", have media of women dressed in niqab and so forth in addition to non-graphical links. This is why I indicated at the outset my willingness to have this issue arbitrated.--Patchouli 10:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom don't do content disputes. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Argyriou/SirNicholas – Undeleted – 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Argyriou/SirNicholas (edit | [[Talk:User:Argyriou/SirNicholas|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Page contained documentation of misbehavior by an admin, deletion was an abuse of admin powers by another admin. Argyriou (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page was set up to accumulate documentation in order to take case to proper channels with proper documentation. Argyriou (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Guy's explanation. I think he made it clearer than I do. If you think you have a good case, go ahead and document it on RfC, not to simply acculumate every little matter from everyone on userspace. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn and Undelete: This was the user's workspace for preparing an RFC. Deleting-and-protecting it destroys the user's work and amounts to denying him the right to prepare an RFC. The irony is that this was done during a debate about whether admins are improperly deleting others' contributions and improperly using their power in content disputes to protect their preferred versions of pages. What better example could there be than an admin deleting-and-protecting an RFC draft on precisely that issue from the userspace of the spokesman for the other side? The deleting admin did not communicate to the user any warning beforehand or notification after the fact. See that admin's response when another user asked him to explain his actions. Also see the ANI discussion of this deletion. – SAJordan talkcontribs 07:00, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC). [Added "Strong" – SAJordan talkcontribs 12:28, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).]
  • Endorse. Just use notepad, no need for it to be on wiki. One of the issues brought up was others adding on unrelated disputes (against RFC rules) to the initiator's statement, I believe. Notepad solves that. No reason to overturn. – Chacor 07:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. And I would suggest an inquiry into abuses of admin power by the deletor, as well. Deleting a draft of an RfC, and then giving such a rude response to a request for an explanation is unacceptable. jgp TC 07:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. This deletion reflects poorly on the judgment of the deleting admin. The page is a log of alleged administrator misconduct, in which the policies allegedly violated are specified and diffs are provided. If this is an attack page eligible for speedy deletion, so is every user conduct RfC. A case might be made for it being an attack page if it had been promoted in a disparaging way, e.g. "click here to see what an asshole admin X is", but I see no indication of such a purpose. Instead, Argyriou's explanation of this page's purpose appears plausible. He might have a bad case, but that's certainly not a speediable offense. Yes, he might have used Notepad, but that's not a criterium for speedy deletion of userspace content. It would also have left him unable to coordinate his arguments with other interested parties, if any, such as other alleged victims of the alleged misconduct. — See also the previous discussion of this deletion on WP:ANI here and here. Sandstein 08:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn. Just because it is an RFC against a user with the admin buttons should not differentiate it from every other fledgling RFC that gets prepared in userspace. I specifically advised Argyrou to create an RFC in order to resolve this dispute rather than let it get out of hand, as the alternative was the mess going more and more out of control. And when he does start to work on one, the admin in question (or a friend of the admin in question) comes in and deletes it. Unacceptable biting, and a complete misapplication of G10. If this were the other way round, and Nick was preparing one against Argyriou, deletion would never have happened. And, get this, administrators have no special privileges, and are not sutomatically smarter, or more right, than anyone else on Wikipedia. I should know. Complete misuse of admin powers, needs to be restored forthwith. Proto::► 10:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. Is this a good-faith attempt to build an RfC, or is it just sour grapes? Some of the claims in the deleted page are nonsense - it is absolutely not a problem to resist linking to offsite rich media with unclear copyright status, for example. The balance of it is pretty low-grade stuff - the fact that Sir Nicholas responded to aggression, edit-warring and incivility with less than stellar civility himself is hardly a big deal. If this was taken to RfC as it stands it would, I think, be laughed out, certified only by those users who have an existing grudge against him. I would counsel Argyriou to employ a more productive method of dispute resolution,. not least because the major dispute in question appears to have been settled by the simple means of unambiguously identifying the copyright status of the video in question (rather than simply asserting that it was not a problem), which is what should have happened in the first place. Absent some credible evidence of an ongoing problem to address, I see this as needless and would endorse deletion. I note that the Talk of Barrington Hall currently contains a rather surreal allegation that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a sockpuppet of Sir Nicholas de Mimsy Porpington. Some people need to chill a bit. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If this was taken to RfC as it stands".... This was an early stage of a work in progress, not a finished RFC, so "as it stands" is irrelevant. Predicting whether the finished and submitted version (which doesn't exist yet) will get "laughed out" or "a standing ovation" is a matter of crystal-ball-gazing — and likewise irrelevant. The question at hand is whether the user should be allowed to continue working on his RFC, or have his work destroyed before he can finish and submit it. The latter amounts to denying him the right to finish and submit that RFC, a precedent which could then be applied to anyone else. Is your answer to that question "Um"? – SAJordan talkcontribs 13:21, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
OK, lots of thoughtful input below, I think we can allow the thing to be undeleted but we'll need to keep the trolls at bay. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um seconded. Now, Sir Nick's actions were not a model of civility indeed, but now we have a division among the community (and admins) whether he should be protected from the harrasment (which gets all the worse with numerous trolls, socks and meats piling in) or whether we should allow the RfC to proceed. The appeals for stopping the wikidrama seem to aggravate Sir Nick's opponents even more, and the entire affair now culminates. So, the issue is how long shall we tolerate it and how to proceed? Deletion of that page was an apparent attempt to stop the sour grapes, but the gall is doomed to spill out nevertheless. Do we want to (and can we?) stop the drama, or is it better/inevitable to let it go all the way to ArbCom? If we can unanimously and honestly answer that, the issue of the page in question would become lame. Duja► 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we unanimously and honestly answer the question at hand first? Does this user have the right to keep working on his RFC draft in his userspace, or can any admin come in and destroy his work to prevent him from submitting the RFC? If this user can be denied that right, so can any other user, if their filing that RFC would inconvenience an admin. – SAJordan talkcontribs 13:21, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  • Conditional Restore. I cannot see what the page's contents were, so I must assume good faith that this was a workspace for an intended RFC. It is possible that the arguments therein were weak, or even spurious, but that would be determined by the RFC, not by an admin at random. It is possible that such as page would violate WP:NPA if cross-linked, used for harrassment, or widely advertised, but that does not appear to be the case here (how was this even found?). Furthermore, I disagree with the "take to Notepad" argument. The user in question may access Wikipedia through work, school, or library computers, or be otherwise unable to maintain an off-site working copy; the user may also want to ensure formatting is appropriate before taking the issue to a public forum. I suggest that the user's work be restored, with an appropriate timeframe (unsure what ... 1 month?) set for the documentation to be completed and the RFC filed, beyond which, should no RFC be forthcoming, the page will be deleted. Serpent's Choice 12:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I am able to see the article history, my opinion regarding restoration is affirmed. This material is consistent with an RFC or RFAr preparation. The case presented may or may not be outlined in the best manner possible (perhaps that is why it had a workpage to begin with) and may or may not be a valid case (but that is decidedly not the place of a single admin to decide, nor that of DRV). Taking into account the lack of any administrative contact with the user, WP:MFD, CSD tag, or WP:ANI listing except after the fact and the reality that the page was not only deleted but immediately salted, I really cannot come to any conclusion except that this deletion was out of process. Serpent's Choice 23:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete There was no warning to the user. There was no listing at WP:MFD. No CSD tag was ever applied to the page. It wasn't even brought up at WP:AN or WP:ANI. How User:Pilotguy was notified of this page's existence is in question. I suspect that it was discussed off-wiki in IRC. This non-transparent admin behavior is reprehensible. The page was merely a collection of diffs, not an attack. Before the page's deletion, I was preparing to counsel User:Argyriou on which evidence to use and which to throw out. Can't do that now. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I can't really judge that which I cannot see, but asking a friend in secret to delete and salt a page concerning oneself is not the type of behaviour I expect in an "open" encyclopædia. yandman 17:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain the reason for this assumption? I share cordial relations with Pilotguy; however that does not imply that he is my "cabal friend". Please reword your statement. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply any "cabal" accusations. According to ourselves, "Friendship is a term used to denote co-operative and supportive behaviour between two or more social entities", which all of us should show. The "in secret" part refers to the fact that the wish wasn't made in the appropriate, transparent, channels. yandman 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete. I've looked at the contents, and they seem consistent with preparation for an RFC, etc. This is not an "attack" page as I understand the term. If the case ever came before a venue in which I were to participate, I would probably side against this user. Nonetheless, he should be given the opportunity to present his case, which implies that he should be given the opportunity to prepare his case. Bucketsofg 18:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn and undelete I read the most recent historical version and it does not appear to be an attack page but the beginnings of a collation of (disputable) evidence for RFC as stated. I've seen similar pages (albeit better formatted, worded and referenced) maintained by admins, so this doesn't seem to be outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour - the language of the headings could be toned down, and there needs to be overall title/intro emphasizing that this page is related to a dispute from one user's perspective but the "emergency powers" speedy-delete-and-protect doesn't seem justified Bwithh 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC) (added Strong after revisiting some of the other comments here} Bwithh 18:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn and send to MfD, this needs to be carried out in a transparent manner to avoid the obvious appearance of Conflict of interest here. If it's really an attack page, community consensus will support the deletion. DrV is for determining whether deletion decisions were improper, and the conflict of interest makes this one flawed. MfD should make these disputed content determinations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The use of the page was legitimate -- which doesn't make the claims there any less tenuous -- and the grounds given for deletion (nonsense/attack page) simply don't add up. -- Visviva 05:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn and Undelete This was a user's workspace where he was gathering data and organizing his case for an RfC against an individual administrator's actions. For an administrator to come in and delete it, especially without warning or discussion, obstructs the user's ability to go forward with his RfC and calls into question the integrity and impartiality of the whole RfC process. Further, although not a vote - not sure what exactly it is - the "Um" comment above is inappropriate in this space. We are not supposed to be evaluating the merits of the case here - the case has not yet been presented, and it is highly inappropriate to be prejudging it or introducing counter-arguments to a case not yet presented, especially with the user having been thwarted in his efforts to fully and fairly collect his evidence and mount his case. Whether or not this case has merit will be determined, one hopes, by an impartial group of people who do not have an axe to grind, and are not already decided about the outcome before seeing the evidence and hearing the arguments. The question we are being asked now, here, is whether or not this user workspace should have been summarily deleted while a user was in process of building a case for an RfC - and I say, emphatically, no. Indeed in a case such as this - an accusation against an administrator - other administrators should be extremely circumspect and not take any actions that would even hint of prejudgment or tampering with a case. This is like a potential juror going into a plaintiff's attorney's office and removing case files because the accusatory material within them could be damaging to the defendant, the juror's colleague. Hands off, undelete. Tvoz 07:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we generally urge people to create RFC's in their userspace before submitting them so as to prevent malformed rfc's going up. That is quite clearly what this subpage is. I have contributed to this page and must abstain from voting.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit that page for now. It's still protected, so I can't edit it. Had I seen Malber's edits before the page was deleted, I'd have perhaps reverted or re-written them, and added a note asking people to not edit it, but address the issue on a talk page instead. Instead, while I was AFK, the page was edited, then deleted. Once I receive notice that the page has been undeleted/unprotected, I'll add my note, and proceed from there. Argyriou (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Alkivar's edits and posted a note on his talk page. Per Argyriou, please don't edit the page while it is under review. ~ trialsanderrors 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Page is in no way an obvious attack, so process would call for an MfD or a discussion with the page's author. Neither of those things happened. While I wouldn't go so far as to call it "abuse" of admin powers, it looks like a pretty clear-cut misjudgment to me. "You can use Notepad instead" is not a valid reason to delete without warning or process, especially when administrators have used userpages for this purpose. Shimeru 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. Preparing a draft text for an RfC in userspace seems entirely proper. It is also practically necessary where a number of contributors wish to contribute evidence and ensure the final version represents their combined grievances. If the criticisms are baseless (as is claimed) this will ultimately be demonstrated in any later proceedings. Better to give the matter a hearing than stamp on it behind closed doors. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete appears to be a legitimate if misguided attempt to build an RFC that looks unlikely to get significant endorsement. Per WJBscribe, let it go through and see what happens. On the issue of the Barrington video: Wikipedia is not the off-wiki copyright police and we should not presume that off-wiki stuff infringes unless there's concrete reason to think it does infringe. Absent such evidence, inclusion or non-inclusion of that link should be decided on non-copyright principles. 67.117.130.181 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - page was a work in progress. The admin who deleted it grossly abused his authority. --AStanhope 03:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. You can't just do an RfC, you're supposed to have the information before you try to start an RfC. -Amarkov blahedits 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

24 December 2006

[edit]
Dave Gilbert (game designer) – Keep closures overturned, relisted at AfD – 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Gilbert (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

See Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1, Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer), and User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer). Essentially, the first AfD was probably a consensus to delete. User:Sir Nicholas closed it as keep, citing new information that had not yet been debated. I asked him about it on his talk page, and, unsatisfied with his response, started a new AfD. For some reason, he believed that the debate had to be had on this page, even though there was new information that had not yet been discussed on AfD. An uninvolved user decided to close the AfD, so I'm going to pick my battles and bring the issue here. I think a new AfD would really be the best solution, but I guess there's some opposition to that for some reason. Andre (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating an article a day after it comes off AfD is never going to result in a productive discussion ending in clear consensus; rightly or wrongly it will always be poisoned by the perception of it being too soon. However, the case for keeping is not as strong as it appears from Nicholas' closing. The 'eight' links he cites in his closing are all the same Reuters article. That article was added after the AfD started, is clearly from a reliable source, and it wasn't discussed by anyone, so I don't believe the first AfD closing should be overturned. A second nomination at some point may be merited. However, I believe that it should wait until editors have had a chance to expand the article on this supposedly notable personage beyond its two lines. If the source (singular) Nicholas produced isn't even in the article by that point then there may be cause to rethink this.
My bolded opinion is endorse closure of first AfD, neutral regarding early closure of premature second, but seeing no point in relisting so early. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I understand the nuances of this opinion. You believe there was a consensus to keep in the first AfD? Andre (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, WP:NOT a democracy; and I believe I have provided sufficient reasons as to why not to delete the articles on both the AfDs you started. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you argue to delete an article with no reliable sources based on notability concerns, and then someone adds a reliable source, and none of the participants show any sign of having taken note of it, then they've got no reason to complain if the AfD is closed as 'keep' or some variation thereof - especially in a discussion where clearly, there isn't enough participation to call the numbers 'consensus'. Even with Nick mistaking eight identical stripes of blue for a rainbow, closing this AfD as 'keep' or 'no consensus' based on the lack of attention paid to the state of the article is perfectly valid. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But under WP:BIO, there need to be multiple non-trivial sources to establish notability. The single CNN article was added to the article during the AfD, but it's not in itself sufficient to establish notability. Andre (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone had taken the twenty seconds necessary to review the change made to the article and point that out, I'd be arguing to overturn the close. But they didn't. I'm going to say relist since a proper AfD with all information available is obviously needed, and a procedural nominations following DRV shouldn't be shouted down as too early. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both afds; relist at afd My view is that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington did not close the first afd properly - merely providing sources is not sufficient proof in itself that an article is keepable, especially if those sources are not properly discussed (and there is consensus to delete based on prior discussion in the afd), and if the 8 sources provided are actually a single, brief news item (the second afd is also tainted with the misimpression that there were 8 sources - and was closed early). On the other hand, User:Andrevan should have taken the first afd to WP:DRV as User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington suggested rather than open a new afd. I recommend that we relist so proper discussion of the single new article reference can take place. This is my view on the process here - as I have met the subject of this article socially, I abstained from these afds themselves and will not take part in any further afds that take place. Bwithh 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why relist, when we can solve it here? And in case you have not noticed, I have provided good sources as to why this article should be kept. His notability is established when he has been mentioned in eight reliable and independent sources, even when the story is Reuters published. Please have a look at both the AfDs and comment. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a single source - one Reuters wire story republished 8 times with varying levels of cropping. The only thing the non-Reuters channels did were to select the story from their Reuters newswire feed and crop the text; its not their own journalism. And his mention in the full Reuters story is a secondary one. That's not a solid indication of encyclopedic notability. And I did look at both AfDs already, thanks - please don't assume that my opinion is based on negligence simply because you don't agree with it. Bwithh 18:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... what's your speculation based on? Bwithh 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Wired, then Mr Gilbert himself told me that the article will be happening. If you mean a month for notability, then the game has just been released so I'd expect reviews to come out soon, plus the comments of user Perel in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_16#The_Blackwell_Legacy
Oh, we share common acquaintances of acquaintances then. Anyway, the expected future Wired article doesnt bear much on the matter at hand Bwithh 09:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article and reviews above aren't out yet, that doesn't mean the AfD was closed too soon, it means the article was created too early. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're here to document what is already notable, not that which someone thinks is going to become notable in the future. 67.117.130.181 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist A closing admin's job is to evaluate whether or not consensus has been reached, now whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion. Overturn this heavy handed admin action by Mimsy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn first "keep" closure and delete Nick's closure of "keep" in AFD 1 was absolutely wrong. He gave 8 links of which two (now) don't work; the other 6 are copies of one Reuters wire story that mentions Dave Gilbert's name in passing. I'm somewhat ok with the idea of a closer finding new documentation of notability that wasn't in the AfD, but this doesn't come close. WP:BIO says "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". 6 copies of the same wire story is not multiple works, and getting mentioned in one sentence of an article about a different subject does not make the person the primary subject of the work (even if the article is about a game written by David Gilbert, it is not about David Gilbert himself). Documentation for an against-consensus closure like this should be extremely substantial, like finding a three volume biography of the person. Otherwise, at most, note the new cites as a normal vote within the AfD and propose keeping the AfD open for an extra day or two. 67.117.130.181 07:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - most of the comments here appear to be about content and quality of sources, which is specifically what a deletion review is not. I don't see anything wrong with the process used to close this case. By continuing to harp on arguments regarding the quality of a particular source, it is merely a continuation of the arguments already presented during AfD and therefore unproductive. Tarinth 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Mayj.jpg – Deletion endorsed – 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Mayj.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|IfD)

As a recently debuted artist who does not hold publicized promotional events nor concerts, the only available images of May J. are the ones from magazines or from her official site and hence, only images which are not 'Free Licence' are available. Therefore, this image should be allowed under Fair Use. Taskinlude 08:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jesse Samek – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jesse Samek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe this article should be undeleted. It is apart of Air Force history, there is a base named after him in Afghanistan and I believe that with this deletion of this article we cannot expand the military history for wikipedia. I know there may have not been much information on the page, but I was quietly working on it. This article was deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather for not being a notable person. Of course he may not be a notable person for people not in the military but he is in our PFE (Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241). If this page could be undeleted, I would work on expanding the article. Thanks. DJREJECTED 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Air Force Pamphlet publicly available? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a base named after him, that's an assertion of notability. Undelete and possibly list at AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blanning; in reference to your question, i actually looked back in that publication and he is not noted in the Air Force History chapter and you actually have to order a copy, it is only distributed among military personnel, though I'm sure if you look around you might be able to get a copy.
Badlydrawnjeff; yes there is a air force base/camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan named after the individual at the NATO/ISAF controlled Kandahar Airfield. -- DJREJECTED 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD I think the claim that a base is named after this individual is sufficient to pass speedy deletion criteria and require an article for deletion discussion. I feel an afd is still required to properly evaluate the claims made and sources referenced and any other questions that may arise (e.g. what kind of base is it - is it a large, long-term base or a small, short-term one? is the naming informal or official? Is having this base named after a person sufficient for an article on the person or is it more to the point to have an article on the base which explains in a subsection where the name comes from? etc.) Bwithh 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AfD: I will argue for deletion unless the thing about having a camp named after him is verified. I tried Factiva and Google and got nothing - if it isn't verified in a mainstream source that anyone can reasonably access (which is not true of something distributed among military personnel) then it isn't significant enough. However, I believe that AfD should be the forum to decide whether the claim has any merit. Factiva turned up other news articles, but none that give any more claim to notability than that he was a pilot who died in Iraq. (And no, I don't like living in a world where I can say 'not significant enough, all he did was fight and die for his country', but Wikipedia is not a memorial.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well in response, I was deployed there last year and know of someone who just came back from there in September. I have googled around and used other search enginesd to try and prove that this is a camp in Afghanistan but everything that was up a couple of months ago is gone. Sorry for bothering everyong on this matter. The only reason why the article was started was because there was an Air Force camp/base named after him. Sorry again. DJREJECTED 02:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to apologize - we're happy to look at good faith requests for review. By the way, you realize that both Sam and I are arguing basically in favour of your request (not 100% - we're not recommending a full overturn, but rather, a hearing at AfD, where its possible that someone else will show up with solid references for the article) Bwithh 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bwithh for clarifying what you are stating. I understand what this process is now. Thanks! I guess i was getting a little disgruntled on an article i created just automatically getting deleted. --DJREJECTED 05:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, it's not a bvase as such, it's a camp in Afghanistan. The guy reached the dizzy rank of Aircraftman 1st Class. But it's not a crap article, so let it have its day. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pile-on - Prodded deletion overturned, listed at AFD – 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pile-on (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This was at least referenced from Snipe_hunt. I was about to add a link to it from List_of_school_pranks (it's too long to embed). Frotz661 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod contested after the fact is still a contested prod, eh? ;) Since I did, after all, only delete it under prod, and this seems to be a request made in good faith, I've gone ahead and restored the article. If somebody wants to (re)list it, that's fine by me. Um, unfortunately I happen not to know the fancy templates used to close these, these days; if somebody wants to do that, thanks, or if it should stay open for a bit, also fine. Cheers. Luna Santin 09:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archived. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Wolverton – Deletion overturned, article restored, AfD optional – 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Wolverton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

R2 inaccurate 75.42.2.74 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Orchestra Right Records – Deletion endorsed – 06:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Orchestra Right Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Record Label from Spokane Washington, has 7 releases already, and 2 albums on itunes in january. Also i quickly made the page and then went on vacation and didnt get back intime to see the deletion discussion. I have recreated the page and put more work into it. SpokaneWilly 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpokaneWilly (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

23 December 2006

[edit]
Perimeter Mall – G11 deletion was already endorsed on December 5 – 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Perimeter Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Improper_Use_of_Speedy_Delete Itsdannyg 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the prior review of the deletion of Perimeter Mall was appropriate as reviewers never seemed to examine the appropriate use of a speedy delete. This article was removed on a speedy delete via the grounds that Wikipedia is not a directory. "What Wikipedia is not" is not a sufficient reason for a speedy delete: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=WP:CSD#Non-criteria

In addition, admin JzG claimed that it was Blatant advertising in his speedy delete but it doesn't appear to be in an archive I see at http://www.answers.com/topic/perimeter-mall

When is the last time you saw an advertisement for a mall talk about a shooting at its food court?

Perhaps the article should be deleted, but not through the channel that JzG removed it. I think the Wikipedia community should be strict on the process by which articles are removed... regardless of whether or not the right outcome resulted.

  • That's not what happened, though. I nuked a nest of very similar spammy articles on malls created or heavily edited by a single-purpose account clearly connected with the operating company. Which is legitimate. I also posted it for review at the time. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn no comment on notability... but if its even slightly debatable... it goes to AFD process and is not speedied! Thats quite clearly expressed in WP:CSD!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion, don't undelete, do allow recreation with encyclopedic content and proper sourcing by a non-spammer. This deletion was already endorsed at DRV and repeated re-DRV is not justified. Deletion was correct based on "shoot on sight" [45] for all articles created as spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.130.181 (talk • contribs)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:John F. MacArthur, Jr.jpg – Deletion endorsed – 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:John F. MacArthur, Jr.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am amazed at the level of abuse of power and irrationality of some admins around here. See User_talk:Angr#John_MacArthur_image_deletion CyberAnth 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, valid I7 deletion. --Coredesat 04:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I7 is applicable, and a future note: starting off a request for deletion review by accusing Administrators, people appointed by a concensus of Wikipedia users, by stating "abuse of power and irrationality" doesn't bode well with me, and does little for your chances of having the deletion overturned. Just a FYI. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matchwinner – Deletion endorsed, unprotected – 01:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matchwinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The Matchwinner company is a sports brand that supplies/has supplied numerous professional football (soccer) teams with their jersies and equipment, yet the deleting administrator accused me of advertising when I created the article. Similar companies with articles include Umbro and Le Coq Sportif, to name just two. I have nothing to do with Matchwinner, nor does its sale-rate or financial well-being concern me in the slightest, so I find this accusation odd to say the least. I was simply creating an article about a sports company. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Diego Trazzi – Closed per WP:SNOW, user profile properly userfied at User:Diegotrazzi – 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Diego Trazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please, let the people who browse all the photo I recently uploaded on Wiki, know who I am and the Movies I have been working for during the last few years. I think is reasonable to have a wiki page if I upload a lot of contnents for the Community. Please Undelete my page. Diegotrazzi 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RIC Environmental Club – Deletion endorsed – 10:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RIC Environmental Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

notable Ironwolf285 05:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Deleted by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh Decemeber 22[reply]

To everyone who is reading this now... Notablility on Wikipedia is defined as "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field". This club passes all the alternative tests. The RIC Environmental Club is more well know than an average professor, It is certainly well known today and will be well know 100 years from now at Rhode Island College and in the State of Rhode Island. If you check the history of the article I was updating it daily from all of the accomplishments that we have done in Rhode Island. There are many people that don't even know where Rhode Island is or where Rhode Island College is... should we delete them too because a particular person has not heard of the State. No. There are articles in our school news paper, and we are known by local politicans, and as I said earlier by Miss Rhode Island. If you enter us into a search engine you will get hits from our website (which is myspace for now) to aricle we have written to our activism in our state. This club has done alot for the State of Rhode Island and I would ask for you to please reconsider. If you haven't heard about the Rhode Island College Environmental Club before you have now... which makes it notable. Thank you. 64.223.44.93 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Ironwolf285 18:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that but, they also "took two weeks off of their regular meeting time to help clean up around campus. They picked up approximately five full leaf bags of cans, bottles, wrappers, and other items."[46] I wonder if they got picketed by the janitors' union? Bwithh 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, Yahoo! even picked up this deletion review discussion already. That's neat. Bwithh 03:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Zoe especially. Although Ghits aren't the be-all-and-end-all, it's a very good indication of why this article is deleted in this case. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion, this club seems to be no different from similar clubs we have in our university - which are just as non-notable. As a rule of thumb, clubs established in only one school are almost certain to be non-notable. Kimchi.sg 10:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

22 December 2006

[edit]
Victor Celorio – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Victor Celorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Several deletion votes were changed to keep (including mine) after the requested evidence of notability was added; no new delete votes came in after the info was added. Why ask for the evidence if it's going to be ignored? Dicklyon 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation Looks like two people changed to keep - Dicklyon and the nominator, Dave6 (changed to weak keep, and looks like he made the final comment; too late to withdraw nomination after substantial discussion). By my quick count, I see then 6 delete !votes and 3 keep !votes (counting the obvious single purpose accounts as one !vote). I'm not sure what "new evidence" was presented, but if a much-improved well-referenced article can be built in userspace and then re-added to the article space, I think that might be okay. Bwithh 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To see the added evidence of notability you'd have to look at the deleted article. I believe it is true that nobody voted to delete after the references to publications about Celorio were added. Dicklyon 00:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Geh.jpg – Restored per request – 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Geh.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (deleted history)

Image was orphaned after Google Earth Hacks was deleted. That article was restored, but the image was not. I don't really even know what the image was. --- RockMFR 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of big-bust models and performers – DDeletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)
  • Overturn The consensus at the discussion was overwhelmingly and quite clearly for Keep. Those arguing for Keep gave rational and coherent reasons for their recommendations. The few delete recommendations made no valid argument beyond, "How do we decide what is big?" And that question was clearly answered in the article. This renewed debate is pointless since it has already been gone over in the first discussion, and the consensus was clearly Keep There was no justifiable reason to delete the article. Dekkappai 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: consensus was largely for keep. the article provided objective, verifiable, standards for inclusion -- if there were unverifiable performers on the list, then the solution is to remove those performers from the list, not to delete the entire list. notable industry and a notable characteristic by which actresses in the industry are categorized (by the industry, consumers (see breast fetishism and by the performers themselves). Interestingstuffadder 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion was out-of-process and contrary to consensus. Suggest that deleting admin be referred to ArbCom for possible de-sysopping due to this and several other abuses of administrative powers within the past few months. —Malber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the Overreaction Of The Year award still accepting nominations for 2006? --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked by the same admin, so it's not a total overreaction to just this. -Amarkov blahedits 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The list was explicitly for people billed as being big-bust performers, so WP:NPOV concerns are irrelevant. These things are why I sometimes wish "admin discretion" didn't exist. Oh, and whack Malber for bringing up desysopping in DRV. -Amarkov blahedits 00:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion NPOV, no way to source this. In short, no source, no article -- Tawker 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion until an authoritative definition of "big" is provided. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 05:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This is exactly why admin discretion exists and why AfD is not a vote. Provide some authorative sources and we can talk about it but until then it should remain deleted. Can be recreated in userspace should anyone feel like working on it. MartinDK 09:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I strongly echo the sentiments of Sam B here. Wikipedia is trying to improve its' quality, and the best way to do so is remove rubbish like this. Wikipedia's core policies exist, and have the name, for a reason. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. IIRC, there was nothing subjective about this list at all; it was a list of people who had modeled in media specificly targeted large-breast fetishism, as in magazines with unsubtle names like Juggs. Many of the deletes and the close seemed to be targeted against some other article that listed actresses judged to be "big". The nominator being upfront about violating WP:POINT doesn't help either. BCoates 12:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Massive consensus to keep the article. I also agree that admins should face potential warnings/sanctions/de-sysopping etc. for these types of closes because accountability might lead to some restraint and help prevent the ongoing slide into anarchy caused by the debasement of process. --JJay 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The way this debate seems to get people worked up you should almost think this was about something important. The "massive" consensus was mostly based on WP:ILIKETITS arguments. As for the whole desysopping debate take it to ArbCom. This is not the place to discuss that. If you can properly source the article then I guess there is some room in the Wikipedia Is Not Paper argument to keep ONE article of this kind. MartinDK 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This is also not the place to debate article content, but I would point out that statistics on breast size can be found from garment industry or other sources [48] and that performers/models are marketed based on their mammarian attributes. Hence, subjectivity does not have to be a factor here, although the closing admin's use of "listcruft" and "not-encyclopedic" to justify ignoring consensus was plainly subjective. What really gets people "worked up" is the use of administrator and accountability in the same sentence. Lack of accountability is why we see continued stunts like this close.--JJay 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, nobody ever did come up with either a way of authoritatively proving the sizes quoted, or a credible reason to choose precisely that cup size. Big is subjective, D cup (or whatever) is arbitrary. There really does not seem to be a credible foundation for this list. But if anyone wants to RFAR the closer I will be along to watch the fun :-) Guy (Help!) 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the article should be restored, at least for a while. I feel a need to take some time and study the evidence. Dicklyon 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Those editors continuing the Delete argument are missing the whole point of this debate: The Keep/Delete debate is finished. You lost that debate through consensus. As a matter of fact, you lost that debate for the third time. What this discussion is about is the fact that we have an administrator who violated Wikipedia procedures by making a POV deletion contrary to the consensus decision. This consensus decision was reached through logical arguments, not "I like tits," as this side is mischaracterized. As a matter of fact it was from the other side that this sort of argument originated: "Tits? Delete." Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Those who disapprove of a particular article can continuously nominate it for deletion, continuously lose consensus debates, but hope that they eventually get a biased admin who will do their dirty work? Those of you who think this is a good thing for Wikipedia should not be so happy. If this were an article I personally disapproved of, I still would not be happy to see consensus and Wiki policy thrown aside for personal bias. Why is it that these self-appointed guardians of public decency are always the least ethical? "The end justifies the means" thinking, I guess. Dekkappai 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It's a valid subject for a list, and the community voted to keep it. Bring it back! :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Regardless of what I personally think of this page, this is not the place to express it: this is DRV, where we analyze whether a deletion discussion and its closing was valid or not. Closing the discussion as a delete was quite simply against consensus. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. But what does that have to do with my comment? Randomely stating "AfD is not a vote" does not make my point any less valid. The purpose of AfD is to create consensus, and deletion cannot happen unless there is a consensus to delete. If there is no consensus, it should be closed as "no consensus." — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is not just some arbitrary list. The large breast fetish is a significant portion of the porn industry. There are numerous women who travel around the U.S., and probably Canada as well, to dance at clubs and they are brought to those clubs simply for the size of their breasts. Dismas|(talk) 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is why we have a article on breast fetish. Fledgeling 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. As soon as we have an objective third-party definition of large (rather than an arbitrarily chose measurement) and a compelling reason to have a list which duplicates the functionality of a category and a reliable source of size data, we can maybe have a list. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument about the lack of an objective criterion is empty. Even if the porno industry lies about sizes, isnt the fact that a certain performer is marketed as "big bust" sufficiently objective (eg, finding marketing material,etc establishing that this person is being promoted for large breast size. Maybe, then, the list should be called "models marketed as having large breasts" or the like, but the point is that this is a clearly discerable market segment of the porn industry, one that is notable for its popularity and connection to breast fetishism and is verifiable, if not purely upon the porn industry's statistics, based upon the fact that these models are marketed as having large breasts. And, though I know it is not a source unto itself (and I have provided a means to verifiability above), the fact that the likes of Wendy Whoppers have a large bust is pretty undeniable. Interestingstuffadder 05:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion right course of action Fledgeling 02:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion: what in the world does the number of page views have to do with whether an article should be kept or not? And as for bringing people to the project who will subsequently become productive editors - productive doing what - creating shrines to porn actresses? Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. John Broughton | Talk 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. Page was deleted against overwhelming consensus to keep. jgp TC 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Page was deleted against impressive consensus; reasonable standards for inclusion were provided; most people participating were impressed by the arguments. This keeps being nominated and kept, this is the third time - stop it already. It's a well known, notable genre in erotica. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Consensus does not overrule pillars such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. "Big" is a subjective term that is not defined by a verifiable source. An arbitrary definition decided on by a group of editors is not an acceptable substitute. SuperMachine 14:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - as the article says "It is fairly common for this category of models and dancers to publish misleading measurements." Further, bust sizes of individuals are often altered quite significantly in response to changes in fashion etc. Simply, it fails WP:V. TerriersFan 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most people voting to delete or endorse deletion are misparsing the title of the list. It's not a list of models with big busts - that would be hard to define. It's a list of models that appear in primarily "big-bust" publications. Those are fairly easy to define. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as such, no. It's a list of individuals considered by some editors to meet a definition of big-bust, but without, in pretty much every case, a single cited reliable source identifying them as a "big-bust performer" (as opposed to a performer who just happens to have a big bust). Frankly if the article had been titled Phwoaaar! Look at the tits on that! it might have been less problematic in that respect; the pretence at objectivity has failed scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Page was deleted against consensus. Arguments for deletion here continue to be irrelevant (lack of definition of "big") when the list is of performers marketed as "big busted", not of those who actually have big busts.) There is no NPOV violation when listing "things marketed as". Those voting for deletion -- find a real reason, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steverapaport (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn - We don't have to judge "big-busted" ourselves. If the list is really a list of "models that appear in primarily big-bust publications", as suggested by AnonEMouse, then all we have to do is verify that a given model actually appears in those publications. Quack 688 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per comments above relating to WP:OR and WP:V. The very organizing concept of the article is unsound. Postdlf 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - lists like this are inherently subjective, as a Wikipedia editor must make the decision "what quantifies a 'big' bust?" Deciding an arbitrary cutoff point immediately makes the article's foundation to be original research. Proto::► 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sunnyside Royal Hospital – One revision restored, AfD optional – 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sunnyside Royal Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

Valid entry for Scottish psychiatric hospital. Article had been moved from Hillside, Angus and put into new article. A further editor correctly complained of the copyviol issues; article was tagged {{hangon}} and rewritten. However, article was still deleted. friedfish 14:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Rane – Contested prod, restored and sent to AfD – 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Rane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Bill Rane, article concerning important American Artist, 1927-2005, has been deleted for lack of notariety. This indicates a lack of understanding or research in regard to Mr. Rane. The removal does not contribute to Wikipedia but, rather, weakens Wikipedia. Bill Rane is likely the most respected artist to emerge from the Taos Art Colony in many, many years. This can be objectively verified with proper research. Note particularly, the many article concerning Mr. Rane and his Gallery in the Taos News and the Taos Horsefly newspaper. Since Wikipedia recognized the historic importance of the Taos Art Colony (remember that Santa Fe and Taos together comprise the third largest art market in the United States (3 billion per year) outdone only by New York and Los Angeles, does it really make any sense to dismiss Mr. Rane when within that Art Colony is not simply noted but perhaps most noted. Even the RC Gorman, more recognized beyond Taos, credited Mr. Rane as he favorite living Taos artist during his life. It is not possible to delete Mr. Rane from the history of the Taos Art Colony. You need to remove your article on the Taos Art Colony if you believe that Mr. Rane is not notable. Obviously, Wikipedia is concerned with general knowledge but you cannot deny the importance of Mr. Rane and his work to the Taos Art Colony. Mr. Rane is likely the most notable artist to come out of that community in a long time. Since his death, the Taos Art Colony has, if anything, redoubled its appreciation for this artist and his reputation since his death has not diminished there but is, rather, growing rapidly. Mr. Rane's deletion from Wikipedia will not diminish his significance in the American Art World nor will it harm Mr. Rane's reputation as an important artist who may one day be regarded as an extremely imporant American artist in the last half of the twentieth century working in one of America's premier art communities. However, his deletion will diminish Wikipedia because it will demonstrate the lack of knowledge of, and understanding within, the American Art World. You need to carefully review your decision on this one. You need to find someone whose knowledge of the Taos Art Colony you respect in order to clear this up. You cannot delete this article without exposing a lack of knowledge for the Taos Art Colony and its importance to American Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.122.142 (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Hot Rod – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Hot Rod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Young Hot Rod is certainly a notable artist. You say being signed to G-Unit Records is not notable? You say having your single played on BET, MusicChoice, and Journey's Fashion Stores (which does not play very much hip-hop) is not notable? You say being on the cover of XXL's first ever DVD mag is not notable? I say it is. There are several rappers that are less notable such as VL Mike, Glasses Malone, Spider Loc, and so on that you do have articles on. Having every G-Unit artist up except Hot Rod makes him stick out like a sore thumb. Preferrably restore, but if you cannot do that, then at least Unprotect so that someone with more "notable" info can recreate the page. Thank you. Tom Danson 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam – Deletion endorsed – 00:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

The article was deleted despite a lack of clear consensus to do so in the AfD, by an admin who admits to lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The article in question is of the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny, piloted by that series' main character. If any mecha from the series are notable enough to merit an individual article (and the results of the mass AfD indicate that some are), this one is. Redxiv 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure, which was very well-reasoned and took account of the different arguments for different elements within the AfD. I hope that if I ever close a mass nom I would do it that well. Lack of familiarity is a good think in closing as it prevents WP:IHEARDOFIT from intruding on the assessment of the quality of arguments. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. That blanket AfD at the start of the month was not handled well at all. There was clear bias for deletion from the initiator (he was outright insulting people who disagreed with him without any clear provocation), there were a number of comments which didn't contribute to the discussion at all, and overall the idea of putting up that many articles at once all for deletion was a bad idea to begin with. While I don't think they should have been handled individually, marking all of them indiscriminately without reading them (as he admitted) and not offering any summary to the readers as to they should vote one way or another is very unprofessional. Paltheos
  • Comment: I find the message that Redxiv (talk · contribs) left on Talk:ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam absurd: "How many times do I have to say this? The Destiny Gundam is the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny. It is piloted by the main character of the series. The decision by the admin involved in the AfD that there was consensus to delete it (a conclusion I can find no support for in that AfD's discussion) makes no sense, and strikes me as rather arbitrary. He admitted on the AfD page to not being familiar with the subject matter, and his seemingly random selection of which articles should be deleted and which should not apparently reflects that unfamiliarity." Add to that the edit summary of the recreation: "As the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny, it's clearly notable. Thus, I'm restoring the article." Even if you disagree with an AFD closure, that does not give you the right to simply recreate the article. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have not explained how his argument was absurd, and accordingly I see no reason why your claim should be taken seriously. Also, if you've looked at the AfD, in addition to the administration's lack of familiarity with the material, the very participants themselves admitted to the AfD being poorly done. Marking all the articles for deletion means not as much attention is given to each individual article, and thus I believe a rush job was done. Look at how many no consensuses there were. If the AfD was poorly done (or can shown to be suspect, as I've done), then of course an action in response is justified. If you disagree with me, please refer to my arguments further down. Paltheos
      • Then let me repeat what I said: disagreeing with the way an AFD was closed does not give a user the right to ignore that closure as he or she sees fit. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me pose an example. Suppose someone were to nominate... oh... I don't know, the Jesus Christ page up for deletion, and, through one means or another, the article was deleted. Now, of course, this would never happen, but bear with the example for a moment. Supposing the AfD was sloppily done (how it was sloppily done is irrelevant, simply the fact that it was indeed poorly done), you wouldn't be too surprised if a user tried to recreate the page, would you? But by your logic, because the AfD passed, regardless of the circumstances of its closure, a user should not recreate the page. Paltheos
          • You're not even comparing apples and oranges now, you're comparing giraffes and comets. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR might apply to Jesus Christ, but they definitely do not apply to ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam. Redxiv's edit summaries and talk page message imply that he/she was aware of the AFD. Recreation should not have occurred. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't apply to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ went through a full deletion discussion ending with an overwhelming consensus to keep. Some people suggested a speedy close but the participants opted against that. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus. 67.117.130.181 13:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • To the above poster, "Jesus Christ" persay doesn't matter. You're missing the point. I simply chose an arbitrary example for the purpose of my analogy. Aecis, you're focusing too much on the importance of the example chosen rather than my point. I do admit that I chose an example of vastly greater relative importance, but it was simply to hammer my point home. The very act of nominating an extremely important article (e.g. Jesus Christ) means that there are people that believe the article should be deleted and the fact that people exist who would stop the deletion means there are people who don't believe it should be deleted. All you've said is that the article does not fit the criteria to be recreated and ridiculed Red's attempts to get this article back in place. Ok, that reflects your opinion, but you're not considering our opinion here. We believe otherwise, that the article does deserve to be reposted according to WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and any other such criterion and have defended our views as such with actual information. On the other hand, you've simply stated your opinion and defended it with general articles rather than specific statements, as if your opinion was clearly validated by them (as our very effort hints at, unless our arguments are absolutely absurd without a hint of truth on any level), and my repeated attempts to get an actual (or more clear, in case I really am simply missing it) reason from you have failed. Paltheos
                • Hi Paltheos, I guess I do miss your point, I thought your Jesus example was ok but your conclusion was invalid. I don't know if the Jesus AfD was intended as serious by the nominator but it was treated seriously and given a full discussion. The Jesus article was kept because everyone agreed that Jesus is one of the most notable figures in history, even if opinions differ on whether Jesus was real or fictional. The article is heavily sourced, citing many references both scholarly and popular, that document Jesus's significance. Any pro-deletion votes in that AfD would have been because the article failed to document Jesus's notability, and the cure would have been to add such documentation to the article. If such documentation couldn't be found (as might happen for some less notable deity such as Landru from Star Trek), then deletion/merging would have been the right outcome. BOLD and IAR don't come into it.
                  I looked at the Destiny Gundam article on the Gundam wiki and it didn't have anything like the sourcing of Jesus. I don't share your view that being the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny automatically confers notability. Destiny Gundam's notability needs to be documented according to Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources just like Jesus's was. If someone writes a new version of the Destiny Gundam article sometime that includes that level of documentation, then great, re-creating the article might be ok. Without it, undeletion is not justified. There were a few arguably keepable articles mentioned in the AfD and the closure reflected that. Destiny Gundam wasn't one of them.
                  I think Calaschysm's suggestion is very sound, which is to move the material (whatever isn't already there) over to Wikia, which is a specialist wiki better suited to handling this intense level of detail about the inner arcana of the Gundam series. A general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia should only include the parts that are of documented notability in the real world. 67.117.130.181 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did not "ridicule Red's attempts to get this article back in place." He/she simply should have gone through Deletion review right away. Note that I didn't cast an opinion on the article itself. Perhaps the subject is indeed notable enough for wikipedia. Yet that does not justify Redxiv recreating the article, despite being aware of the AFD and its results. That has nothing to do with ridicule. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure again We reviewed and endorsed this AFD closure once already this month, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6. There are no claims to Wikipedia notability in this request for review; notability for Wikipedia purposes occurs when multiple independent reliable sources choose to write about the topic. The series is not independent. GRBerry 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no claims of notability in my request for review? You're kidding, right? That's what this request for review is. Anyway, "ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam" gets 32,400 Google hits and "Destiny Gundam" gets 168,000. Four action figures and two model kits have been made for it so far, one of which IIRC was in the top 3 best selling toys in Japan for 2005. It seems to me that its deletion was a case of the polar opposite of the "WP:IHEARDOFIT" (which BTW doesn't actually link to anything) bias that Guy refers to. It's something that seems all too common when fictional items get nominated for deletion: people deciding that since they haven't personally heard of it, it must not be notable. Redxiv 22:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered speedy closing it in light of the overwhelming endorsement Doug's AfD closure got. If that's the recommendation I won't let it run for long. ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Googlehits do not prove notability, and if it's notable, then people other than fans should be able to find evidence of that. -Amarkov blahedits 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, although they certainly hint at it. Also bear in mind that Strike Gundam and Freedom Gundam, by the earlier AfD, were kept. Since Impulse and Destiny play a similar role in the following series (in addition to, as said earlier, Destiny being the titular suit), they, or at least Destiny, should be kept. Heck, the same AfD also kept Justice, Strike Freedom, and Infinite Justice, none of which are more notable than Destiny. You really don't need to be a fan to see Destiny's importance. The fact that it's titular alone should be enough evidence of its importance to the common reader, let alone the other evidence. Paltheos
  • Overturn. 1) After the blanket AfD on all of the SEED mechas, a quick review reveals that the conclusions on which articles should be kept is suspect, to say the least. Here's a prime example of an article kept by that AfD which, by its own standards, really shouldn't have been: BuCUE. For those of you unfamiliar with the Cosmic Era universe, the BuCUE is a grunt unit that is mainly used as cannon fodder. On the other hand, a number of articles on mechs piloted by main characters and given quite a bit of notoriety have been deleted. For goodness' sake, Destiny Gundam is the titular mobile suit of the series (I'd also go as far to say that the Impulse Gundam article should be restored, but that's another story). WP:NOT isn't the only standard for determining whether or not an article is wiki-material. If an article is notable in a fashion not listed in WP:NOT and can be proven as such, then it is notable and wikipedia material. Also, if you're going to cite that blanket AfD as a reason for supporting deletion, you're basically implying that a grunt mech which is continually and repeatedly destroyed is more worthy of being on wikipedia than the titular mech from the very same show (piloted by the main character). While I understand that logic isn't entirely solid (as the same argument could be used to restore any SEED mecha article), my main point here is more that the results of that AfD are easily questionable, shown alone by the logical absurdity I've pointed out above, and I am accordingly questioning them by supporting the recreation of this article. Paltheos
  • Endorse deletion. I had not realised when I suggested WP:DRV to the nominator (in hopes of ending his constant recreation of the article) that it had been reviewed already. In any event, Doug Bell's closure of the AfD seems reasoned and measured after the lenghthy and complex argument that resulted from the number of articles nominated at AfD. His lack of knowledge of the topic indicates he came to it without preconceptions either way and acted as an unbiased referee in determining the outcome of the discussion, which is precisely what an admin should do. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Was there another AfD that occurred which I missed? If so, could I have a link to it? I've been talking about the AfD that occurred at the start of this month. All of my arguments are based on that (and still stand in regards to that particular AfD), but if there's another one, I see it please. If not, then I see no reason for this article to be deleted at this time (and unless someone has an argument to my points). Paltheos
      • The AfD you're talking about has been overwhelmingly endorsed on December 6. This is technically a redundant review without new information. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's some new information: the notion that any of the info in the deleted articles was copyvio of MAHQ.net (the only rationale for deletion that was actually based on Wikipedia policy rather than non-binding guidelines) is patent nonsense. None of the text descriptions of the articles were copied from MAHQ, and the site holds no copyright over statistical data. By that logic, listing a baseball player's batting average would be copyvio of whatever site the info was found on. And again, it's overtly clear that Doug Bell's decision on which articles to delete and which to keep was completely random. It would be akin to, say, somebody starting a mass AfD of Star Trek articles, and the result being to delete USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) but keep USS Bozeman (Star Trek). Redxiv 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Overturn: An apt comparison, to be sure. I beleive there seems to have been a significant missunderstanding between the two sides arguing here. Though many may elect to argue for an overturn for the sake of their respect for the particular franchise (as I am indeed tempted to...) but that significance pales in comparison to the sort of precident this sets for all science fiction vehicles which have their own pages. Using this deletion as a precident, I don't see how someone couldn't argue the Star Destroyer page out of existance. As it stands, the end result of this AFD (the deletion of a significant profile and the maintainance of a significantly insignificant pofile) leads me to beleive that it was carried out slopily. I recomend that the deletion be overturned and if nessesary, adressed should it come again by someone with at least enough familiarity with the franchise or fiction in general to know how significant a main character is.--KefkaTheClown 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list for AfD individually I am not in favor of the existence of this article; quite the opposite, really. But I think the only way to make this go away is to have an individual AfD; that way, if this nonsense crops up again, there won't be any excuse. Danny Lilithborne 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither the Gundam SEED Destiny article nor the Shinn Asuka article seem to have much to say about this whatsit. If its notability is based on its place in the show, a good starting place would be a section in one or both of those articles. BCoates 12:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There really shouldn't be a ton of information on either page for the Destiny Gundam(though there probably should be a bit more than there is), as there's no reason it shouldn't have its own page to explain it. But I've gave up on expecting Wikipedia to be good for Gundam information. It does have a Wikia after all, and clearly most of the people that comment in its AfDs don't have any idea what it is in the first place. Much simpler just to work on its Wikia than to try and argue with people here. Calaschysm 17:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist this individual article. While the closer did a pretty good job of deleting the obviously non-notable ones, I think this one is borderline and can be given its own discussion. There is no harm in it. --- RockMFR 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist this individual article. There's really no reason to delete what is probably the most important mech in the series. The more information the better as I see it. Xenon Zaleo 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per BCoates Fledgeling 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I've got no idea what shape the actual article's in - it might need to be deleted or merged after all. But if this really is a leading mecha in the series, it deserves consideration on its own merits, not as one of 80-something articles. Quack 688 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted One of the best closures I've ever seen, deserving of multiple barnstars. After the Warcraft trainwreck it's good to see that a mass AfD can actually be closed in a sensible way. These large AfD's are a good thing for dealing with reams of this type of cruft highly special-interest material of limited importance in a general-purpose encyclopedia (and Gundam already has its own GFDL wiki on Wikia where the material would be far more at home). We should have more of them and develop better ways to keep them focused, and the experienced gained from this one should be helpful. 67.117.130.181 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand the recommended cleanup since the same articles should be different for places that approach the same subject differently (namely, gundam wikia's article on Destiny can be more technical and in-depth, while wikipedia's simply elaborates on its prominence overall), but it would be good to have something up for a mech this important in the series. Also, as I explained earlier, the AfD before was by no means good, and I don't really know how you can say it was good when the main participants themselves directly noted the AfD's problems within it. Paltheos 02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. It has "four action figures and two model kits". Articles on closely-related subjects with the same level of notability were kept in earlier AfDs. jgp TC 09:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. And I haven't finished with Warcraft. Proto::► 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phajje ke Paye – Deletion endorsed – 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phajje ke Paye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Possibly notable, but difficult to ascertain due to multiple possible translations of the name into the English alphabet. Apparently another remade it without going through the proper channels, but I still think it might be notable enough to actually be included on Wikipedia, it's just that it's difficult to find sources due to translation issues. The user in question provided the following links, though [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] and a small mention in a local(for Lahore, anyway) magazine, [54] Vercalos 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I'm seeing only passing/unclear mentions in the links provided, most of which are unreliable sources. Bwithh 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Notability = being the primary focus of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of the sources cited, the only one which looks to me to come within sniffing distance of reliable is a passing mention, thus trivial. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

21 December 2006

[edit]
Kalpesh Sharma – Deletion endorsed – 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kalpesh Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (AfD)

Hello, I am Kalpesh Sharma, I want to edit my following page on wikipedia: Kalpesh Sharma because of a reliable source from himachal times which was posted by senior editor Mr. Chauhan. Check it here: [56]

Secondly, I also request to allow me to post my article on wikipedia due to following notable and reliable sources which are from print media and electronic media and the scanned copy of whch is posted by me on: [57]

Please consider this for deletion review. Thanks.

From Kalpesh Sharma 59.95.217.129 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly please tell me how to unblock ? Thnx

  • Endorse deletion. Original article = WP:AUTO with the absence of reliable sources. Deleted in an appropriate fashion and the author has been trolling by placing copies of the article on many inappropriate pages -- Samir धर्म 10:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be possible that http://www.himtimes.com/full_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1166359894&archive may not be notable source according to your views. But I request you to recheck

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Kalpesh_Sharma

because only internet sources cannot be said to be notable. I have given the source which is a website where a lot of scanned articles from highly reputed and reliable sources of print and electronic media are available. Kindly please have a look at it. Thnx a lot.

Kalpesh Sharma

59.95.217.237 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Satyendra Oswal? The name gets zero hits on google. Is he a Himtimes reporter, or just someone with a name made up one day (note that his address is at hotmail) to post your praises on that page? And the esnips "article" was written by you, as well, in first person, and therefore of zero reliability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick FitzGerald is also a wikipedia administrator. Who is using sock puppet to comment on http://utcursch.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/my-answer-to-kalpesh-sharmas-allegations See this:

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

and now these wikipedia administrators have started using different user names like sock puppets, whereas they used to blame me for same when I edited wikipedia. This is a big proof now that what I was saying about Aksi Great, Utcursch and Samir was not wrong. A person who itself is wrong should not call others wrong.

Kalpesh Sharma

59.95.217.237 13:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, but my name is not Nick Fitzgerald. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Greece Squad UEFA Euro 2004 et al. – Deletion endorsed, "no consensus" closure can be renominated at WP:TFD – 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Latvia Squad Euro 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) tfd December 4
Template:Greece Squad UEFA Euro 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd December 4

And please read the rest of the list in November 21, November 17, November 13, October 17.

  1. Delete all or
  2. Delete all except Champions Keeping regional (& Confederations Cup) Champions squad. that's equal for Euro and Asian Cup. And/or
  3. Delete all except Current event Keeping last regional squad (Euro 2004, 2005 Confederations Cup), that's is England and Lativa.

As the usage of squad template discussed in August 11, a notable world-class player would play more than three "A" event, just like Paolo Maldini and Shunsuke Nakamura, and current squad list (2006 FIFA World Cup squads) is enough to provide the function as the squad Template adding to the player's article.

There is no sense the template showing he won the champions or not, as we can replacing it to medal template.

Matthew_hk tc 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per unanimous delete !votes, which shows something.. I don't understand what you're saying, either. -Amarkov blahedits 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I brought the Japanese templates up for review earlier, and withdrew after the templates were user-fied, where I used that info to either expand existing roster pages, or create new ones. I think that for the major tournaments that these templates represent, having a page with the rosters for all teams is useful, and putting a link on a player's page to either the tournament or the tournament's roster page is sufficient. Neier 12:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion voted billions of times about this stuff, always with the same response. --Angelo 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm relisting this because like Amarkov I'm having a hard time understanding the nomination, but if I read this correctly the contested CfD is the December 4 one, which ended in a no-consensus against precedent. So !votes in favor of deletion should read "overturn, delete", not "endorse deletion". Also, since Greece won the Euro 2004 the Denmark 1992 precedent should hold and the CfD end in a split decision (keep Greece, delete Latvia). Iow, a tangled mess worse than offside rules. ~ trialsanderrors 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Action Zone Wrestling – Deletion endorsed – 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Action Zone Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was nominated for deletion by a convicted sockpuppet BooyakaDell. I was in the process of trying to source the article when it was deleted, and was also distracted by the dispute over whether or not Booyaka was in fact JB196 - which has since been proven. I have joined the forum attached to the official website of AZW and I intend to seek sources there - but I need the article undeleted to allow forum members to access it. As well as not allowing the proven bad faith nomination for deletion by JB to stand. Curse of Fenric 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Whatever the nominator's motives, the AfD was handled correctly. Sandstein 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no sources demonstrating notability, nominator (and anyone else) is free to recreate the article with such sources or provide them here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This ranks up there with a DRV because the deleting admin was later desysopped for a completely different matter. Proving that the nominator was a sockpuppet doesn't prove bad faith, and even proving bad faith doesn't mean it should be undeleted. -Amarkov blahedits 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the AfD showed a very strong consensus to delete, regardless of who the nominator was or may have been. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guys with all due respect, this doesn't address the problem of the original content. When I emailed AZW about the AfD, I mentioned what was on it. If I get a reply that addresses it - I have nothing to go on without the original article being re-created. I need it also to address the same content on the forum at the official website. I hope you understand the dilemma you are creating for me when I'm trying to do the right thing by WP - and provide a sourced article. Curse of Fenric 00:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have addressed the problem of the original content. The problem is that the original content had no independent reliable sources, and consequently failed WP:V, which is non-negotiable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So could you please re-create it so I can fix it up? I explained why I needed it. I don't undestand - please don't stick to this hard line. I can't do the work I need to do without the original article. Comments were made on it - and I will be sourcing them. This will eliminate your objections - if you'll just allow me to do so. [[User:Curse of Fenric/sig]] 08:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean, you can't do the work you need to do without it? The proper way to build a verifiable article is to start with sources and then find statements to include, not start with statements and then go through contrivances so you can call them verified. Regardless, forum members saying something doesn't make it verifiable. -Amarkov blahedits 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I do mean that, Amarkov. I want the forum members to see the original article that was deleted - that's essential. And I have not asked for statements on the website forum. I have asked more specific questions than that AND asked for sources to be provided. I know very well what I need for verification, and it won't be the forum by itself. (Hope the new sig is OK off topic) CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was closed correctly, IMO (per Starbind/Andrew Lenahan). 1ne 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sylvester Mubayi – Article restored by deleting admin, AfD optional – 08:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sylvester Mubayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mubayi was a first-generation Zimbabwean sculptor; he was one of the founder members of the important workshop school at the National Gallery of Zimbabwe. His work is on permanent display at the Chapungu Sculpture Park, probably the second- or third-most important exhibition space in the country. Both of these should be enough to establish notability. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the speedy deleter - there was no assertion of notability in either Sylvester Mubayi or Chapungu Sculpture Park. I've temporarily restored Sylvester Mubayi so that anyone who cares can add a (preferably sourced) assertion of notability. Sandstein 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've beefed it up a bit. I've now made it clear that a.) he was a founder member of the Tengenenge Sculpture Community, which is probably the most important community of its kind in Africa, and certainly was pioneering (and for which I know of a print source, which I do not own and so cannot cite); b.) he has been recognized by the Chapungu Sculpture Park, another important gallery in Zimbabwe; and c.) he was a product of the Workshop School, the first notable school in Zimbabwean art. To me, that seems enough to establish notability, but as there's no notability guidline for artists, I don't have a further way to bolster my claim. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, so this is no longer a speedy delete. But as long as we're discussing it... does he meet WP:BIO's criterion of "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field", and are there any reliable sources for it? (Anyone, feel free to move this to a proper AfD discussion, by the way.) Sandstein 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well...from http://www.sil.si.edu/SILPublications/ModernAfricanArt/maadetail.cfm?subCategory=Zimbabwe: "The larger dilemma for Cook and others, who appreciate Zimbabwe stone sculpture as a truly fine art, is its rapid commercialization and consequent dilution by inferior imitations. Art critics here and in Zimbabwe have failed so far to draw the line: most viewers genuinely cannot see the difference between the good, the bad and the mediocre. Perhaps we should rely on Cook's judgment. His nine are: Edronce Rukodzi, Henry Munyaradzi, Joseph Ndandarika, John Takawira, Moses Masaya, Nicholas Mukomberanwa, Sylvester Mubayi, Norbert Shamuyarira, and Richard Mteki." And his name appears as one of a number of artists cited in several other sources. I'd say he's probably among the most important of the Zimbabwean stone sculptors. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you - that's persuasive, and I think the article should be kept. If no one disagrees, I suggest that this discussion be closed and copied to the Article talk page for future reference. Sandstein 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1 – Speedily restored – 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

I would like to see the talk history of the article that I'm working on. Arctic Gnome 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators – Deletion endorsed – 08:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted after an AfD that was overwhelmingly (10/4) keep. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators) The list certainly has POV problms, but there are ways to refocus it, including a standard of mainstream press sources referring to the ruler as a dictator (Example: [61]). Traditionally we keep these lists and enforce standards and rigor on them - which is what the consensus in the AfD showed that we should do. That an admin deleted despite an overwhelming consensus is not a reason to do otherwise. Phil Sandifer 02:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Most of the keeps didn't address the nomination, but said "Well clean it up then!", which the nominator said was not possible. -Amarkov blahedits 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote. 1ne 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Phil's reasoning the last time the article went on AfD was based on more clearly on the goal of writing an encyclopedia: Delete - note that this is not really a matter for voting, as one cannot vote away NPOV, and one cannot do this list in a NPOV way. Phil Sandifer 22:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC) [62] 172 | Talk 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, many of the problems with the list in the form I voted for deletion on were products of its explicitly presentist structure. I think an overall list of dictators remains quite reasonable - the modern section would be a relatively small portion, I should hope, and would hopefully include references and explanations. But this is wholly possible. Phil Sandifer 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's not "explicitly presentist" by virtue of the title. But it's the same article, just moved. How the content is structured is pretty much the same mess we had on our hands last year. 172 | Talk 05:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Clearly abuse of deletion process. There is nothing in deletion policy that would permit Doc glasgow to issue a decree that a certain article is "Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy" and appoint himself as the final arbiter what is POV and what is not against rough consensus that was clearly towards keeping the article. Instead the deletion policy is very clear about this: XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept. I read this to mean that "so fix it" is indeed a valid reply to NPOV complaints in AfD discussions. jni 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, closer's reasoning is sound. The Keep !votes did indeed miss the point, never refuted, that this violates core policy. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's rationale: Let me be clear, I didn't do this lightly. POV in an article is a reason for clean-up not deletion. However, please bear in mind that this is a list not an article. In a contentious subject, we reach NPOV by working towards a consensus not of 'truth' but of a neutral and balanced description of the various views, each given with reliable citations. That can be hard, but it is a goal we believe is at least theoretically achievable. Lists are different: because ultimately they are binary. We can't describe the various views fairly, we have to choose one. He's either on the list, or he's not. We either call him a dictator or we don't. That will always be POV: there is simply no goal of neutral description possible. Find me ten reliable citations that say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dictator, and I'll find you five praising Iranian democracy. Robert Mugabe? Gorbachev? Now, even if we discussed all that, and reached a consensus on the page, it wouldn't be NPOV, since it wouldn't be a neutral description of the various views. All it would be is a List which the consensus of Wikipedians call dictators. By definition, this 'article' cannot logically be cleaned up comply with NPOV. And NPOV is non-negotiable. --Docg 09:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this line of reasoning apply to this list in specific? Coudn't you fairly insert "which the consensus of Wikipedians call" into pretty much any title? Also, was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually on that list with a source? He's not even in charge of Iran... BCoates 13:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly didn't look at the content of the list. It isn't relevant: the concept of this list rather than the content necessarily breaches NPOV. As to other lists, straight faction lists are not a problem. We don't need a consensus of what goes on the 'List of U.S. Presidents', we deal in facts. But opinionated lists should be a no no in my opinion.--Docg 13:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I endorse and agree with Doc above. A core policy is given that name for a reason. It's a non-negotiable fact, and Doc has made the right call here, I believe. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "Traditionally we keep these lists and enforce standards and rigor on them". Wrong. Traditionally ten people say 'keep and cleanup', forcing either a 'keep' or a 'no consensus', and none of them actually do so. Although that isn't actually relevant, because Doc's rationale above says it all; this article is inherently POV. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion while I enjoyed the list, its a nightmare to maintain in an NPOV form. As its an unmaintainable list its a valid deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, who is a dictator? Who is not? Reliable sources? One says he is, the other says he is not. Fighting, quabbling, edit-warring. Serious NPOV issues. N00k it. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There's clear precedent for deleting such lists. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Excellent closing rationale. I'm a bit disappointed the majority didn't get this one right on AFD. Wickethewok 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of backdoor: The category was a hot debate, with loads of folks weighing in. The category got deleted, and the list looks like a back door. Essentially, all the arguments, above, were the "winning" arguments in the category deletion. Effectively, deletion of the "list" is consistency rather than a truly new issue being debated. Geogre 13:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closing admin got it right. Dr Zak 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, exactly for the reason given.--Aldux 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, per Jni. Also, many hours were put into this list to meet the specific criteria.--Antispammer 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the very appropriate rationale provided by the closing admin. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 05:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Very well done. Inherently POV list, no ideas from the keeps on how to not make it so. ("CLEAN IT UP!" usually doesn't count unless you do it yourself, I'm afraid.) Grandmasterka 08:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Whatever the "truth" of the NPOV concern, an admin must not simply go on his/her own whim and ignore consenus! LotLE×talk 15:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn and restore. Abusive close unsupported by either policy, the AfD discussion - where consensus existed to keep the article - or basic logic by a non-neutral admin who repeatedly argued for deleting this list in November 2005 [63]. If a list of dictators violates NPOV, Dictator or any use of the word in any article at wikipedia does as well - frankly that's just PC thinking run amuck. I would hope that Admins that have stated such strong opinions would refrain from exercising administrative powers regarding article inclusion/deletion. In the real wikipedia world, though, that just about never happens and AfD discussions are increasingly irrelevant to the ultimate disposition of an article. Admins now feel fully empowered to ignore completely the views of other users (as the closer has admitted here, in fact going so far as to state he didn't even look at the list) in order to enforce their personal opinion or bias. I view that approach as a sad demonstration of contempt for the community. --JJay 16:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per JJay. A list is better than a category, since the list can include the definition it's using right at the top. However, my biggest concern is that of consistency. For the record, I looked up 6 dictators alleged dictators political leaders with questionable records, and found these quotes:
Joseph Stalin - According to the consensus of modern historians [2][3][4][5][6], he is seen as a dictator of his country.
Adolf Hitler - With the establishment of a restructured economy, a rearmed military, and a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy
Benito Mussolini - He established a repressive fascist regime
Francisco Franco - was the effective ruler, dictator, and later formal head of state
Kim Jong-il - According to defector Hwang Jang-yop, the North Korean system became even more centralized and autocratic under Kim Jong-il than it had been under his father.
Augusto Pinochet - Sen. Coleman noted: “This is a sad, sordid tale of money laundering involving Pinochet accounts at multiple financial institutions using alias names, offshore accounts, and close associates. As a former General and President of Chile, Pinochet was a well-known human rights violator and violent dictator.”
By my rough count, that's three "he's a dictator", one "consensus indicates he's a dictator", and two "one source says he acts a dictator". Above all else, as Phil said, we need to "enforce standards and rigor" on the use of terms like "dictator", "fascist", and "repressive" - both in individual articles and in a list such as this. Who said he's a dictator? Do single-party elections count? Was the government repressive, or just highly bureaucratic? Pick some standards to use, then apply them across the board. Quack 688 07:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - broader issue: it is no secret that List of dictators was a prototypical example of a new approach to how Wikipedia could/should deal with sensitive lists, see Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia (where "List of dictators" is mentioned as an example), and the talk page archives of that page where it is discussed why and how "List of dictators" was intended to set an example of the new approch. Further, see also Wikipedia talk:List guideline (where it was tried to merge the new ideas in the general List guideline): on that talk page "List of dictators" has about a dozen mentionings as an example. Currently the last section of that talk page that kind of summarizes the arguments is Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Question about section 2.2 (lead section).
    • The "new approach" contained the idea that a list should start with a strong definition, and that inclusion of items on a list should be weighed against such definition.
    • One of the problems with that approach is that for sensitive issues a "strong" (unanimous,...) definition is often not possible (otherwise the issue wouldn't be sensitive, would it?), which led to a vague addition in the new ruleset for lists: "Beware of definitions which are disputed", trying to forbid lists where there might be discussion over inclusion criteria. Now, Wikipedia has dealt with, and will continue to deal with, lists on sensitive topics. I've given many examples of such lists which are sensitive but not problematic as a Wikipedia endeavour on Wikipedia talk:List guideline (and many other places), I mention just a few here: "List of works by Plato" (included in the Plato article); "List of Nudibranch infraorders"; "List of islands of Japan"; "List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach";... The old approach was making annotated lists (noting down as well verifiable factors that justify an inclusion, as verifiable factors that indicate an inclusion is not justified), which doesn't lead to a NPOV problem, as those example lists I mentioned show. In fact, the new approach was making lists problematic where they hadn't been in the standard approach of treating list pages exactly the same way as all other articles in article namespace, as far as compliance to core content policies is concerned.
    • As for the present deletion review of List of dictators, my opinion is that the page should not be re-created on the basis of the Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia type of guidance, but on the other hand, there should be no impediment of creating a List of dictators with a strict adherence to core content policy. In other words, I support the rigor approach, but only if this is understood as rigor w.r.t. core content policy (and not the subsequent guidelines/essays that erred from core content policy).
    • If "deletion" of the current version of List of dictators stands (which I think will be the case, and which I think should be the case) I'd ask the community for support on:
      1. marking Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia as "rejected" or "historical" or disable it by making it a redirect to Wikipedia:List guideline.
      2. reworking of Wikipedia:List guideline#References for list Items, which has become affected by the abovementioned problem-generating approach. --Francis Schonken 12:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore, This is a useful article... there's no real reason to delete it. If people have POV issues, let them be discussed. Cyberdog 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Its existence offended a few people intensely, in a way I frankly never understood, but that in itself is not enough. It was well-maintained, sourced, and strongly scrutinized. If need be it can be renamed if the word "dictator" just makes some folk see red.--T. Anthony 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Red labor – Overturned, listed at AfD – 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Red labor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I created the article on this artist group and it was speedy-deleted by Teke. I left a message on their talk page on November 28, 2006 and have heard no response. Teke cited G11 "Blatant advertising" as the reason for deletion but "Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I would like to see the article up for an AfD vote as they have some good article contributions in the graphic design community. JohnRussell 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bellflower (movie) – Deletion endorsed – 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bellflower (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

The reason for deletion is unclear Bennytrek 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that an article about the same thing was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellflower: A Firefly Fanfilm. It's not an identical article but all of the reasons from the original afd would still apply, considering the article states that "shooting starts soon". - Bobet 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no argument presented, no reliable sources as already pointed out in the AfD given by bobet, whose article is pretty much the same as this one's. ColourBurst 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We'd likely have a hard time keeping a major star-studded Hollywood production that wasn't even in the shooting stage yet, and a "fan film" has even less chance. Come back when it's complete and has plenty of verifiable reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per ColourBurst and Andrew Lenahan. 1ne 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Somari – Overturned and relisted at AfD – 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Somari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The original premise for deletion was entirely invalid. (Somari is not a simple graphics hack; it is a very impressive conversion of a game from the Genesis to the NES, which itself makes it notable -- there are very few comparable examples. Porting a game to a different platform without the source code is generally a difficult feat even today; it's even more amazing back when it was made.) Several votes of "delete per nom" were explicitly based on this invalid premise. This seemed to have gone unnoticed until two days before the article was deleted, with the majority of votes that indicated any awareness of this coming on the last day. I'm convinced that if the debate had lasted longer, the outcome would be different. Therefore I'm posting this for deletion review. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist. I hate to do vote counting, but when neither side bothers to back up their opinion, you have to, and there was not a majority in favor of deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this comment. There are 10 "delete" votes (11 if you count the nomination) and 5 "keep" votes, a clear majority if there ever was one. I don't dispute that there is a majority; what I dispute is that a significant (if indeterminate) number of people who did vote "delete" clearly did not understand what they were voting on. While that doesn't invalidate those votes per se, I think it's inappropriate to close the discussion and delete the article before a discussion based on proper understanding could take place. Before deciding whether an article on Somari is worth having, we need to understand what Somari is. Grossly misrepresenting it in the nomination, whether intentionally or otherwise, is kind of like rigging the vote. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

20 December 2006

[edit]
Knights of Glory and Beer – Deletion endorsed – 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Knights of Glory and Beer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

Article was speedied under A7 (no assertions of notability). On the talk page, the article's creators are vehemently asserting notability. Well, they are vehemently claiming that many people are members and care deeply about their organization. There is no evidence of references in reliable sources as of yet. However, it appears that whoever acted on the speedy acted too rashly, as this probably needs more discussion; the speedy delete is obviously being contested. I currently hold No Opinion pending evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:WEB. Jayron32 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, right. A Guild Wars clan with 55 unique Googles, and the contents of the article was complete bollocks form beginning to end. Not a hope. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Claiming something is notable is not the same thing as offering a valid assertion of notability. If I start an article with "This is really, really, really, really notable," that does not mean it can't be speedied. A valid assertion of notability requires a significant reason for the assertion. The only clan articles I have seen that actually contain such a valid assertion are some recent articles on Halo groups who have gotten a million-dollar contract to publicly compete and help promote the game. As that contract has been widely reported in the press, it's a valid assertion of notability. Fan-1967 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy: I'm sure that the members of the clan like their clan. Other than that, the folks above say it well. (Besides, beer drinkers should be cheeful.) Geogre 12:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion as the sysop who deleted it. Clearly an A7. Naconkantari 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There is a difference between asserting notability and complaining about notability. I bet if you got the statistics, you would see that a disproportionate number of articles that start off with "This is a notable X because" have been speedied. -Amarkov blahedits 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, notability and assertion of notability are not synonymous. There has to be written multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources to back up the assertion and it isn't found here.--Dakota 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dominic Janes – Speedily closed, better article moved into article space, AFD optional – 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dominic Janes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Article was speedy-deleted because of vandalism and protected until a suitable article or stub could be put in place. I have created a stub at User:PHDrillSergeant/Dominic Janes which I think will fill this space quite nicely. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess this can be speedy closed as suggested above. Tizio 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn: I don't know about "speedy closed", whatever that means. Rushing seems to be the major mistake in the case of this article. I'd say that the article should be recreated as there is clearly notability. I'm a little surprised this article was deleted four times, protected, etc. and yet there was apparently no attempt at formal "deletion survey. It's alomost as if a minority of admins tried to suppress this. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Church of Google – Deletion endorsed – 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Church of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

Article described reoccuring phenomenon, documented both in 2004 and 2006, and exhibited by separate sources (links to relevant articles will be provided on request). Furthermore, article passes notability "search engine test", both on Google and Yahoo search engines. Alice Shade 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thus, test was performed on both Google and Yahoo. While Google results alone about Church of Google would definitely not look persuasive enough, close corellation of Yahoo and Google results gives the ground to state, that claim to "search engine" notability is probably veracious. Alice Shade 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of wiki article, among others, to refute common misconception, that it`s a joke religion. Maybe it was intended as such, but over the last couple of months, there`s little left of joke, if any. It`s as serious, as spin-off from agnisticism can get. Alice Shade 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don`t explicitly insist on restoring the article as a separate item, by the way. According to rules, undernotable topic could be merged into a more general one as subsection, which would be quite enough for this subject for the foreseeable future. Alice Shade 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The thing is that the disagreement between various "originators" is exactly what's wrong with the concept as the target of an encyclopedia article: it's so fluid, so much a protologism, so unsettled in every respect as to be unable to make a legitimate claim to notability. A phrase like "family disunity" will pass the Google test, but that doesn't mean that there is a chapter in the Psychology textbook referring to it. We have competitors claiming to have achieved notability, but these are fragmented shots at the same name, and we can't count them cumulatively. Geogre 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably, this is the proof of notability, if you mean competitioners for same title. When something is moved along solely by single inventor and his/her support group, that`s one case. Now, when there are several indepentant groups, who reached the same conclusion - it hints, that idea should be more widespread, then it seems. Alice Shade 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that we're not talking about an idea, but a thing. In this case, it is not a thing, but several people thinking up the same formulation of concepts. Again, a random phrase like "happy camper" will get huge Google hits, but it won't mean that there is a model of recreational vehicle that instills joy, or even that such is the concept. Therefore, someone coming along and claiming to have created an RV that is the "happy camper" couldn't piggyback that to claim notability. Geogre 03:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly. Here, we have two separated cases of people creating highly-similar organisations, completely independantly, but with highly similar premises. Two (or two thousand) mentions of words "church" and "google" together, would not, of course, attribute to notability. But close recreation of a secluded following in highly similar form by completely-independant group? That is somewhat more interesting, because it shows a pattern. Moreso, a careful search will crop similar lesser results, which again, constitute not to a random combination of words, but entirely defined concept. On other note, I must note, that "happy camper" is quite incorrect example. "Happy" is adjective, and as such, obviously should not be included along with concept, in Wikipedia. There are no different articles on "stewed beef" and "roasted beef", correct? Now, casting off "happy", we are left with Camper - which, as one can ascertain, there IS an article about. Alice Shade 03:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bishop McDevitt High School – Edit history restored behind new article; AfD optional – 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bishop McDevitt High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

Reason: Lack of process—As far as I can tell, there was zero discussion anywhere about this page, which is months, if not years old. Within hours, someone had started a new stub, so the only effect of the deletion appears to have been to lose lots of content. Unless I misunderstand the process, it did not qualify for speedy delete, so please re-instate it. User:Centrx is welcome to tag it or start a conversation about notability, sourcing, etc., on the Talk page, or even list it on AfD—isn't that the proper process? Thanks. —johndburger 13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia – Deletion endorsed – 08:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history) —(AfD 1|AfD 2)
It was again a non-concensus (keep if you ignore meritless OR rationale for deletion). No valid reason to delete was given. OR argument is without merit. It was also nominated for deletion one week before the other nomination. The person deleting the article was involved in AfD #1 as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock, Husnock being a co-author of this article along side with me and others. --Cat out 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say, although your characterisation of the closure as a drumhead indicates that you probably take the subject far more seriously than you should. Now see if others agree with my summary of the deletion debate. Thanks for pointing out Drumhead court-martial, though, as it needed fixing, and that gave me something more productive to do than arguing about Star Trek articles :-) Guy (Help!) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually pointing to the TNG episode as well as that article. Oh yes, I am taking this as seriously as it is necessary. Frankly, I find your attitude disturbing. --Cat out 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constructively move forward. This whole process has been ugly on all sides. The fundamental premise of the article is very hard to extricate from claims of novel synthesis from published sources, no matter what else is discussed. That, combined with a lack of grievous process violations in AFD2, means the task of DRV is settled, and closure can be endorsed. But, the article's editors make a valid claim that some of this material is not OR. The problem has been a reticence to enforce that bright-line distinction by parties on all sides. Ranks that actually -- by name, not by implication -- appeared in an official but non-canon source should be added to the main Starfleet ranks article (> 32k or not) with a note so indicating that they are in official, but non-canon works (and provide detailed reference for said appearance). Ranks that exist because of questionable costuming or because of wording that strongly implies their existence without expressly and unequivocably affirming that existence stay out of any article. I would humbly suggest that each such rank be addressed in turn at the appropriate talk page to afford sufficient opportunity for review of the sources and inclusion, and to prevent a(nother) repeat of this entire long debacle. Serpent's Choice 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe Afd #2 was properly closed. --Cat out 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, SC, that was precisely the point I was trying to make in the closing summary. We have an article for starfleet ranks, we can add the verifiable ones there those that are rejected there as unverifiable are - well, unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure while also liking the recommendation of Serpent's Choice. Some of the keep opinions misunderstood WP:OR. The most flagrant example was the claim that publication in any source was sufficient to not be original research. That is wrong; it must be a reliable source. To the extent that reliability of the sources was discussed, I think the consensus was that at the very least significant portions of the sourcing was not reliable. Some of the delete opinions were that the entire topic is original research. These concerns were not adequately addressed. [The very topic is "alternate ranks" - where is the reliable source saying that there are "alternate ranks" in Starfleet? (No real military organization would have alternate ranks - either something is a rank or it isn't (plus changes over time).] Without adequate response to that concern, and I can't find a response to that concern which doesn't misunderstand WP:OR, the correct read of the discussion is that the article topic inherently has an original research problem. GRBerry 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Starfleet is NOT military (picard states this).
    WP:OR means I can't make things up. Alternate in the context of the article's coverage is rank insignia published by sources not considered canon such as Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek: The Animated Series and etc. The books are reliable, the TV show (animated series) is reliable enough for us to have articles about them. --Cat out 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, nothing can trump WP:V and WP:OR, and this article failed both. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Star Trek Encyclopedia (ISBN 0-671-53609-5) not a verifiable source. How is it original research? --Cat out 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant overturn. The doubt that this was OR or not should have defaulted to a no-consensus. As discussed at this first DRV, if you have two legitimate arguments, we shouldn't be defaulting to delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, what Is aid was, some was OR, some was not OR, some required a creative interpretation of NOR either way, and the premise was such as to encourage OR (by explicitly referencing non-canon, which is almost always a shortcut to the bitbucket in fictional genres) and also a level of detail in excess of what might be generally accepted (Memory Alpha might like articles on ranks that never appeared in canon, but Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha). Someone might well look up a shoulder flash to see what rank a given character has, that is a plausible reader query,. but what reader is going to come here looking for a rank which does not appear in canonical sources? How would they know even to look? Guy (Help!) 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a million plus articles, I sure we have a lot that people theoretically won't come here for. The issue is multiplefold (is that a word?): if there was some OR issues, but not across the board, that can be solved by editing. If you're worried about the level of detail, that can be solved by editing (although I'm not really a sizeist when it comes to article length). Was there really a consensus on the second AfD that this information wasn't encyclopedic? If there was, I'm not seeing it. That's why I can't endorse this, it gives the appearance that you're putting your own limitations into the closing. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think you handled it correctly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not AfD MkII (we already had that). In closing, I reasoned as follows: some of this is definitely OR, some is not, some is arguably OR, the title and underlying premise encourage OR, and even if it were not it represents a level of detail in excess of what would normally be considered appropriate. Star Trek: notable. Episodes of Star Trek: fairly notable. Concepts within the universe you see in episodes of Star Trek: a bit notable. Concepts which are discussed by fans as being implied by what goes on in episodes of Star Trek? Not notable, pretty unambiguously so. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, that article is nowhere near the threshhold where mandatory subpagination should be considered. Rename the "Conjectural Ranks" section as "Ranks in non-canon sources" and you can include any appropriately referenced information from Starlog, FASA content, novels, etc. (with the caveat that things like www.st-spike.org probably don't count as sufficiently reliable sources, unless there's more to them than I'm aware of...). Serpent's Choice 09:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a reason for that. The actual version of the article was way over 200ks. Article was broken apart to a number of pages auch as Captain (Star Trek) and during the process basically all text was moved off the article to new articles. Forking of alternate ranks article was a part of that. If any material can be merged, they can also be a separate page as well. --Cat out 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trolling is prohibited behavior, do not indulge in it or you will regret it. Personal attacks are not welcome either (who are you calling humor impaired?). --Cat out 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure was within admin discretion. Information sourced to the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the like can (and should) be added to the main article per Serpent's Choice (and my own "vote" in the AfD for that matter). Even setting aside OR (which I think remains a valid criticism of the article as it stood), the excessive detail (i.e. "cruft") argument remains. Not everything in Star Trek is notable (and certainly not everything in secondary non-canon sources is notable). Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not an exhaustive Star Trek one. Eluchil404 05:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I tried so hard not to use the word fancruft... ;-) Guy (Help!) 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin closing it was not an objective party. He had a predetermined view before closing the debate (as per previous afd that happened this month). The entire article is sourced with sources like the star trek encyclopedia and was still deleted for being original research and for not being verifiable. Numerous votes point out that this is not inline with policy. 'Cruft' articles are welcome on wikipedia, one mans cruft is anthers knowledge. Why not delete all articles on astronomy for being astronomy cruft. Wikipedia is indeed a general purpose encyclopedia, hence what you call 'cruft' is welcome here. Topics covered do not exclude detailed information on star trek. --Cat out 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for using the 'c' word, but its a convient shorthand for cases like this. The key to refuting Cool Cat's point though is really the widely cited guideline Wikipedia:Notability. I know Star Trek is notable (and I'm a big fan), but the subject of this article, a very minor aspect of Star Trek, is not. Hundreds of perfectly verifyable non OR things are deleted for being non-notable everyday; there is no reason that Star Trek articles are exempt. (Note that I still have concerns that the article was an OR synthesis of technically verifyable facts, but I don't see the need to debate that for a thrid time.) Eluchil404 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe admiral ranks of the original series are as notable as TNG. No canon insignia is avalible, but secondary sources did cover it. Alleged warrant officer rank did appear on the show but what it really was was never revealed. I also believe lieutenant commander insignia from ST:Enterprise is also quote notable. These are some of the more obvious examples on how this article is notable. --Cat out 05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking into it, I think that the claim that this is WP:OR is invalid - if it is taken from a book published by the right people and not pieced together, then it's hardly original research. I don't care about "canon", and neither, IMO, should the encyclopedia - it's all about varying types of fiction (let Memory Alpha and similar who are trying to put together a coherent fictional world care about canon). As to whether WP:V/WP:RS factor into it, we run into a rather grey area when it comes to what that means for topics like this - for fiction, what counts as reliable? The topic is perhaps too ephemeral for us to come up with good guidelines for that (and we should reject canonicity out-of-hand, I think). I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia primarily because it's not notable (in the sense of having a greater importance to society), but think the WP:V/WP:RS arguments are questionable and the WP:OR argument is broken. --Improv 06:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the closing rationale, please. This found that some was OR, some was not (and is therefore verifiable, so can go in Starfleet ranks and insignia), and the premise was such as to encourage OR - also that the premise implies a level of detail in excess of what might generally be expected (aka "cruft"). I really did go through the arguments in the AfD reading each and every one. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per badlydrawnjeff. VegaDark 09:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable close by JZG. We could redirect to Starfleet ranks and insignia if that'd help. >Radiant< 12:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be the point of a redirect? --Cat out 13:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Eluchil404. Naconkantari 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I am a bit tired of repeating the fact that a few referenced facts does not magiclally prevent an article from being comprised of conjecture and original research. Proto::► 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we could prevent wikipedia from being edited... Same logic applies to any and every article. --Cat out 16:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, while repeating the idea that the material be moved to someone's userspace (I volunteer my own) so that the nuggets of non-OR can be salvaged an integrated into Starfleet ranks and insignia (where we're right now having it out again as to what counts as a reliable source). --EEMeltonIV
  • Endorse deletion - I actually think the page should be merged, but if this gets formally overtuned, it's going back to AfD, and I'm really tired of seeing this going back and forth. However, I strongly support userfying this page so that we can see which sections can be merged into the main Starfleet ranks page. I also agree 100% with Geogre's "Urgh" comment above - the delete/keep mentality is a real problem. "Article contains OR" is a reason to delete that OR. It is not a reason to delete the whole article. On a different issue, I've seen a disturbing trend of judging an article's worth just by its title. Title and content are two totally separate questions. If an article's got a strongly POV title, but contains NPOV information, then just rename the bloody thing. If a subject simply isn't notable enough to exist on its own, or could promote OR, fine, delete the article - but only after merging any good contents into the article of a "parent topic". Quack 688 05:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MessedRocker's Beliefs - if it is this dubious, and is such an in-universe topic that there are few reliable sources for it, this is not worth our time. Let's just move on, okay? There are some articles that need writing -- the kind that can be written that won't cause pointless flamewars about exactly how original-researchy it is. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MessedRocker's follow-up comment - From what I've read about this deletion review (over a nice hot bath), there have been arguments that at least a portion of the article constitutes original research. Cool Cat has told me, however, that the information in the article comes from officially sanctioned publications such as Star Trek Encyclopedia. While these ranks may not be canon, they still have some level of officialness. As such, that would make the article a potential notability problem, not a verifiability problem. There may be an original research problem; if the article takes its sources and derives new information, that would be original research. Administrators, please take a look at the deleted history of the article and see if there are any original research-related problems. I would greatly appreciate follow-up comments to this one. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the exact problem with deleting the whole article in the first place.
- Statement: The rank Dogsbody appears in the tech manual, "Stuff".
- Verifiability: Anyone with access to the manual can confirm that this statement of fact is correct, and that the rank appears in the book. Therefore, it passes WP:V.
- Original Research: The rank is from a studio-endorsed source. It is not looted from a fan site, and it is not made up by a Wikipedia editor. Therefore, it passes WP:OR.
However, several people disagree with this line of reasoning. If the rank doesn't appear on screen, then you can say so, and say it's a non-canon rank. But I'm still waiting to hear how the above statement, in and of itself, is unverifiable, or constitutes original research. Quack 688 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to the official star trek website whats considered 'canon' is fluid. --Cat out 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quranic reasons for terrorism – Deletion endorsed – 08:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quranic reasons for terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history|AfD)

I had no objection to Islamic scholars presenting their Quranic reasons against terrorism to make the article balanced as opposed to its outright deletion. This is just a food for thought, and I won't insist more or get angry for the deletion of the article.--Patchouli 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - afd process seems fine; no new substantive evidence presented. Do you have a complaint about the way the afd was closed, or do you have new supporting evidence of some kind? Otherwise, there's not much here at DRV for you. Bwithh 06:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closer's reasoning is sound. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - the closer, unfortunately, did not present any reasons for deletion - Most of the other arguments seem to be an obfuscated version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a bad article name (which is not a reason for deletion - it can be renamed), or that the article content exists elsewhere on Wikipedia (but that's not valid, because it's hard to piece together: I'll bet all information in the George W. Bush or monotheism article is somewhere else too). Among the many arguments for delete, there was only one who presented a valid reason: WP:OR (though I can't verify even that without seeing the article, and this too may have been an obfuscation). Finally, there is a reason to keep: this article is extremely notable, as worldwide there is a very large Islamic movement that advocates violence, and most of it quotes the Quran. -Patstuarttalk|edits 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have substantial content on Islam, the Koran and political violence in in e.g. Jihad, Criticism of the Qur'an, Militant Islam, and Islamic military jurisprudence. The major problem with the deleted article (which was the crux of the afd nominator's argument) is that the almost the entire article(googlecached version here) was based on the letters of one guy, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who attempted to run over people with a car (but managed to seriously hurt noone and almost immediately turned himself in to the police) at his university in North Carolina. This one, obscure guy - who apparently wasn't even a member of a militant Islamist group - is not a reliable or authoritative source for content for an article generalizing about how extremist Muslims interpret the Koran. Bwithh 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted an insertion of the bulk of the deleted article's content into Islamist terrorism[66] Bwithh 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I think it is flapdoodle that Muslim nations make studying the Quran MANDATORY for all in public & private schools, tell the students that the contents thereof is definitely the word of God, and then when people obey, call the followers terrorist. I believe the article should be restore and developed to help non-Muslims see the entire picture.--Patchouli 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.... you're responding to your own request for review? Anyway, DRV is not an extension of afd. Bwithh 04:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The points in the article were never rebuffed. Instead, deletion was advocated for illegitimate reasons.--Patchouli 05:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is "flapdoodle" is not a legitimate reason to have an article in Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Geoffrey Spear 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have pored over them long ago. I keep seeing users resort to WP:IDONTLIKEIT#Just_a_policy_or_guideline quite frequently when it comes to Islamic articles.--Patchouli 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge problem the Google cached version looks entirely different from what the article looked like when it was deleted on 20 December. I had added quite a bit of stuff to it.--Patchouli 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is pure Islam.--Patchouli 12:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is already well-covered with more balance in Islamic military jurisprudence. Also, one translation version of one verse without context is not really particularly persuasive as an illustrative point. There are clearly multiple translations from the Arabic as well as multiple verses which qualify each other besides commenting on different aspects - as can be seen from the link above you provided. And fundamentalist readings of texts are always still intepretations/exegesis, so at least some commentary on discursive context is needed too. Bwithh 13:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic military jurisprudence is another one of those false articles that is guarded to ensure discordance with Islam every minute. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_military_jurisprudence&diff=94489160&oldid=94485712.--Patchouli 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have problems with the content of that article, start a WP:RFC rather than create a fork Bwithh 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really much to discuss when sources are removed. As if Al-Zawahiri is a lone wolf; see List_of_terrorist_groups#Islamist. I am also aware of Internet trolls waiting to fill the RFC page with a haystack of words.--Patchouli 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Master Exploder – Redirect set and endorsed – 08:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Master Exploder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I believe that the debate was closed too soon. The rational that the simple majority of people listed was that it is a song on an album that was not released as a single, and therefore not notable. However, the song was prominently featured in the movie musical Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny. The scene where the song is performed has leaked on viral video sites, and has emerged as an unofficial music video for the band, one of the few high points for a film that was a box office failure. Milchama 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirection per trialsanderrosr. Ellissound's concerns can be met by having that information included in the article for the album. The inability of a particular song to qualify for its own article does not imply that the album article should not include content unique to that song, where referenced, applicable and appropriate. Serpent's Choice 05:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirection as per trials Bwithh 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fixity of species – Deletion endorsed – 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fixity of species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

The article was originally called "linnaean lawn" when it was proposed for deletion. It was then moved to "fixity of the species", a more commonly used name but was still not notable enough for undeletion. Finally it was moved to fixity of species (14,500 ghits. 648 google book hits) and more was added to the article. The previous reasons for deletion are no longer present. See previous deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#fixity_of_the_species. NOTE the change in name, as well as new information on the article. Pbarnes 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea, rather than taking 5 seconds to read this topic and then replying your position, you actually go to the article look through it and make a valid decision of whether it should be deleted. Previous reasons for deletion:
  • Non-notable - "fixity of species" gets 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits as well as is reference in every biology text book I have ever read.
  • Non-encyclopedic - Contains adequate definition and quite a bit of history. It's no where near perfect but it's a start.
  • Contains Uncited Information - I listed a number of references that are both verifiable and reliable.
-Pbarnes 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, a redirect and deletion are not the same thing. If you want it merged into creationism, use the merge template...not a deletion template. Second, read this. Fixity of species is well known enough to have an article on it's own and what would be the point of making creationism more broad? Pbarnes 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#10_December_2006, there is no reason to have two open discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different article with a different title. Grounds for previous deletion..."non-notable". Grounds for current deletion of "fixity of species"...I have no clue!!! 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits...what more do you want!!!Pbarnes 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - it has nothing to do with the number of google hits - the topic is basically a dictionary definition. Sure, it gets google hits, but there's nothing to write an article about (notwithstanding Pbarnes efforts to write an article about the history of evolution under that title). Changing the title of the article doesn't change the underlying reason for deletion. Guettarda 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority belief of pre-darwinian scientist cut down to "the topic is basically a dictionary definition"...I love it!!! Should flat earth and geocentrism be moved to witionary also? It's not like major topics like taxonomy are based on this notion of "fixity of species" or anything. Pbarnes 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already covered elsewhere. A redirect would be fine, though. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • how can this be discussed without seeing the article? please restore long enough for a discussion This is in my area of interest, but I must have missed it in AfD because of the short time there. I really cannot understand the rationale for making this invisible?
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please review the current article and type your opinion on whether you agree with the deletion or not. Try to keep your previous opinions of past versions of this article out of this review. The page is for the scientific assumption known as "fixity of the species" (15,100 ghits[67] - 648 google books[68]) and not a religious dogma which is called creationism. Thank you. Pbarnes 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion OK: taking the article at present, it is devoid of meaningful content. Darwin's changing religious position is very fully discussed in the article on him; the opinions of other biologists is also discussed there, and elsewhere --both parts in much more detail than here. The article is not biased, merely worthless. DGG 04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve Platt – Deletion endorsed – 07:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve Platt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

First, I apologize for not knowing how to request this properly. I am not a Wikipedian. The article on the activist/comedian Steve Platt was not completed yet already showed its significance. A peer of Steve Platt tagged it for speedy deletion (which I felt was in itself an act of vandalism, but again, I do not know) and subsequently the article was deleted. I ask the Wikipedia administration to un-delete the article if they so choose.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.23.138 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment I have no access to the deleted article, but the history on the Talk page seems to show it was out there for well over two months, so I'm a little curious as to how the article was "not completed". Also, as was already said on the article Talk page, labeling the deletion tagging as vandalism violates WP:AGF. Fan-1967 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced, no notability even implied, the article has been around since September 20, it could have been fixed in the more than two months of its existence yet was not. Endorse deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


I demand this case be reopened Daviesaj 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 December 2006

[edit]
Jose Maria Casas "two-" – No need for review, content has been reposted, a second A7 contested, and it's up for AfD. – 20:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jose_Maria_Casas_"two-" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

There`s people from the same city in this encyclopedia that doesn`t had go out of the town with what they do, and this artists is more know than them.. delete all of them or let him in Galatlanticosur 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Captain Stabbin – Deletion endorsed – 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Captain Stabbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- I believe the Captain should be re-put, for the reasons i stated on the talk page of the article. I am not from a porn company, i merely tried to add an informative article on the subject of a porn start who is notable amongst young men, particularly college students. The Captain is notable for these reasons, and the article therefore conforms to wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainstabbin (talk • contribs)

  • Which part of WP:PORNBIO does he fulfill? Also, note that autobiographies are discouraged. If you're not him, you should pick another name. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: There is no claim whatever, no reference, to indicate "fame." This is an Internet porn star? It looks like a school boy prank page. It also looks like the worst form of misogyny, but that's irrelevant. Vanity, A7: entirely appropriate delete. Geogre 10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Muslim women – Deletion endorsed – 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Muslim women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (CfD)

With sorrow I see this category suddenly deleted. The deletion discussion shows total lack of understanding what part of society Muslim women are. Even the sole person who voted to keep shows lack of unrerstanding by writing "It was created to break the Muslim category in half". This category "breaks in half" in the same was as Category:Female bishops or category:Women in space break the larger ones in half. The fact is that the visibility of women in Muslim society has been so low that notable Muslim women are notable twice, and they most surely deserve a separate category.

Therefore I would respectfully ask to restore this category. Mukadderat 06:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

18 December 2006

[edit]
Jawbone Radio – Deletion endorsed – 03:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jawbone Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Satisfies Notability Requirements 68.51.112.182 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully ask that Wikipedia and Alphachimp reconsider the decision to delete the entry entitled "Jawbone Radio". Wikipedia's criterion for notability states that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable source, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". One can see on the "Articles for Deletion" page for Jawbone Radio [69] that it has in fact, been written about and mentioned by several media sources:

--mentioned in an article of Wired.com [70]

--was the subject of an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 3/15/05

--aforementioned Cleveland Plain Dealer article was picked up by Newhouse News Service and republished in several markets across the US. Examples:

  1. [71]
  2. [72]
  3. [73]

--was the subject of an article in the Medina Gazette in February 2006

--appears on pages 53-54 of the book "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters" [74] by Rob Walch and Mur Lafferty (of Escape Pod [75]) referenced by Table 3:3 - Popular Couple Casts. This publication is extremely well-known in podcasting communities. Furthermore, Amazon.com lists it as one of the Top 10 Reference Books (number 3) for 2006 [76].

--was linked to by NPR (in right margin) [77]

Very few podcasts ever attain this much media recognition. Furthermore, Jawbone Radio is notable for its interviews with such notable (in as much as they have Wikipedia entries) celebrities as Dean Haglund [78] (episode" 119 [79]), Jeff Meldrum [80] (episode #141 [81], Jonathan Coulton [82] (who wrote a song about Len and Nora), Brother Love [83] (episode #133 [84]), and the mother of Bill Watterson [85] (episode #81).

--It should also be noted that Len has contributed his artwork to the icons and logos of various podcasts, and in spring of this year he redesigned the appearance of the Podcast Pickle site [86] (a site included in Time Magazine's list of the 50 coolest sites of 2006 [87]) as well as the affiliated sites Sportspodcasts.com and churchpodcasts.com.

Podcasting is still a new medium, and very few podcasts have managed to attain this level of notoriety. It seems clear to me that notability has been achieved by Jawbone Radio, and I respectfully request that its entry be be relisted by Wikipedia.

  • Endorse deletion. Ignoring unreliable sources, the source is a passing reference in an article, which happens to have been reprinted a lot. Not good enough. -Amarkov blahedits 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There's a common misconception that I deleted the article or closed the debate. I did not--I only argued in the debate and nominated. It was closed by another sysop. That said, it really didn't have any more than one reliable source. Most of the "votes" in the AfD were placed by meatpuppets from the podcasts' blog. Alphachimp 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Overturning Deletion and Reinstating Article. Here are my reasons: 1. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is much more than just "one reliable source". In fact, the newspaper is a major, top 20 newspaper in the US (see its Wiki entry). The fact that it "was reprinted a lot" is not a negative, but a positive: it shows how highly regarded the newspaper is in the journalistic community. The fact that this newspaper chose to run an article on Jawbone Radio therefore speaks precisely to Jawbone's notability as per Wiki standards. 2. The two editors above who are in favor of the deletion are ignoring the petitioner's point about Time Magazine - which, I assume, is recognized as a reliable source. Time Magazine chose the Pickle Podcast site as one of the Top 50 "coolest" sites in 2006 - and Jawbone worked on the redesign of this site. Surely, that makes Jawbone notable (just as someone who helped design the Golden Gate Bridge or the Empire State Building has a claim to some notability). 3. The citation of Jawbone in the high-ranked books on Amazon is further clear evidence of notability (just dismissing this as "unreliable" without giving reasons is not convincing). 4. The argument that "meat-puppets" voted for non-deletion in the previous discussion is logically irrelevant: all that should count is the content of the arguments. And that content clearly shows that Jawbone is notable, and via criteria - Cleveland Plain Dealer, Time Magazine, Amazon - that have no connection to podcasting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaulLev (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry - forgot to sign PaulLev 04:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When an article is syndicated, it appears in a variety of places. The fact is that there is only one such article. The other references are "trivial" coverage, just listings. In many ways it's like saying that since a business is listed in the yellow pages, it belongs on Wikipedia. Amazon, coincidentally, is not the arbitor of notability. As for the meatpuppet "votes" I was merely referencing the fact that the majority of opinions expressed in the AfD were by listeners of the podcast brought to the AfD by a post on their blog. At first glance, it would appear that there was quite a consensus against the deletion. In fact, some users "voted" many times. Alphachimp 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said this below, but for the sake of people who may be reading this, scrolling down: the above explanation of syndication is incorrect, and shows a misunderstanding of the process, as it is used in American journalism and publishing. When an article is syndicated, there are two crucial things that happen, after the initial publication. First, an editor or editors must decide to put the article into syndication (not the editor of the newspaper that first published the article, but the editor of the syndication company). Second, each newspaper or website that publishes the original article makes a decision whether or not to publish the article. Thus, when an article appears in syndication, three separate levels of approval have occurred. Further, the third level is multiple (each editor of the newspaper decides). This is completely different from the business listing example invoked by Alphachimp. Only one person or company, the creator of the business listing, makes a decision about where to publish the business listing. Surely numerous editorial judgements are more impressive as examples of notability than just one.PaulLev 08:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see the point in saying the same thing over and over again, but that seems to be the tack of this discussion. The article is the same article, published in multiple publications. I understand that different editors read it, but their decision to include the article is not sufficient to establish the notability of this podcast. Alphachimp 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we disagree on that: Five or ten experts (editors) making separate decisions to publish an article certainly makes the subject of that article more notable in my book than if just one expert (editor) made such a decision. And beyond that: you don't agree that publication in more places, in a much bigger venue, makes the subject of the article more notable?PaulLev 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - still fails WP:WEB. Nothing but trivial mentions and unreliable sources. MER-C 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources. This article still does not prove why it deserves a mention on this encyclopedia. A majority of the users who wanted the article to be kept are just meatpuppets used for this topic. Don't see any good reason why this article should be undeleted. Terence Ong 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion MER-C hits it straightforwardly. These sources are not "multiple non-trivial published works" as required by WP:WEB.--Húsönd 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are at least 3 sources - Cleveland Plain Dealer, Time, and Amazon - in what sense are they "trivial" and "not multiple"? Also, regarding syndication in newspapers: Perhaps the above editor doesn't realize how syndication works. I do - in fact, as Chair of a major department at a major university, I teach all about it. Each newspaper makes a decision on whether or not to publish a given article. Not every article offered for publication is published in a syndicated network. So, asserting that there is only "one" such article misses the point: the syndication demonstrates that every single place that published this article judged it and its topic notable.PaulLev 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's still exactly the same article being published over and over. That was our point. As for Amazon, I'm still a bit confused...how does Amazon make anything notable? Alphachimp 01:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, 1. first the syndication and why it's significant. Consider this example: (a) an article is published once, in a major newspaper; or (b)an article is published once, in a major newspaper, and then is reprinted by a major syndication chain. Now, which case do you suppose would make the subject of the article more notable? Case (a) is just one editor or newspaper's decision, whereas case (b) entails a second decision, by the syndication medium (and actually, many more, because each editor of each newspaper or online site can make a separate decision to publish or not publish). And, surely, many more people will see the article in case (b) - not only the people in Cleveland, but readers all across the country. 2. why is Amazon important: Jawbone was listed in a book which was on Amazon's top 10 list. Surely, this means that said book was known by many people, and Jawbone's inclusion in it is therefore more impressive than if the book was known by no one.... I of course, agree, however, that the Cleveland Plain Dealer and syndication, as well as the BBC, are more impressive than the Amazon point. But it's still worth noting.PaulLev 04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Simply getting listed is not sufficient to establish notability. Someone in a phone book is not, by nature, notable, yet such a phone book is one of the most widely distributed and published books. The article was just one article. It might have been picked up by several papers, but it's still only one articles. You're still not establishing good sourcing for this podcast article. Alphachimp 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1. A phone book is not at all the equivalent, but any analogy, to a best-selling book. A phone book is distributed to everyone. A best-selling book is best-selling because each purchaser has made a decision to buy the book. Therefore, inclusion in a best-selling book is much more indicative of notability than inclusion in a phone book. 2. You have yet to address the many times I have explained that syndication is not the same as being "picked up" by several papers. Syndication entails an editorial decision on the part of the syndication network (Newhouse, in this case), as well as the individual papers that have agreed to re-publish.PaulLev 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But syndication is still just one article. The fact that it is published in multiple places is not sufficient to satisfy our notability guidelines. That's the point I've made over and over again. I'm making it again right now. Alphachimp 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So, just so I understand your position - and for the record - you're saying you see no difference in notability between an article published in one place, and that same article published in a dozen places, or an article available to 500,000 vs. 5,000,000 readers?PaulLev 08:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Overturning Deletion and Reinstating Article

Jawbone has also been mentioned by The British Broadcasting Corporation on-line in July 2005 as a "pick of the podcasts". Are the BBC trivial as well?

Everything PaulLev says is correct IMO and the article should be reinstated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4693613.stm Waynefromtheuk 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Endorse Overturning Deletion and Reinstating Article

ZimZalaBim, what is your arguement? In what respect are the sources set out by me and PaulLev not notable per WP:WEB, such as the BBC? Are you part of a Wiki clique that just posts up messages agreeing with whatever the head Wiki says without reading the arguments?

And, as a general message to all at wikipedia, calling reasonable, intelligent people (we all fall into this category at Jawbone) "meatpuppets" for disagreeing witn you and exercising a democratic right to make a point (yes, i know, democratic...ha ha) is just derogatory. If you want people to take you seriously, stop acting like 14 year old boys...unless that is true of course! Waynefromtheuk 14:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote only once. Sorry, I got confused with another debate when I cited Nearly Headless Nick. My opinion follows the logic of Amarkov: "the source is a passing reference in an article, which happens to have been reprinted a lot" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Wayne? Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite ironically, he got both my gender and age correct. -Amarkov blahedits 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked ZimZalaBim to take a look at this discussion, and while I disagree completely with his assessment, I can vouch for his integrity. But, to the issue at hand: to those who do not want to overturn deletion: at least four sources have now been cited here in favor of Jawbone's reinstatement: Cleveland Plain Dealer (and national syndication), Time Magazine, Amazon, and the BBC. I'm sincerely interested in what way a person or entity or person's work mentioned or referenced in all four of these, even "in passing," is not notable? Just citing a WP guideline is not providing an explanation. One other point here, about this discussion: I agree with ZimZalaBim that personal attacks are not appropriate. But who started them? I'm new to this discussion - though not to Wikipedia - and almost the first thing I see here is Terence Ong's unreferenced claim that supporters in a previous discussion were "meat puppets". Not very conducive, Mr. Ong, to an ensuing discussion free of personal attacks.PaulLev 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't my concern. Verifiability is, and passing references don't provide verifiable sources. -Amarkov blahedits 17:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Passing reference"? Have you looked at the references cited? For example, the BBC lists Jawbone as one of just six podcasts worthy of mention, and then devotes several paragraphs to discussion of Jawbone. In what universe or frame of reference is such a reference "passing"? Surely, you at least owe it to this discussion to actually take a look at the references.PaulLev 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, as long as I'm here, I want to again explain that syndication is not just "happened to be reprinted" - quite to the contrary, syndication is a deliberate, affirmative decision on the part of every reprinter that the article in question is notable.PaulLev 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what Amarkov means when he says "passing reference". He's referring to the amount of information given by the source. For example, the wired.com article has one sentence that isn't even about Jambone Radio (it's about the podcast's author's opinion on a subject), so the source doesn't actually say anything about the podcast itself. Try taking out all the information that is sourced from the primary source (either the podcast's creator or materials written by such) and see how much information is left in the article. If the answer is "pretty much nothing", then how neutral is the article, since almost all of the information in the article comes from the primary source (who would be inherently biased)? ColourBurst 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... here, as just one example, is what the BBC piece says about Jawbone:
Massive, unneeded copyvio section removed. See BBC link. Alphachimp 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that look like "pretty much nothing"? PaulLev 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, what I posted was not in violation of copyright - it is entirely within Fair Use practice to quote a major section of an article for scholarly, legal, etc discussion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Fair Use - you might want to take a look at the Wiki entries on that. Second, I wish you and everyone making innaccurate claims here would indeed go look at the BBC article. Have you done so? Did you read the excerpt that was posted here, or are you just content to keep accepting categorizations of articles about Jawbone that plainly are contradicted by the articles themselves? We may have to submit this whole question to more formal Wiki mediation. Disagreements over interpretation of policy are one thing. Mischaracterizing a published article, and then removing the excerpt that was posted as proof of the mischaracterization, is quite another. PaulLev 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to provide any links you like, but simply pasting in large swaths of text is not an acceptable means by which to make a point. It's wasteful of our space and is not an acceptable implementation of fair use. I'm willing to argue the minutiae of fairuse, but it's simply not relevant to this discussion. You are welcome to provide any links you wish. Alphachimp 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read up on the BBC article, but while it's of a decent length, most of the information is from the subject (and therefore most of the information is also a primary source). If there were a second source similar (in amount of content) to this one, I wouldn't mind, but as it is it's very shaky. My objection isn't to the primary sourced information (which can be used to corroborate non-controversial statements about a subject), it's the lack of third-party information. But like I said, if you can find more sources that have a substantial amount of information on the subject, I will reconsider. ColourBurst 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (seriously, not sarcastically) for having an open mind about this. Here is the link to the widely syndicated Cleveland Plain Dealer about Jawbone: http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/mezger031705.html (The link is from the NewHouse syndication, which means the publication was far more prominent and pervasive than just in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, itself a Top-20 newspaper in the US. (Jawbone has also been briefly referenced by Boing-boing - I can supply the link if needed.)PaulLev 03:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Endorse closure, but no prejudice towards recreation with the sources available. I don't think the BBC article was mentioned in the original AfD, and there were a lot of frivolous arguments in the AfD itself (by people who don't seem to understand WP:RS), and since DRV is not AfD round 2, recreation of the article would be fine. ColourBurst 17:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BBC article was mentioned in the original AfD.Nobbynees 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true, it was mentioned, but only as a podcast pick. Nobody mentioned there being an actual article along with the pick, and I don't think anybody linked it either. ColourBurst 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Colorburst. I count at least one other person in this discussion, Badlydrawnjeff, who is ok with reisntatement. Plus, at least three editors in the original deletion discussion who opposed deletion, and are not meat puppets (they have a prior history of editing on Wiki), so I'm Endorsing Closure here and reinstating the article. (Or, more precisely, I've edited the original article, tightened it and made its references more explcit.)PaulLev 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link to BBC article: [88]
I see that Alphachimp has deleted the reinstated (and revised) Jawbone Radio, pending further discussion here. I'm all in favor of further discussion. So, for starters, perhaps Alphachimp can respond to my above points about syndication not being just "picked up" by other newspapers, and about a best-selling book being not at all equatable to a phonebook listing as Alphachimp suggests.PaulLev 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't declare your own DRV decision and recreate the article based on that. You have to wait for the actual closure here. WarpstarRider 23:03, 22 December 2006(UTC)
OK, fair enough. Let's continue the discussion.PaulLev 01:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best-selling book? "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters" is #69,977 in sales rank. I really don't think that establishes a level of notability sufficient for the book to be considered "best-selling". Alphachimp 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the very first entry in this current discussion - just scroll to the top - you'll see of the book in question that "Amazon.com lists it as one of the Top 10 Reference Books (number 3) for 2006 [8]" (I couldn't copy the reference note, you'll have to look above to get it.) So, you're now saying, what - a #3 book isn't a best-seller in its field?PaulLev 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with Alpha chimp that this book would not count as a best-seller, since by definition of the term, it's not. But Amazon did select it as their third-most-recommended reference book published this year (2006). To me that makes it a significant publication. Whether or not that automatically elevates every podcast listed in it to the level of notability required by Wikipedia is unclear (although it couldn't hurt), but it certainly merits discussion. Certainly neither of my two very non-notable podcasts are listed in this book, and I would have been astonished if they had been. Tvindy 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for personal attacks. I should not follow what Wikipedia started, but please don't call people Meatpuppets. I'd endorse PaulLev's very reasoned arguments - please actually read the sources. I'm beginning to lose faith that any kind of democratic process is proceeding here, as, no matter how good the arguments are, you appear intent to disagree for the sake of winning an argument. Have you truly analysed these references objectively?

Is there a higher appeal process?

Waynefromtheuk 01:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this discussion has shifted from discussing the deletion decision to discussing the motivations and intentions of the editors involved. (Deletion review is supposed to be reviewing the administrative decision to delete the article...not having the debate again.) It's not an acceptable practice to simply attack those who oppose your opinion. Whether or not you have faith in this process has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Alphachimp 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
back to afD If the discussion has shifted to discussing motivations, and if there is allegations of unfair practice, and if personal animus can be demonstrated as it has been above, it should be sent back to AfD for wider discussion. Possible unfair procedure is a serious matter, and justifies a re-discussion on the merits--but here is not the place to do that re-discussion. DR, however, would seem the right place to send it back. DGG 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure-AfD process was followed appropriately. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and as such, you shouldn't expect "democratic process" to be followed. If an article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (which were arrived at through the consensus of the editors), we shouldn't allow it just because a bunch of single-purpose accounts are created to "vote" in its favor. Geoffrey Spear 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geoffrey Spear: So we now we have another non-fact added to the list: "a bunch of single-purpose accounts ... created to 'vote' in its favor" ... Which are the single-purpose accounts? What evidence do you have for such an allegation? So let's go over the non-fact list at present: 1. Only one source cites Jawbone. Non-fact: The Cleveland Plain Dealer and the BBC are clearly two sources, not one. And there clearly are more. 2. The reference to Jawbone is "in passing". Non-fact: The BBC reference (has anyone here opposing reinstatement actually read it? I'm going to keep asking this inconvenient question) talks about Jawbone in multiple paragraphs. 3. The supporters of reinstatement are "single purpose accounts" created just to make that argument (or, in the less elegant terms used above: meat-puppets). Non-fact, with no evidence other than the accusers' words that in fact all supporters of this position are meat-puppets. So ... are all of you comfortable with this? Is this the way you would like a world-class encyclopedia to be created and developed? On allegations and non-facts? As someone who has studied and taught about the media for decades, I'm truly interested in your answers.PaulLev 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you review the original AfD, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of opinions (before the AfD was semi-protected) were added by fans of the podcast encouraged to participate in the podcast by Len on the Jawbone podcast. Len actually "voted" many, many times in the original AfD. I'm extremely comfortable with the statement that ta large portion of those supporting the inclusion of the article in the AfD were accounts specifically created for participation in the debate at the prompting of the Jawbone blog. That's the textbook definition of a meatpuppet or single-purpose account. We've read the references for the Jawbone article. Quite frankly, they're not enough to conclusively establish that Jawbone has the level of notability we require for inclusion. Alphachimp 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did look at the original AfD, and I see editors Meno25, Ineffable3000, Xadrian, and Podcast411 all voted to retain (not delete), all have histories of editing on Wiki prior to that discussion, and unless Len has both a time-machine and shape-shifting capabilities, these three can't be Len. So, at this point, we have a community in which the three above editors, plus Colourburst and badlydrawnjeff, and, I'll include myself in there as well - none of us meat-puppets, would you agree? - all are in favor of or can live with rentention. That's not enough to make you consider the possibility that your position - though based on understandable irritation at the meat-puppets - may not be open to a little consensus refinement?PaulLev 09:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we are discussing attacking motivations, who was it that derided good arguments by calling people "meatpuppets"? Not a single apology has been issued for this by anyone at Wikipedia, whereas I and others have apologised for getting heated and tried to get you to understand the many references that are out there, all of which you chose not to understand. And here we have it all once again! Geoffrey Spear accuses someone of creating accounts to "vote". This presumably relates back to the charge levelled against Len at Jawbone, who I recall refuted this and I believe him, because he is an honest guy. Is there any evidence for this accusation? Talk about getting away from the debate and attacking the debater!

Interesting comment about democracy and editorial policy. It would be very interesting to understand the basis for Wikipedia's charitable status and whether this was based on being inclusive.

Let's face it, you ain't ever gonna say your decision was wrong, because you are policing yourselves. It is pretty well documented that you have a "thing" against Podcasts. I'll just have to fall back on that "God" phone in to the latest Jawbone show re: Alphachimp to cheer me up. priceless!!

Waynefromtheuk 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Thank you. Alphachimp 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I did create my account specifically to call for a review of the Jawbone entry deletion. However, this is the only Wikipedia account I have ever used or held. Also, other than being a listener, I am in no way affiliated with Jawbone Radio. Tvindy 03:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, it's a single-purpose account. Alphachimp 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go that far. It's a potentially multi-purpose account. This is merely my first contribution to Wikipedia. Tvindy 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- not only was the AfD properly closed, the sources don't rise to the level of WP:WEB. The BBC source is good, but that's only one -- the others are trivial, like MER-C says. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is the Cleveland Plain Dealer source trivial? Please explain. (Again, I'm truly interested in how an article published in a Top-20 American newspaper, and widely syndicated, in which the subject of this discussion is the prominent and extensively discussed topic, can be deemed "trivial").PaulLev 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SuperGrads – Deletion endorsed – 03:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SuperGrads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (deleted history|AfD)

Improper use of speedy deletion and the company is notable as defined by the notability criteria. The company fulfills notability criteria by amongst other things:
1) Having had original content written about it by numerous UK universities with a view to helping their students find relevant employment post university. (Written works about SuperGrads by the universities were included in information given to graduating students of class 2006 and the company has also been written about in multiple student-run university newspapers and magazines including the newspaper of the University of Kent InQuire ("KRED", Issue 8.6, May 2006) as well as discussed on student radio.)
2) Having been featured in a publication by the Engineering Employers Federation, an organization representing more than 10,000 British engineering and manufacturing companies who provide advice on law, commerce, employment and other issues affecting UK engineering companies today. This article is available on the web as well as in print for members of the EEF.

I suggest the article be re-instated (and changed to a stub with a line or two expanding on its notability as soon as possible). Davethehatter 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Renetto – Deletion endorsed – 03:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Renetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Firstly, the votes on this very popular youtube star were 17 to keep (many of them "strong keeps") and 7 to delete. Before the argument of Wikipedia is not a democracy, it should be pointed out that at 17 to 7, Consensus was ignored. The closing admin chose to ignore several votes, which were almost all keep, and was very arbitrary in their method. For instance, when a delete voted simply typed "Fails WP:BIO" and nothing else, those were counted (If I had a dime for every time somebody wrote "fails WP:BIO" or "passed WP:BIO" and they were incorrect, I'd be very wealthy). But when keep voters wrote comments like "Like all popular internet anything that isn't controversial, it's very difficult to get reported on outside the internet, and yet Renetto seems to at least have been mentioned in several magazines and news articles. Just check the 'List of internet phenomenon' pages, and you'll find several items that can't even claim that much, yet have pages dedicated to them.", the vote was discounted." Another example of arbitrary discounting or validating votes was that one keep vote comment was "YouTube popularity certainly counts as notable," but several other keep votes that were commented with "YouTube star", those were discounted. And when one keep voter posed a news story on this subject [89], the admin chose an ad hominem argument to ignore this because the user was anon. This is clearly a case for a review. Oakshade 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To treat that with a seriousness you probably didn't intend, no. In that case we had the full facts at AfD. I'm not saying this would necessarily pass, but I'm not about to stand back and frustrate a good faith attempt, and if someone speedies it while you're trying then we'll fix that. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but undelete, the article of recent was sourced to some updated news interviews. Closure was more or less sorted. Nuff said. frummer 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer - many of the keep votes were variations on WP:ILIKEIT, or the Chewbacca Defense ("Just check the 'List of internet phenomenon' pages, and you'll find several items that can't even claim that much, yet have pages dedicated to them"), which is always an irrelevant argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. The vote was discounted, and I always tend to ignore votes that are based on 'X should stay because unrelated article Y is on Wikipedia', or 'Y should be deleted because you deleted Z' for the same reason. I very much dislike the implication that my comments were arbitrary from Oakshade, they were not. Perhaps I should no longer bother trying to explain closures. If you asserted why the article should stay with a valid reason based on the applicable policies/guidelines, your !vote stayed. Ditto for those who believed it should have been deleted. However, if all those extra reports Jeff cites had been provided in the AFD discussion, then things would have been different. This is because that one Youtube link is not 'multiple reliable sources', but the Chicago Tribune, Fox News and a NY Times story do count as musltiple reliable sources. No issue with a recreation of the article that actually bothers to explain and cite its notability. Proto::► 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think admins should always provide reasons for AfD outcomes, especially if it is not in line with the consensus of editors and those reasons should be consistent throughout the closing process. In this case, it appears consistency in reasoning for counting or discounting voters was not present. --Oakshade 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote either way) I'm not going to argue either way as all I made was a comment, not a vote. But I am not happy with the closer because I posted a link which showed quite significant coverage on a major TV network. Instead of waiting for people to comment on that, Proto discounted this piece of information as a "suspicious anon vote" and closed the discussion. Now something like that is quite significant to the discussion (which is not a vote by the way Proto) so why weren't people allowed to judge it first?--203.109.209.49 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? AfDs normally last for five days. That one lasted for eight. If providing a new link meant that admins were obligated to relist, AfDs would never get closed. -Amarkov blahedits 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't give a shit about the bureaucracy, AfDs don't normally last for 5 days, that is the minimum. I am not convinced that this one should be kept, but I gave some rather significant information, what is the rush in closing something hastily without letting people comment and discuss things properly? Especially when you're talking about deleting an article far larger than a stub on which many people have spent time working on, err on the side of caution.--203.109.209.49 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn deletion - No, the anon was right. He posted a link which clearly showed that it passed WP:WEB and was a little rudely discounted (sorry Proto, please don't take offense, we all make mistakes). A mention on Fox News passes WP:WEB obviously. And while most of Proto's "discounted"s were valid, some left me a little worried: "appears on the news": discounted, while "as per WP:BIO" was counted (I believe the two users were saying the same thing). In any case, policy of discounting "votes" aside, the guy's notable per WP:WEB. No questions. Overturn deletion, and if necessary, bring to a third afd. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone claims 'appears on the news', I would be looking for proof of this (through a reliable source). Hence the discount. It is too easy to make claims and not back them up. I also agree that now - finally - reliable sources have turned up (thanks to Jeff) that it proves the chap is reliable as per WP:WEB. It is a shame that nobody bothered to produce these until the article was deleted and brought to deletion review. Proto::► 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be because you discounted anyone who disagreed with you. Subject clearly is notable... Overturn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - this article should be undeleted. This was very arbitrary decision of one admin. I personally think that admins shoud not make any decisions in that matter. The votes were 17 to 7 in favor of keeping Renetto. And just one admin like a dictator came here and made the very biased decision to delete. I personally think that the admin's behavior is compared just downright vandalism. It's an admin's vandalism and it should be said. We don't want dictators in Wikipedia. By the way Renetto is a very popular figure in the internet so we should undelete him and keep like the others. --Doxent 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. The closing admin's judgment was within the terms of admin discretion. People are more likely to give regard to your comment if you assume good faith with other users. Non-compliance and further disruption might result in a block. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, absolutely no claim to notability. Google does not bring up anything other than links to unreliable sources – [90]. The only credible source that was mentioned on the deleted page – [91] has been archived by the Chicago Tribune, which takes you to a 404 not found page. Another source of information that was mentioned – [92] is not reliable as per the guideline WP:RS. However notable you might be on YouTube and other discussion forums, that does not give you a claim to fame on Wikipedia. I am completely confuzzled as to the the reasoning provided by users asking for an overturn. As for Proto, keep up the good work. There is no way you should be intimidated into not closing controversial AfDs fearing retribution at WP:DRVs. Good luck. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 11:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dog got mentioned five times in various newspaper this year, for winning the best breed in town at a local event in the city. Maybe I should write an article on him? </joke>Although, he did win it! Are you pointing at the source from Nypost that makes a singular superficial reference to him. Or pointing at the OpinionJournal? Those two articles are on YouTube and not Renetto himself. I am perplexed at how you try to establish the notability of the most non-notable *superstars* of the internet when their claim to fame are only two transitory mentions. And also, is this guy "a nine-day wonder" or will the means to prove otherwise also prove durable? Establish the notability and take your article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 12:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not beat up on Jeff, OK? Jeff, I think we're all looking for multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. For non-trivial, I'd say this should be the (or at least a) primary focus of a decent-sized substantive article, not a spacefiller. For multiple, I'd say at least three stories, and not one syndicated story or incident repeated in multiple places. For reliable, I'd go with almost anything where there is editorial review independent of the author of the story, and a bar to publication in the form of an editorial policy which prevents any random crap form being published. Can you do that? If you can (and yes that is the upper end of the scale), then the result is completely unambiguous and there should be no problem at all. Otherwise it's just philosophical differences, and if it comes down to that you'll have to just accept that some folks don't consider this kind of subject to be encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can take the heat, it's not a problem. I simply think this meets the standard - we have the multiple and reliable, and the non-trivial can certainly be argued in either direction, but I'd think that the large amount of different stories this guy's been featured in indicates a sustained notability. As a web meme, it's harder to justify than as a person, which I think has some better leeway. I don't think this is unambiguous, but when it doubt... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The Fox News claim in the AFD was linked to a YouTube copy of it, apparently uploaded by the subject of the article. Unfortunately, YouTube is a source anyone can edit, so it isn't a reliable source. Thus it was appropriate to disregard this in closing the AFD. Given what Nearly Headless Nick found for the sources in the article at the time, the closure was correct on the evidence presented. I'm not certain that Badlydrawnjeff has yet presented here the evidence needed to support a keep in a third AFD. Given that, I'd rather see the article recreated with the evidence that he believes is sufficient, and let things go from there, than to simply recreate what was there in the past. GRBerry 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the Fox News story came from a youtube link, it's not a valid Fox News story? Do you think "anyone" edited and superimposed that reporter and the article subject in an entire interview and conversation? Wow, that is one talented editor! --Oakshade 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but do you know anything about video editing? Are you saying you doubt that he was actually on FoxNews? What are we going to say next? We can't accept New York Times articles because one editor admitted to fabricating stories? No - we have to accept some form of reliability, or this site would be useless. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I don't think that WP:V means "verifiable by anybody looking on the internet" (which means closed sources that are accessible to more than 10 people in the world are still okay), YouTube should not be listed as a source in the article itself, because it doesn't jive with WP:EL. I would accept the original Fox News report as a source (I would hope somebody actually gets to corroborate it, but maybe that's just a wish). ColourBurst 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still confused here. While you would accept the fact Fox News did a story on him if the link showing the video was from Fox News, but if the same exact video was linked through Youtube, suddenly the story never existed and we were all imagining it? Gee, and I thought I was really looking at a Family Guy clip this morning.[93] --Oakshade 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that's not what this means. A Fox News segment is a source (and can be cited). Youtube cannot be considered a distributor of reliable information (no matter how many accurate videos of things you've seen there before, because at the end of the day, it's being uploaded by pseudonymous people), and cannot be linked. So, feel free to cite the original Fox video, but do not link to Youtube (copyright issues and reliability.) Reprints of articles from the New York Times don't count either, unless the reprint itself was from a reliable source. I would say the youtube situation is similar to that. ColourBurst 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit. So is YouTube. When I see a claim of notability that is being sourced to Wikipedia, YouTube, or any other site that anyone can edit, I disregard it based on WP:RS. In this case, the problem is even worse - the YouTube posting appears to have been uploaded by the subject of the article. Since the sourcing is neither reliable nor independent, it doesn't establish notability - see WP:INDY. The article title was not salted, last I looked, so if adequate reliable, independent sourcing is found, nothing is preventing recreation. I don't believe we have enough such sourcing to support an article in another round of AFD, so I don't believe it should be sent back again. GRBerry 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure Policy, policy, policy. Yanksox 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, because regardless of the consensus, reliable secondary sources have been found, proving it passes WP:BIO. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete or at least allow recreation. I'm not the biggest fan of all of the "YouTube celebrity" articles hanging around here, but even the closer of the AfD admits above that this guy is notable due to the sources produced in this DRV, so I don't know what all the debate here is about. (Nevermind that the nomination itself was something of a troll, as I pointed out during the AfD, though I guess that doesn't really matter here.) WarpstarRider 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per Night Gyr, strong arguments have been made for the inclusion of the article that cannot be ignored. Yamaguchi先生 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chase headley – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 03:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chase headley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deleted by Zoe (talk · contribs), person is a minor league baseball player who meets WP:BIO. Being a minor league baseball player is an assertion of notability, since it meets the relevant criteria, so this is yet another poor speedy choice and should be undeleteed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion If the player has never played in the MLB, he's never played at the highest level of his sport and thusly does not meet WP:BIO in regards to sportspeople. One could also interpret this sentence from the same criteria: "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles." I doubt most members of Headley's teams are worthy of articles. If the issue is that the article was speedied by {{db-bio}} but an assertion of notability was made, then bring it to AfD- but there's no way an article on a minor leaguer who has never played a game in the majors will be kept. -- Kicking222 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:BIO states, first line of the section, "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league...". It's cut and dry, he meets WP:BIO by the letter if not the spirit, and Zoe knows this because she unsuccessfully tried to change this over the summer and failed to gain consensus. Meanwhile, being a professional sportsperson is an assertion of notability, so that's why I've brought it here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but playing for a team in the 17th highest level of British soccer is also playing in a fully professional league, but the people on those teams are still not sufficiently notable. Like I said above, I wouldn't be against throwing it to AfD, but we already know what the result would be. -- Kicking222 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think we know the result, actually. As DRV is very much about the process, I'm not against an AfD for a full hearing, but stating that it doesn't meet WP:BIO is absolutely false, thus my protest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the 17th level of British football is nowhere near professional. The professional status ends roughly at level 5 or 6, with semi-professional players in the two to three leagues that follow. Players at lower ranked clubs sometimes get their expenses paid, but they are not professional football players. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. minor league baseball players fail WP:BIO. Endorse deletion (I was the deleter). User:Zoe|(talk) 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. "Fails WP:BIO" isn't a speedy criterion, and it's obviously contentious if he does. -Amarkov blahedits 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fails WP:BIO" is most definitely a speedy criterion, and has been and will continue to be used. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where does it say that? I thought WP:CSD#A7 said we could delete biographical articles with "no assertion of notability"... the bar to meet WP:BIO is much higher. -- SCZenz 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me put it this way. To those of us who patrol Recent changes, it would be impossible to do any work if we had to take the hundreds of articles which fail WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTABILITY to AfD, and AfD itself would become clogged with uselessness. If an article fails WP:BIO, then taking it to AfD would just be a waste of time and a failure of WP:SNOW. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not true, and it ignores the critical idea of the CSD. That idea is that the bar for a speedy deletion is lower than would work with AfD (or prod!) because only one (or two) set(s) of eyes is seeing the article. There is no community consensus to expand speedy deletions to "anything an admin is pretty sure wouldn't pass an AfD," and there shouldn't be. -- SCZenz 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You got it. From now on, I will stop speedy deleting anything, and I will take them all to AfD. I will then give you and badlydrawnjeff an email letting you know they are there so that you can contest my good faith on every edit request. User:Zoe|(talk)
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to creation of an article which (unlike what Zoe deleted) actually makes some assertion of notability. This debate is more than an order of magnitude longer than the article. In fact, my endorsement is longer than the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist if only so we can kill it cleanly at AfD. Not having read the article I can't decide, and while I trust Zoe, I would prefer a clear decision so that the Archangel of Inclusion can rest easily. While failure of WP:BIO means the subject isn't notable, I'm not sure that A7 (which says the article makes no claim of notability) is applicable. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This one is tough. Read literally, WP:BIO states that all atheletes who have played in a "fully professional league" are probably notable, which technically includes every minor league baseball player in the US. (1) I don't think WP:BIO should declare those players notable. (2) It is arguable whether a minor leager without non-trivial press coverage is notable even under WP:BIO. (3) It's not obvious that A7 has to respect WP:BIO. However, even given all that, maybe it would be best to get consensus to tighten WP:BIO first and speedy all otherwise non-notable minor leaguers second. As a hypothetical, if WP:BIO was edited (by consensus) the other way, and explicitly said "All verifiable minor league baseball players are notable," would Mr. Headley still be speedy-able? TheronJ 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a discussion about this over the summer regarding whether WP:BIO should cover these, and there was no consensus for a change. Even with a change, it'd be hard - there's always non-trivial coverage of local teams and players in newspapers, and all pro ballplayers are noted in numerous baseball compendiums yearly, not to mention specialized papers and magazines regarding fantasy sports. So... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i haven't looked through all of the entries in Category:Minor_league_baseball_players, but the first five I looked at (the only five I looked at) all had reasons for being here for other resons besides being minor league ballplayers. Besides, "keep it because we have others like it" is never a valid argument. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Zoe. Endorse Deletion Eusebeus 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Zoe and JZG. (Radiant) 09:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; we are discussing an article that should not pass AfD by the current standards; process may not have been followed, but the result is what it should be. Tizio 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD. The article has an assertion of notability—perhaps not one that would lead to it being kept on AfD, but an assertion nevertheless—ergo does not fit the speedy criteria. I feel rather strongly (see above) that the speedy criteria are rigid and specific for a reason—they spell out the only cases in which the community has entrusted certain users (namely, admins) to delete articles without getting other opinions. I suspect that this article will not survive AfD, but because I can't feel sure of that, I think going through the formal process is appropriate in this case. -- SCZenz 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This request is either process-wonking for its own sake, given the inevitability of the outcome, or a back-door way of attempting to lower the established inclusion bar through a new AFD. User:Badlydrawnjeff needs to find a new vehicle for his crusade. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making generalizations about a whole bunch of thoughtful users who disagree with you, and have in many cases explained their reasoning in some detail, including myself. I don't give two shits either way about the consensus on inclusion of minor league baseball players, and I am not "process-wonking for its own sake"—rather, I am asking that administrators do what our policies say we will do in the specific case of a process where there is very little community oversight of our work. I wrote all of that already, so I'd like to ask for an apology for your rude generalization of my views. -- SCZenz 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the third - it was an improper speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Calton above: this article would have no chance at AfD. While this was probably a valid A7 deletion, I don't think that there is a consensus at WP:CSD#A7 incorporates WP:BIO, WP:WEB, nor do I think it should. Rather it should employ looser standards so that the truly trivial are speedied and the arguably notable should be prodded/sent to AfD. Eluchil404 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if you think the arguably notable should be prodded/sent to AfD, why endorse this? Keep in mind, "it has no chance at AfD" isn't a valid speedy either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I endorse actions that reach an obviously correct result even if the process was flawed, see WP:SNOW. Nothing is gained by taking five more days at AfD when we can evaluate the article now at DRV and see that deletion is inevitable and correct. In this particular case I find the WP:BIO argument unconvincing and so don't see even any arguable notability per wikipedia practice. The guideline is simply poorly written to imply that professional players in minor leagues are automatically notable because actual wikipedia practice (which is more important than the precise wording of guideline/policy pages) is to delete them. Eluchil404 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD This shouldn't have bee speedied due to assertation of notability. Sometimes five days isn't enough to review all the CSD#A7 articles. --Oakshade 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist on AFD, since notability contested. In the end this may still be deleted, but I would like to give everyone a fair chance to review and discuss this. Yamaguchi先生 03:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot – Deletion endorsed – 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (deleted history|CfD)

I'm a bit late with this, but whatever. Category was deleted per AfD, which is wrong, AfD doesn't delete categories. And there's no rule which says things must have articles to have user categories. -Amarkov blahedits 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the AfD discussion? It's obviously not on the CfD log. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid UCFD. Linking. -Amarkov blahedits 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How...bizarre. I don't know how to interpret this at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was an AFD on Mmbot, which closed with it rightly being deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmbot. There was no mention of the category in this AFD debate. The CFD was then opened following the AFD debate, which, I guess was based on the fact that as the article about the program was deleted, category about using it is pointless. But the article was on the article, not the category, and made no mention of the category. Judge the category on its own merits, not the merits of its related parent article. So, awful process with the CFD probably not being valid, but the category is shit, so correct result. I wouldn't shed a tear if it dies a death, but I can understand if people want it to be restored and CFD'd for the sake of process wonkery. Endorse status quo, I guess. Proto::► 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that this isn't just process wonking, I really do think it should have been kept. -Amarkov blahedits 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this as a delete because the content that it refers to was deleted. On Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, categories that do not help with collaboration have been deleted quite often. Since there's no articles for users of this category to collaborate about (which would not be the case for, say, category:Wikipedians who play Diablo II), the category makes no sense to me. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Part of the reason why this category was deleted was because it no longer serves any purpose to the encyclopedia now that the article was deleted. The consensus on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion has generally been that user categories exist to aid in collaboration on the encyclopedia, and most categories that do not serve that purpose get deleted. This decision is consistent with that. —Cswrye 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion despite sloppy explanations of reasoning in the CfD. Mmbot is a bot for playing one or more video games. Knowing which other Wikipedians use it contributed to building the encyclopedia in what way? I have a hard time imagining that the category contributed to Wikipedia even when we had an article on the bot, and can't imagine any reason now. GRBerry 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - I nominated the category for deletion because the subject of the category was deemed unsuitable in an AfD discussion. I believe that consensus was then determined in the CfD discussion (for various reasons). However, that aside, as stated by others above, I don't see how this information helps with collaboration, or even is a useful grouping of Wikipedians. Coupled with the fact that the users in question are welcome to keep their associated templates/userboxes/userpage notices, I don't see a need or reason for the retention of the category. - jc37 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Christian Command – Prodded article restored on request, now at AfD – 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Christian_Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

It was deleted without reason, and has been viewed by man people. Wyatt 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn – Overturned, listed at WP:MfD – 03:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn (edit | [[Talk:User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

UNDELETE_REASON This page of photos of naked people was deleted from wikipedia, reason: violation of WP:USER not encyclopedic [94]

There was no AfD/MfD, it was just deleted, despite an a previous keep/no consensus MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn

Before it was deleted User:BlooWilt wrote on User:Ewlyahoocom that:

There's a folder in your user page called Wikiporn. There is a majority that it should be deleted. It is a rule reaker. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a porn site. I'm gonna delete it, mmm-kay? --BlooWilt 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not okay. What majority? Which rule? Ewlyahoocom 14:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I haven't checked out the rule but I know this folder is breeaking the rules. Sorry if your ashamed of your folder, but it has gotta go. I'm deleting that folder, weather you like it or not. I must also say that your not the only one with this type of page. And look on my talk page to see the majority.
BlooWilt 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlooWilt marjority is him and another wikiuser.

User:BlooWilt wrote: "I haven't checked out the rule but I know this folder is breeaking the rules" User:BlooWilt states himself that he hasn't checked out the rule yet, but he has faith (a belief based on no evidence) that User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn is "breeaking" the rules.

So based on the "majority" (2 people) on User:BlooWilt "talk page", he may have had a part in getting the user page deleted.

Why was there no AfD/MfD ? Please reopen this page, and then there can be a proper AfD/MfD.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored states that articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content.

User:CanadianCaesar (adminstrator): These pages are useful for finding pictures for articles in my experience. Valid pages, in user space, can be kept under joking titles. Take a look at how I title my talk page archives.

User:NoSeptember (adminstrator): Maybe we should rename all user subpages with "porn" or something similar in the name so that do not show up when someone searches WP for the word "porn". If few people know a page exists, few will get upset, and the pages can continue to fly under the radar.

Suggestion: Restore the article, but rename it without "porn" in the title, as per User:NoSeptember suggested. Comprimise: The page stays deleted but a wikiuser moves these images to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery.

Thank you for listening Travb (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, shortened [95] sorry! If you want it shorter, please let me know. If you have any questions because what I wrote was not clear, please let me know. Thanks User_talk:Amarkov Travb (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone could give me a compelling reason why we need a gallery of images of nudity I guess I would advocate merging all of them to a single place in project space, that would be the obvious thing to do if the gallery has an encyclopaedic purpose. The reasons advanced thus far look a bit pointy to me. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and don't relist It's been decided before. Users have wide latitude to decide what they want in their userspace and if one or several users find this collection helpful and a utility to their efforts for the project, good on them. Idle collections of content are not disruptive. People who go out of their way to find objectionable material in userspace and then delete it and argue about it are disruptive. This project has way more important things to do than coddle people who have gone out of their way to find something they don't like. They should find a more productive use of their creative energy. SchmuckyTheCat 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, survived MFD, speedy is inappropriate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, if it survived a previous MfD it shouldn't be speedied. --tjstrf talk 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I concur with that Proto guy, too. I think the Wikipedians for Showing Pictures of Their Own Cocks already have most of these images in their stupid, pointless, trollbait, troublemaking, nothing-to-do-with-censorship-and-everything-to-do-with-irritating-people-to-make-a-point gallery. Proto::► 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT NOTE: User:Travb has advertised and campaigned [96] [97] [98] [99] for this review, including to the user above. -- Renesis (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was certainly not uncivil and certainly not an ad hominem attack. The reverse, maybe. But I don't see why you'd be arguing with that. And as to your comment below, this is process, not a straw poll. I appreciate that the canvassing was in good faith, at least. -- Renesis (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT NOTE: As per Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette, there is nothing wrong with asking other wikipedians to comment on important issues that they probably have a personal interest in. Please also see, User:Travb/vote stacking, I welcome everyone's comments here, and if User:Renesis13 feels this issue is important enough that he would like others to comment on this AfD request, I warmly welcome it. Thanks for your concern and hard work User:Renesis13 and User:JzG, have a great evening.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Page was deleted completely ignoring procedures and consensus. Also, block BlooWilt whoever deleted it for misuse of admin powers. Edokter 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: BlooWilt, despite comments that implied such, is not an admin. This whole thing is getting out of hand -- people are opposing the action because of misconstrued impressions of what originally happened. User:TravB has misrepresented the original deletion by quoting BlooWilt as saying "I will delete it" but not pointing out that that is not actually what happened. User:TravB has also abused process by advertising this deletion review. I'd call for a Wiki mistrial, if there were such a thing. -- Renesis (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, nothing was misrepresented. BlooWilt litterarely said "I'm gonna delete it!" [100] If he's not an admin, he posed as one, which denenitely justifies a block. Plus I'm really curious who actually deleted the page; I can't find any mention of in in the deletion logs, except the original delete in may. Edokter 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Posing as an admin most certainly does not justify a block, even if that were a clear cut case, that required no reading into the comment. If you're using it as a tool to win a content dispute, you should get a punishment appropriate for threatened misuse of admin tools, but posing as an admin is irrelevant. -Amarkov blahedits 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Edokter: First, that's what I said -- BlooWilt said that, and Travb made NO indication that BlooWilt is not an admin and did not delete it. That's the misrepresentation. Second, blocks are preventative, not punitive. -- Renesis (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • TravB said "[BlooWilt] got the userpage deleted", rather than "Bloowilt deleted the page". He also linked to the deletion log [101] and said that 1ne was the admin that deleted it [102]. I don't see any misrepresentation on TravB's part nor motivation to do so. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-19 01:42Z
            • User:Renesis13, please WP:AGF and WP:Civil. You accusations against me are alarming, I would appreciate you deleting them or striking them out. You can look at my longer original message in the history, which explains everything in much more detail. I had to shorten it, per a request by an admin here. Again, WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Also WP:NPA Comment on the edit, not the user. Have a good evening, I am going to sleep. :) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Any violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA is only your perception. I have never commented on "the user" and not the content, and neither did JzG. I am really quite shocked that you think somewhere I have personally attacked you, or been uncivil. I do think your canvassing was inappropriate, though it seems it was in good faith. I just think it wasn't the right thing to do. -- Renesis (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to clarify: it was 1ne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who deleted the page. Why isn't he here?Edokter 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above comments. No encyclopedic purpose--the "censorship" card is completely irrelevant. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs
  • Reluctant Overturn and List While I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted, it seems pretty evident that process wasn't followed. Something that survived MfD shouldn't have been speedied. Shimeru 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per above non encyclopedic and highly inappropriate. --NuclearZer0 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Innapropriate. No. -Amarkov blahedits 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is also not a users homepage. So while Wikipedia is not censored its also not a place for someone to post death threats and hate messages, the idea that people are attempting to use WP:NOT seems to negate the fact that there is plenty that is not appropriate for wikipedia and outlined in other policies. Please read all of the policies, not just the one that supports you best. --NuclearZer0 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-MfD. I agree that we don't need this userpage, but speedy deletion following a "keep/no consensus" MfD is extremely inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-19 01:25Z
  • Overturn. The page was kept in a previous MfD so it obviously should not have been speedied. Unless the page or the prevailing consensus on it has changed significantly since then, I don't see what re-listing it would accomplish. El_C wrote some excellent closing comments in the MfD. I think the suggestion to work on a policy proposal (rather than speedying, MfD'ing, and DRV'ing them repeatedly) is probably going to be the only really productive way to reach a consensus on acceptable image use on user pages. —ptk✰fgs 07:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Censorship has nothing to do with it; simply put, such pages do not help in creating an encyclopedia. (Radiant) 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, looks like a case of invalid speedy deletion. bbx 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If the argument is that it serves no encyclopedic purpose, then I must disagree because I've used pages like this (though not this particular one, to my knowledge) to find materials I wanted to refer to in discussions about the encyclopedia. So in at least some small way I have found pages like this useful in working on Wikipedia. Really though, they probably should be combined into some Wikipedia page, or better yet categorized (Category:Sexual images?). We do a poor job of organizing and categorizing images generally and we probably ought to do better. Sadly, I doubt we would be having this debate if it were a gallery of flowers. In response to some of the above comments, I would say that anyone who feels that organizing porn is inherently less appropriate than organizing flowers, would be making a content based judgment that is tantamount to censorship. Once we accept that this kind of content is acceptable to Wikipedia in general, I don't feel that arrangements and categorizations of it should be treated any differently than any other population of images. Dragons flight 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn It should be treated even more liberally--a user page is more personal than a WP article may be. I would advise retitling the folder tho, on grounds of common sense.04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse -- This is Wikipedia, not MySpace. User pages are intended to further the projects, not serve as a free webhosting site. Danny 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Danny. A collection of nude images which we use for tracking nude images would be fine, but setting up a "porn" gallery? Come on! Intent counts, and as Danny said, this isn't myspace. --Gmaxwell 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Danny. Voice-of-All 02:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a public scribbleboard. Demonstrated potential to cause disruption clearly outweighs any postulated potential for encyclopedic use. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, sorry, but I fail to see how this furthers the building of the encyclopaedia. I'm all for minor exceptions, but this page is turning to be more and more disruptive to Wikipedia's ultimate goal, and hence I think it should stay deleted. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Danny. Serves no purpose in building an encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist -- this is not a discussion of the merits of the page, but of the decision to delete it. This page was once listed on MfD and not deleted, I think we ought to go there again before deleting it. I see no reason to ignore the need to seek consensus here. Mangojuicetalk 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Dragonsflight. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Infinity: The Quest For Earth – Deletion endorsed – 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Infinity: The Quest For Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

An anon placed the following on WP:AFC: This article was deleted on the grounds that the game it discusses was vaporware, and nobody bothered to look for the download page ( http://fl-tw.com/Infinity/infinity_combat_proto.php ). ... I felt it best to get something up quickly as there was a link to the game posted on digg. The article looks a bit sloppy, but if we do find some source information, I believe it would satisfy the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity: The Quest For Earth. The deleted version can be found at the AFC for today, as someone took it from the google cache. As I'm unknowledgeable about the game, I abstain. Patstuarttalk|edits 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. It was deleted for lack of reliable sources. The download page is most certainly not a reliable source. -Amarkov blahedits 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (as closer) - Still no sources given, no new information. Wickethewok 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While not a third-party source, a first-party location from which to download a program would generally be considered sufficient proof that said program exists. While Wikipedia is Not A Crystal Ball, much of the article was discussing content which was already in the available prototype. A simple google search reveals several articles discussing it, and since the group has already released a playable prototype which is a graphical match to the available videos, it can be reasonably assumed that features shown in the videos are likely not being faked.192.235.29.150 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and concur with Amarkov: Proving that it is not vaporware does not mean the article should exist. See WP:SOFTWARE . -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - As the original nominator, I know for a fact I made no mention of the words 'vapor' or 'ware'. My reasons were that it failed WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:N and WP:V. IT failed them now due to a lack of sources (and more than one person tried and failed to find more.) The Kinslayer 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with that. It doesn't fail WP:NOT a crystal ball as a playable version is available for download, and statements as to what features are planned for future revisions of released software are generally considered acceptable - What's currently stated is in violation of NPOV, but a simple rewrite would be enough to correct such a problem. As for verifiability, there is a playable version up for download (Which was made available two days after the article was deleted, thus a change in it's situation.) and several videos available for viewing.
The only point which it really falls short on is notability - aside from being nominated for ModDB's mod/game of the year award, there isn't really much talk of it in reputable sources; just blogs and forum posts.192.235.29.150 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article said what was believed to be included in future releases of the game. That's crystal balling by my standards. You can't verify what isn't in the game yet, so that's WP:V. The only thing the playable demo does is establish existence of the game, which no-one is questioning. Being nominated for ModDBs Mod/game of the Year isn't worth shit. EVERYONE nominates their mod/game for that award, for pretty much the same reason that being listed in ModDB isn't worth shit due to the absence of inclusion criteria. The Kinslayer 14:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article as it was at the end of the AfD failed all the criteria. The point of this is if someone believes that an admin used skewed logic in deciding to delete an article. Since the article at the time did indeed fail, no inapproriateness exists. Even with the existence of a demo, there is not any worthwhile information on this game around which a wiki-worthy article can be made. If the game makes it to release, and it is as good as the devs that were trying to save the article claim it is, then it will be the work of a moment to include multiple, verifiable independant third-party sources won't it. There was no prejudice against re-creation once more information is available. The Kinslayer 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just nominated, it's currently one of the top 100 mods competing for first place.72.224.4.157 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? They control a lot of fans, big deal. The mods are voted for by the fans. You think sock and meatpuppetry is bad here? It's 100 times worse over at ModDB. Practically every game and mod organises people on their message boards to vote as frequently as they can, skewing the results. ModDB is not a measure of notability, it's a measure of how well people can organise their fanbase. All the top mods have message threads on their boards saying 'click here once a day, your mod needs you!' The Kinslayer 09:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Horsefrog – Deletion endorsed – 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Horsefrog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 221.242.210.242 13:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC) The reviewers involved decided that this was a "site of little significance". This is a very specialized site dealing in a specific skill and if you happen to use that skill to make a living, the free resources on this site are extremely useful, a point which many of the users will attest to. Unless the editors are skilled in the field of Japanese to English patent translation I do not really see how they can pass judgement as to whether or not this site is a useful reference and as such should be entered in this encyclopedia. I am also extremely offended by the "guess" that this is spam.[reply]

  • Endorse, valid AfD, the only edits to the article were by the above anon. user. No inbound links either. No reason to dispute the AfD result, in other words. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion. -Amarkov blahedits 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This was a completely valid- and unanimous- AfD. It did take place almost nine months ago, but the above undeletion reason does not provide any added assertions of notability (nor do the 700 Google hits for "Horsefrog"). As Amarkov stated above, being a "useful reference" does not equate to being "notable" or passing WP:CORP. -- Kicking222 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Per Kicking222. But I would be willing to change my mind if clear assertions of notability were provided. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Also, please do not take it personally. The web site may certainly be very interesting and useful. That's just not the point here. See WP:WEB. --Edcolins 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anal stretching – Deletion endorsed – 03:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anal_stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)
History undeleted for review purposes. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete for A) To assist in recreating article with new, updated content, and B) Yomangani (admin) found article content to be along the lines of a how to, in which case, the article needs to be AMENDED not DELETED!!! C) If the only reason is the resemblance of a how to guide, then please allow me to make a fix and properly reference it. D) Anal stretching has its place in medicine as a medical procedure, in sexuality (both in males and females), and as a novelty Rfwoolf 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Provisionally, and due to Amarkov's comments, I have begun to rewrite the Anal stretching article. I trust you will find it is by no means a how-to guide, and it should not be deleted!!! Rfwoolf 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two heavy-handed admins have deleted my article, twice, citing G4. But the article's content is good and doesn't in any way resemble a how-to guide. This is not fair Rfwoolf 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I would be very surprise if there are any reliable sources out there for this subject, and I would urge people not to engage in original research on the topic. Proto::► 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enmdorse. If you can write a new article which includes references fro reliable sources and is not a how-to guide, go right ahead. This article was deleted for perfectly valid reasons by a deletion debate whose closure is also entirely valid. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you do know that it is not possible for a non-admin like me to view the deleted article in order to build upon it? This is not simply a matter of rewriting the article, it is also a matter of restoring the deleted article, even temporarily, so as to amend it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rfwoolf (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. You're not supposed to build upon it if it was deleted for good reason, you're supposed to do an entire rewrite. -Amarkov blahedits 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (moving further down)[reply]
    • Seems nobody on Wikipedia is intelligent enough to explain why they adopt the "Delete instead of amend" principle for everything. Sure, the article was deleted. Sure, some admin believed it was too much like a how-to guide. But the "How To" grounds for deletion in "Reasons for deletion" refers specifically to articles that are by their very nature how-to guides, e.g. "How to build a boat" which would by definition have to give a guide on assembling a boat, as opposed to "Boat construction" which could go on to give you boat construction industry information, where most of the boats in the world are manufactured, who the leading manufacturers are, materials commonly used, etc. etc. The Anal Stretching article I believe contained some how-to information, and some encylopaedic information, and as you will agree the nature of the article should be the encylopaedic information part -- so why not amend? Why delete!??? -- Somebody? Anybody!? Rfwoolf 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're discussing the content, not the subject. If the author(s) can't be bothered to write an article that meets policy then why should we care? The article was deleted as a how-to with poor sources. Yup, spot on. You want the article? Feel free to write an article that does not violate policy. Most of us couldn't care less whether we have an article on every minor bit of sexcruft on the planet, we just want the ones we do have to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine! I've recreated the article. Twice. It's been redeleted. Twice. Both times they cited G4 -- grounds for speedy deletion. Please undelete this article I am getting frustrated. Rfwoolf 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history now being available, it should be clear to all that your version as last deleted was substantially identical, in large parts word for word the same. This was, therefore, a valid speedy G4 as re-creation of content deleted by a valid AfD. That is nearly two minutes of my life wasted on this junk. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you say, Guy, that the article had grounds for deletion to begin with? You have actually contradicted yourself: You say that my version of the article is not a how-to guide, but is almost exactly the same as the one that was delete for being a how-to guide. The article should never have been deleted, it should have just been amended. I'll say it again, whenever possible, amend, not delete!
Rfwoolf 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still endorse deletion. It's not a how-to guide now, at least. But it still has no reliable sources on the subject (you don't even mention anal fissures in the article). Sorry for wasting your time, Guy. -Amarkov blahedits 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really wasted, at least the cards are now on the table. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now hold on. It's not a how-to guide anymore so it should not be up for deletion on those grounds. Then as far as reliable sources are concerned, there are several decent references there, but as the TEMPLATE FREAKIN' SAYS I still need to fix up the footnotes and referencing -- not exactly grounds for deletion, admit it. Some of the references include medicle articles, and an interview published in a magazine. It may not be the best references in the world, but what more do you people bloody want? Help me keep this article! Rfwoolf 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and is significantly different from the validly deleted version (WP:CSD#G4), whihc is where the last two re-creations fell down. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proto's suggestion is very good. If your ultimate goal is to get the article published on Wikipedia, the path of least resistance is to write a good article in your userspace first, then get an admin to review it. Amazon must have several published books that address this subject - buy or interlibrary loan a couple, then put together a sourced article, and you should be fine. TheronJ 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but allow recration through user space per Proto. I had argued it would be easier to improve the old article, but now I think the opposite -- if the old version is available, it won't change much, and it really needed to (and didn't have a lot of salvageable text in it). Mangojuicetalk 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arthur Mattuck – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 03:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arthur Mattuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Stub-sized article, failed to assert notability at first; bumped up from speedy by someone who noted that he was a tenured MIT math prof; discussion focused on whether his 15 year old articles counted for anything in WP:Bio; wasnt until a few hours ago that I realised that the proposed WP:PROF covers the possibility of an academic being notable because of a major textbook written by him, as is written by Mattuck. Closing admin deleted anyway. Was going to simply re-create, but decided to ask for a review first. Hornplease 06:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, I did in fact change my vote to note that there were uses of the textbook as a primary text. [103] I noted that the textbook information came late in the day in terms of the debate, and that the closing admin should take that into account. The debate was closed, and the article deleted, barely twenty minutes later. I can't think that that was appropriate in the least. Hornplease 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Sigh, I missed your changed opinion in the AfD when I commented here. Too much missed too often in this discussion. With your finding of three universities other than MIT using the text for at least four courses this year, he meets WP:PROF. I think the article will need to be expanded to get a consensus keep opinion out of the next AFD, but just flipping mine probably would have put the last one into the no consensus zone. (Oh, yeah, another COI disclosure, my degree from MIT is in Math, but to the best of my memory I never had Mattuck as a professor.) GRBerry 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're doing COI, I should say that a good number of my students in the past - I don't teach math, but diffl eqns is a requirement - have been taught by Mattuck.Hornplease 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am the one who create this article. I did it because The video lectures of Differential Equations at MIT OCW were done by him. Several MIT professors' that are involved in the OCW project haver their article at wikipedia. Just to mention some of them: Prof Walter Lewin, Prof Gilbert Strang and Prof. Sylvia Ceyer‎. The article was really short and to be honest it didnt have anything relevant but the personal webpage and the ocw link to the video lectures, but my intention was to create the article as an stub. Bcartolo 18:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrocausality – Relisted at AfD, discussion redundant – 13:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:SNOW keep was made by non-admin due to poor nomination. As the nominator, I tried to renominate only to be told that I was violating WP:PROCESS. Somebody rescue me from the Wikipedia iterations of complication. Please --ScienceApologist 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First afd here[104]. Bwithh 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aargh. Now we have three layers of process to deal with. This is rather funny. -Amarkov blahedits 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not so complicated. The re-opening of the afd should be entirely routed through this page, Deletion Review. WP:IAR/WP:SNOW are causing tangles here, not process. I'll be happy to take a look at the first afd now, however I note that the afd renomination is still active[105] - this second afd should be closed to avoid concurrent discussion on DRV and the afd page. Bwithh 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen first afd; close second afd immediately Speedy keep was a too hasty application of WP:SNOW. If WP:SNOW is to be used at all, it should only be used where there are a large number of keep !votes with adequate reasoning and no other kinds of !votes or requests for further discussion. Here, the number of keep !votes was small and there was a request for further comment by an editor leaning to delete which the nominator was not given sufficient time to answer, and which was not taken into account by the closer Bwithh 06:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the second one has the accurate nomination and I was recommended to open a second nomination on my talkpage, wouldn't it be simpler to just keep the second nomination open? I mean, what's the point of talking about what "should" be as though there is a categorical imperative with respect to deletion discussions? --ScienceApologist 06:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person who advised you to open a second nomination was an anon IP account. Not the best source. This isn't about categorical imperatives, its about due process. If everyone starts applying WP:IAR against each other , things just get more confusing. WP:DRV is specifically set up for sorting this kind of thing out. Bwithh 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing's wrong here, just let the second AfD go ahead. The first nomination was formatted wrong, so the discussion was directionless. Now there's a new nomination that fixes the situation. Let's focus on content and not on parlimentary proceduralism. WP:SNOW and WP:PROCESS are not policy, so debating about whether they've been followed to the letter is absurd. -- SCZenz 06:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never asserted WP:PROCESS as a policy. What I pointed out is that the proper route is to go through WP:DRV, and that the WP:IAR/WP:SNOW tangle was causing the confusion (WP:SNOW is an extension of WP:IAR. The first nomination was closed. Disputing that closure and potentially reopening the first afd is the function of WP:DRV. In addition, your second nomination was set up in an unorthodox way Bwithh 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceApologist made a mistake (leaving a nomination with few details), and then fixed it as best he knew how, and you are on a campaign to run him through a procedural wringer. Please stop. -- SCZenz 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. I'm making a good faith attempt to uphold proper process. I resent the insinuation of malicious intent and ask you withdraw this Bwithh 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your good faith is not in question; I apologize if my words implied that. However, in this case you are doing the wrong thing for Wikipedia, and I ask you to stop and consider that. ScienceApologist is doing a good thing, trying to get rid of something that is original research, and there was some confusion... there's no need to add extra bureaucracy because of that. -- SCZenz 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be ignoring the !keep opinions in the first afd as well as not giving the chance for the closer to explain themselves. Fairness is important for Wikipedia. The complications here are arising from people overriding normal process on both sides, not from process itself. Thanks for the suggestion, but I've already considered this situation. I usually do that before I act. Bwithh 07:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a technical article, so starting to !vote without any guidance was difficult, and most of them were !voting keep because the nomination was incomplete. Fairness is less important than good content, and the fact is that the article is original research and needs a reasonable deletion discussion. -- SCZenz 07:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now informed User:Split Infinity about this situation - which should have been done in the first place (the first step in disputing an afd closure should be to try and discuss the situation with the closer. Often, things can be solved just by that) Bwithh 07:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that User:Split Infinity created his/her account 9 days ago, and that he/she both voted in and closed the AfD in question. I've left a polite note about this on the user's talk page. -- SCZenz 08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request this DRV entry be archived. I think it's clear that there have been several confusions and misunderstandings in this incident, and at this point it's best to go ahead with the second nomination and put this DRV discussion behind us. Can I ask that an uninvolved admin or other DRV-maintainer consider being bold and archiving this section? Thanks, SCZenz 08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate this DRV and allow the 2nd nomination to proceed through AFD. Despite SCZenz's invitation for someone to be bold and do so, I'll refrain from a non-admin archiving of this discussion, seeing as how that's demonstrably how we got here in the first place. Serpent's Choice 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John C. A. Bambenek – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 03:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John C. A. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deleted history)

User:Crzrussian said to bring appeal here. Article was speedied because of a previous afd 9 months ago. Since then, subject has become a syndicated columnist, been interviewed on several radio shows, include Bruno Behrend's show, has had his research mentioned in the New York Times [106] and the Washington Post [107]. He's become editor of Blogcritics and has had several articles out there. A quick lexis search shows up about 30 articles alone. I recreated because I thought he'd become notable, article was speedied and I was told to bring new claims of notability here. -- ChrisPerardi 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also appears in several wikipedia articles I've had nothing to do with such as Blogcritics, Internet Storm Center, Spyware, and Net Neutrality. -- ChrisPerardi 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete -- ChrisPerardi 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
American Fascist Party – Deletion endorsed – 03:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
American Fascist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Deleted by konstable who has had his powers removed for abuse. LeoniDb 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 03:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The nominator accused this institution of being a diploma mill, possibly based on confusion with an institution with a similar name in England. The Canadian institution is a harmless career college whose students are eligible for government student loans, as indicated by the OSAP references in the article. The majority to delete was based on confusion rather than the merits of the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 December 2006

[edit]
Doris Brougham – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doris Brougham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(history now undeleted per request below) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted unilaterally by User:JzG in a mass purge of anyone connected with Pacific Western University. See deleted article for full list of accomplishements, including highest Taiwanese civilian medal. Considered a household name in Taiwan. Many reliable sources listed in article prior to JzG's unilateral decision. See [110] and this government press release as examples. Articles like this should go on AfD and not be deleted unilaterally. Jokestress 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm. Deleted unilaterally. Mass purge. Not much evidence of assuming good faith there, I think. Jokestress filled in, in good faith, a number of the redlinks which were added to a list of "notable" alumni of Pacific Western University (widely considered a diploma mill and whose degrees are described by multiple sources as "practically worthless"). A couple of these I have already mailed the text to Jokestress, who says she will take them to Credentialwatch or somehwere, a much better idea.
About this article: she is asserted to have taught English to hundreds of Chinese. She has a degree from the unaccredited PWU. She has received the following awards: King Car Foundation "Schweitzer Award for English Teaching" (2004); Toastmasters International "Communication and Leadership Award" (2004); Business and Professional Women's Club "Candelight Award" (2004); Golden Tripod Award for outstanding contributions to education (1989); Outstanding Educational Promoter Award from the Ministry of Education (1986); Confucius Award (1984); Good People/Good Deeds Award (1983); Golden Bell Award in Educational Radio Programs (1969). If poeple want to send this to AfD I have no particularly strong objection. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article, she has taught "hundreds of thousands." Also started major Taiwanese broadcasting company ORTV (ortv.com) in addition to winning the Taiwanese equivalent of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The lesser awards do not negate her many notable accomplishments. Jokestress 10:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Taught hundreds of thousands, then. Population of China today? About 1.3 billion, isn't it? Plus expats? So. I diagnosed resume padding. Sorry, that's just how I read it. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - ORTV is probably encyclopedically notable, but its quite not a "major Taiwanese broadcasting company". It's a Christian TV/Radio ministry with English language teaching programs. (I've actually watched some of their language programs... had no idea about the religious dimension).[111] Bwithh 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • how can this be discussed without seeing the article? please restore long enough for a discussion DGG 15:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because DRV is about the process, not the article. If there are sources, it doesn't matter what the article said, the speedy should be overturned. -Amarkov blahedits 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not actually how it works: If there is any good faith request for the content to be reviewed, the page is restored, the {{tempundelete}} sign whacked on it, and it's protected. That way anyone can participate in the discussion and evaluate fully if the deletion debate reflected that actual article, etc.
        152.91.9.144 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - notability seems dubious at best, and no rules have been violated. Jokestress, please read WP:AGF. Moreschi 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at afd If the google cached version[112] of the article is just about the same as the deleted version, I can understand why JzG found the article dubious. There is no mention of ORTV, and by far the most apparently important award ("Order of the Brilliant Star with Violet Grand Cordon" - which is not wikilinked too), is buried amongst a bunch of far lesser awards (I mean, Toastmasters International????)) and is not mentioned in the main text. In addition, the tone of the article is inappropriate. Looking at the list of Brilliant Star awardees[113] in the same year as Doris received hers, I still have lingering questions about the exact nature of the award, so I would recommend overturning but listing at afd. Bwithh 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - As per reasons above. Send to AFD if needed. - hahnchen 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete No evidence exists to demonstrate that this article should have been deleted via CSD, rather than AfD. Unfortunately, the allegations of a "mass purge" seem accurate, and this seems to be yet another case of this admin inserting his own personal biases into the process, abusing his powers and refusing to deal rationally with the issue. As JzG has stated "If poeple [sic] want to send this to AfD I have no particularly strong objection." This is what people want and is what should have been done in the first place. Alansohn 14:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and AfD per above. I understand why it happened, but it wasn't right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and afd - per Alansohn. If it's even close, it should be afd. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and afd -- I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that this person was on the speedily-closed List of Pacific Western University article or not. In any event, having looked at the Doris Brougham article's history, I note that multiple editors in good standing worked on this article, including Jokestress (>8000 edits) and Jreferee (>2000). Without going into the letter and spirit of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion Policy, they should at least be given the courtesy of an AfD -- what's there to lose??? --A. B. (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: About the "massive purge" -- I only see two PWU alumni with articles in deletion review: Doris Brougham and Srully Blotnick. Were there any other articles deleted and if so what were they? I can't speak for JzG, but I think it would be natural for him to check out several of the names on the now-deleted List of Pacific Western University people as he was figuring out what to do with that article. Perhaps these two deletions weren't a purge so much as just a byproduct of the list article. --A. B. (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and AfDI cannot find additional sources from outside SPU, although it may be possible for those able to use Taiwanese sources. The material in WP is however supported by the two newspaper citations. She does have a degree outside SPU. (I did find a few bios on the web of people who listed the DB Scholarships in their resume Since her teaching & the awards--if they have the meaning stated--make her notable, they certainly should be able to be documented. The usfulness of an Afd is in reaching those who may know the subject & the language better.
But all this is secondary, the serious question is whether these standards are being applied more strictly than usual because of bias. This, furthermore, is procedural, even if one wants to take the definition of DR in the narrowest sense. To me, not having previously known anything about her or SPU, the discussion demonstrates what I consider to be negative bias. This is one of the deficiencies of unilateral deletion, and fully sufficient for a full AfD.DGG 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Srully Blotnick – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Srully Blotnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Former Forbes Magazine columnist deleted unilaterally by User:JzG in a mass purge of anyone connected with Pacific Western University. See deleted article for multiple reliable sources, including several New York Times articles and an analysis of the scandal that led to his demise in the Columbia Journalism Review. Jokestress 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again with the pejorative nomination. This article contained information about the controversial incident which led to his firing, and precious little else. Per WP:LIVING I don't think that's a great start. Maybe I'm wrong. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many biographies are about someone most notable for a scandal. If there's positive stuff (like his many business psychology books), that can be added, but he is best known for the scandal. Jokestress 10:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what we should do is find the non-trivial stories in reliable, independent sources of which he has been the primary subject, then they will have much more biographical detail. Published biographies are usually a good start. Has he been subject of a published biography? Or a profile in a business magazine? I don't want the office on my back, if it's all the same to you. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here ya go. Jokestress 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Written by? Incidentally, I have nothing against a new article which gives more context, and I don't mind providing the history to start on it. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Written by the Gale Reference Team at Thompson Gale, as noted in the link. In other words, it's an encyclopedia article, which would suggest we should consider having one, too, at least via an AfD. As Amarkov said above, if an article has numerous reliable sources (as this one did), it should not be unilaterally deleted but should go through AfD. I've never ventured into this little corner of Wikipedia, but things are certainly stacked against disputed articles. Could an admin do proper DELREV templates for this and the article above so they link back to this discussion? Jokestress 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Guy. Eusebeus 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - yet again, AGF. And yet again little verification and notability seems dubious. Having a job and then getting fired for fraud or misinformation or whatever does not, actually, make you notable enough for Wikipedia. Moreschi 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at afd Jokestress should refrain from the wild accusations. I can't find the cached version of this article, but based on the new references cited here and a quick google search plus (deep breath) given my experience with the range of opinions about encyclopedic notability contradictory to my own, I would recommend listing at afd (I can be expected to lean towards arguing for deletion however). Bwithh 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - Guy probably is wrong. And dubious as though the notability is, it should be argued at AFD with the content at hand rather than blindly at DRV. We have an undeleteable journalist article at Cyrus Farivar, he's not exactly notable is he? - hahnchen 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief, the retention of Cyrus Farivar is absurd. Wikipedians are a slave to the technology press. I'm adding him to my mental list. After the liberation from GNAA, never say never about deletion. Bwithh 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The day we expunge the self-serving, vain, unnotable Mr. Farivar will be a great day for Wikipedia. Eusebeus 09:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with you guys. But this is something that Jimbo has commented on, and like our Fair Use image policy, his word is law. - hahnchen 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently we all live under some kind of constitutional monarchy, so while I'm not sure what Jimbo said about Mr. Farivar's article, his word is not necessarily law unless he explicitly waves his special wand of sovereignty +3 (in which case, We must not let daylight in upon the magic etcetera, etcetera...). Bwithh 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article will be gone in six months. As will plenty of other vanity articles about Wikipedia editors who happen to have worked for a website at some point or have a blog, people seem to be losing their patience with this sort of cack. Proto::► 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The argument used as an excuse for deletion of the original article, "Article exists solely to inflate an unaccredited school" see here is a clear demonstration of an admin way out of control who has again imposed his own personal biases, rather than attempting to address any meaningful characteristic of the article that violated any stated Wikipedia guideline or standard. As JzG persistently refuses to properly utilize Wikipedia processes he should be removed post haste from his role as an admin. This has gone on for far too long and caused way too much damage, where admin powers are abused via CSD rather than allowing a genuine consensus to be created -- one way or the other -- via AfD. Alansohn 14:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes -- that's very inappropriate. There are other venues to complain about admins. This is a deletion review, not a star chamber for admins. I disagree with JzG's actions here, but he does good work and nobody's perfect. There are other venues to complain about admins.
  • Undelete per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Whenever I see Alansohn calling for someone to be deadminned, it's a sure bet they have made the correct call, and they have indeed. Proto::► 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete -- indisputably notable by current criteria. See the links and article excerpts I just left at Talk:Srully Blotnick. Blotnick is mentioned in ten NY Times articles. At least 7 were more than passing mentions and were primarily about him or one of his books. In one article, he's described as "best-selling". In another, the Times noted his books had sold over 100,000 copies. Like this person or not, he far exceeds the current notability guidelines. I did not even bother to search the Wall Street Journal or other publications' archives. --A. B. (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete -- The NYT article works for me. Everybody makes mistakes. Just make sure they're not tattoos. --Bobak 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. I'll remember that. --A. B. (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete. Here I have some idea of the subject, and the fraud is notable enough and certainly verifiable enough to merit an article about the perpetrator. Again, the procedural grounds are sufficient--possibly unfair use of unilateral process is a reason for the AfD. I have not looked at the previous work by any of those involved, and I agree it is not relevant here one way or another. But when the discussion gets personal, as all the above surely demonstrates, wide participation is necessary to avoid bias. DGG 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Angry Nintendo Nerd – Recreated nomination speedily closed – 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Wow! You guys closed the topic in record time without even letting me respond! Way to show your Wikicowardice, guys!

Now let's actually try debating me instead of what you guys usually do which is ignore every point I make and provide absolutely no argument because admitting you're wrong hurts your Wikipride.

  • Endorse deletion, again. "By every conceivable measure" - no, the only conceivable measure, which has been repeatedly explained, is multiple independent reliable sources, none of which you have presented. No-one cares about the Google test and the Furious Famicom Faggot isn't even explictly a parody of this website, not that it would establish notability if it was. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No multiple independent sources! So, according to you, Google [[114]], Alexa [115][116], Something Awful [117][118] [119] [120], youtube[121] (265,103 views by the way), and mentions in seven other languages including German [122], Japanese [123], Spanish [124], Swedish [125], Dutch [126], French [127] and Hebrew [128] aren't multiple or independent! So, how many more do you need? Apparently the standard for this article is light years ahead of most so I need to know how many millions of people do you require to have seen a person who talks about video games to attain your standards?
  • Read what Sam wrote. What's required is that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of what you posted is non-trivial or reliable (or even demonstrably independent in some cases). Guy (Help!) 10:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What source do you require regarding reviews of old video games? This is an internet related phenomenon. He's already been parodied on Something Awful, which is one of the most popular internet humor sites on the web. Does he need to be mentioned in the New York Times? Please specify the standard so I don't have to keep bugging you people.

As stated in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, if you can even be bothered to read it, it clearly says regarding the google test for example It should be realized that on highly specialized, yet suitable topics the number of hits might be much lower than for more well-known subjects.

I honestly don't know the insane standard you people have put upon somebody who reviews video games. Again, specify it please so I won't waste any more of your precious time.

You're right. A mention on Something Awful isn't a measure of notability, I've already provided many of those, it's a measure of verifiability. This is an internet humor related article and Something Awful is the most prominent site regarding internet humor. If that's just not good enough then give me an example of what you would reasonably want. Don't tell me it has to be mentioned on CNN. What publication do you want him mentioned in before you'd accept it on this site? Does he have to be in a game magazine? If so, why? Millions of people have seen him but it's not "official" until Gamepro has featured him in an article?

The overriding theme I've noticed in this debate and the one regarding the articles related to the Adventure Game Studio is that if topics are popular on the web but aren't featured on television or a magazine then it isn't "notable" or "verifiable". I don't know if you guys have seen the cover of the latest Time magazine[129] but things are changing. This isn't like the 1980's or early 90's when things were only popular if you could find it in a library or it was mentioned on television. The ironic thing is Wikipedia is a part of this change and yet you guys are the most blind to it.

Richard Cane 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Irascible Professor – Deletion endorsed – 20:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Irascible Professor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was deleted with apparent disregard for the consensus to keep. Furthermore, the reason for deletion (no substantial case for notability), appears to ignore the discussion in which two third-party reliable sources were presented to satisfy WP:WEB. Overturn. dryguy 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (my own) deletion. The two 'sources' referred to, [130] and [131] are trivial mentions; the first merely cites the blog as a source and the second recommends reading a particular post from the blog (it is not a review of the whole blog) halfway down a very brief article. Apart from that the AfD contained the usual 'this Google number is big' and other assorted armwaving. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What is it with the feeling that an article must be kept if there is any reason to believe someone might be theoretically able to source it at some undetermined point in the future? Unsourced things get deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

16 December 2006

[edit]
Orneryboy – Nomination withdrawn – 05:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
:Orneryboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The article was deleted, but before I saw the AfD. Orneryboy, a webcomic, received the 2005 Web Cartoonists' Choice Award for Outstanding Site Design after being a finalist the previous year, had anindependant review by Comixpedia, as well as multiple mentions on said site. Though I know it can be futile to lean on Alexa rankings, it ranks above the 100K mark, and was an original member of Dayfree Press. Overturn and Undelete, please. Should this occur, I will add all of the relevant information. Fethers 17:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Angry Nintendo Nerd – Deletion speedily reendorsed, no new information – 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD), DRV July, DRV October

By every conceivable measure discussed in the previous debate regarding this article all standards have been surpassed.

Google test then for "Angry Nintendo Nerd": 22,300

Now: 62,400 [132]

Alexa rating for screwattack then: 1,156,995

Now: 101,477 [133]

His personal homepage then on Alexa: 3,905,515

Now: 595,769[134]

His personal homepage is nearly the same amount as Bruce Cambell's which I used as an example before[135]

Something Awful has made fun of him in numerous episodes [136][137] [138] [139]

Go to the previous deletion discussion for a more comprehensive discussion explaining why this shouldn't have been deleted. Richard Cane 12:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Bruchim – Nomination withdrawn – 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Bruchim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history) — (TfD)

Um... what? Why was this speedy deleted? It was obviously contentious, and it's not like people were ignoring any policy. -Amarkov blahedits 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the template:

Hello, Thank you for your contributions and welcome to Wikipedia! DHUH you are jew! ha! how uncool! anyways i just though i would stick that fact in YOUR face!! This template is all about that yeah!!... check out that massive star of david there, yeah!! cool isn't it?! so TOTALY superjewish!!!! oh please dont run away you confused soul! soon you will find your wiki self and i'll show the template i was realy going to welcome you with! Hey! where you running off to!??! join our wikiproject.... hey!! come back!! join!!

El_C 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What the heck? I didn't think it was THAT bad. I won't just close this now, in case someone else has something to contribute, but wow... I've set up some wikistuff to automatically strike out my nomination if nobody asks for relisting within about a day, so consider my nomination withdrawn then. -Amarkov blahedits 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BudWheizzah – Deletion endorsed – 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BudWheizzah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

The article I was writing should not have been converted to a user page. I have used the nickname BudWheizzah for seven years and have run a popular internet radio station in which the name is used. I believe it is only fair that I get my own article on Wikipedia. I do not know who converted my article.

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LUElinks – Deletion endorsed – 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LUElinks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Come on guys.Why is there no LUElinks article?I mean sure you mention it in the Gamefaqs article,but don't you think it deserves its own article.

Also,I heard it was deleted the first time only because of a hoax so why does it continue to get deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewordpostguy (talk • contribs)

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