Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 1-15

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

UNDELETE_II I had received a few e-mails, noting that Wikipedia had absolutely nothing regarding Norton Buffalo, I typed my name in and found it to be true. Today, I submitted a biography from my web page, that could allow people to access this information. It was thereafter marked for "Speedy Deletion". The information i included, while it indeed comes from my own site, and while it, as well is regarding my own career, was posted as a means to inform people about me, not inflate my own ego. As a Grammy nominated member of the entertainment industry who has been playing on and releasing records for over 35 years, it seemed a disservice to the community to have nothing at all within the Wikipedia database. I understand fully, your concerns over conflict of interest, vanity etc, and respect them. Thus it would be great if a one of the folks within the Wikipedia community could examine this information and make it accessible. For more information you can check my webpage at www.norton-buffalo.com. I think you will find that it is fair and balanced ... I have had a long and blessed carreer. Thanks for your consideration regarding this. NB Buffharp 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. conflict of interest applies. Please let a neutral third party write an article, rather than copy-pasting your website content, which violates our licensing and neutrality policies. Please don't feel bad, this happens all the time. you could try posting a link and some other, independent sources at requested articles. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice. Reproducing the text of another website without some evidence of explicit permission ("Because I said so" from a random editor, I'm afraid, isn't sufficient) is verboten. You'll have to send an e-mail message to permissions at wikimedia dot org -- using the same domain for the e-mail message -- to get the approval. Bear in mind that doing so effectively means giving up your right to control the material, under GFDL, and it will be edited. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AFD1|AfD2)

Administrator, in closing, decided delete when there was no clear consensus for delete. Disregarding sockpuppets, there were 27 keeps and only 12 deletes with clear accepted claims towards notability and verifiability through sources independent of The noob by a number of experienced Wikipedians. To assert that a sufficient number of the keeps were offered in bad faith (see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators) in order for there to be a rough consensus to delete is unbelievable. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Wikipedia is also supposed to operate by consensus rather than fiat. This deletion therefore needs to be subject to further review on the basis of its irregularity with respect to Wikipedia's basic principles. Balancer 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. Consensus is an assessement of the relative weight of arguments against policy not a straight vote. There may be a lot of keep votes but mostly they are on the side of ILIKEIT. Reading through the AFD, there does seem to be a lack of evidence of Verifiable & Reliable sources cited. Unfortunately, the AFD doesn't list the sources claimed but I thought that Guy's Comment [[1]] in the AFD was a good summation of the arguments. --Spartaz 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such was not my argument (I have still never read The noob and could have cared less whether or not the author was on vacation), nor the argument of many other of the "keep" votes. Again, disregarding the numerous ILIKEITS (and their converse, the IDONTLIKEITs invoking fancruft) leaves at best a scenario in which there is clearly no consensus. The argumentation offered in favor of the deletion was no greater in substance or support than that against. If that's a consensus for deletion or anything resembling a consensus, I'll eat my hat. I've been working with consensus decision-making processes since before Wikipedia has. Balancer 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion and keep. Admin acted against the consensus in the AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote, consensus is reflected in policy, WP:V, and guideline, WP:RS. No credible rebuttal was given to the failure of this consensus requirement. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion when weighted by strength of argument and adherance to policy and precedent, as well as considering the comments from the first afd, it is clear that the concensus has been clearly stated. Even those arguing for keeping the article state "the vast majority of wikipedians want to delete". It was a good call by the closing admin. Jerry lavoie 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Apparently incorrectly state, to judge from the tally. A clear supermajority was in favor of keeping the article. Please read the actual AFD carefully; I am asking that this closing be overturned on the basis that it was closed in what amounts to an irregular fashion. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article among those participating, and no compelling reason was given for discounting the clear consensus to keep the article. (There was also clearly no consensus to delete in the first AFD, in which substantially less evidence was presented for the comic's notability, and which contained all the same assertions of lack of notability, in some cases by the very same editors, and a smaller quantity of clear support by established Wikipedia. The only variables that have changed have changed in favor of the "keep" of the debate between the first and second AFDs, and yet the first was labeled "no consensus" and the second "delete" by closing administrators.) Balancer 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion and keep.
  
  • 0. WP:WEB is under discussion, pushing delete before policy crystallizes is a bit tarded.
    
  • 1. 27 EXPERIENCED EDITORS vs 12 EXPERIENCED EDITORS is consensus at best, or more like CLEAR KEEP.
    
  • 2. It's published on biggest mmo oriented website (mmorpg.com).
    
  • 3. It's published in norwegian magazine (that information didn't make to AfD discussion because SOMEONE PROTECTED IT).
    
  • 4. More than 100,000 google hits. Top3 of of 1.8M for "the noob"
    
  • To sum it up - two notable sources, 27 vs 12 in favour of keeping (only experienced editors, everyone else was PROTECTED from discussion), AfDing while author is on vacation, going for Deletion instead of requesting better sources - I just cannot bloody believe how the hell this article could be deleted. 87.205.129.190 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)JoeTF[reply]

• • This is a wiki, everything is always under discussion. If you feel that WP:WEB is not serving the interests of the community, then it needs to be changed per consensus, not in an ad hoc manner when it is brought into discussion.
    
  • AfD is not a vote. It is a check and balance on the power of administrators to delete as policy permits.
    
  • Many things are published on big websites. In fact, lots of stuff gets published on big websites, and we as editors have to screen it for notability. Tangential mentions by notable sources do not establish notability.
    
  • Once again, tangential mentions do not establish notability. The article was not protected, it was semiprotected, and only as a response to abusive sockpuppetry. Any editor could still have made a comment on the AfD talk page, or on the talk page of another editor active in the AfD discussion. Blaming an sprot for being unable to introduce a point is a weak cop-out, at best.
    
  • No, it doesn't have more than 100k hits on Google. The phrase "the noob" has that many. Don't be deceptive by assuming that the combination of two short and common words always refers to a certain webcomic.
    NetOracle 05:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you're so quick with posting your blantant lies and poor attempts at psyops. Really, this AfD will get you banned from Wikipedia.
    

• 0. No, everything isn't always under discussion and YOU KNOW IT WELL. WP:N has reached clear consensus recently and no one questions it. However, WP:WEB had big flashy "DISPUTED" tag just few hours ago and now discussions rage about bringing it back on talk page.
  
• 1. Apparently, AfD is a vote when more people scream for deletion and isn't when sides are equal or the dreaded 'keep' side wins. In this case, only experienced editors were allowed to vote their concerns (everyone else, author included was conviently PROTECTED from doing so). It ended 27 v 12, which is clear consensus for keeping the article.
  
• 2. What the hell is this?! I don't give a shit how many things are published on muyspace nor how notable they are. We are talking about publication (in fact syndication) on not major, but biggest industry website that publishes mentioned comic weekly.
  
• 3. Once again, I don't have a clue what you are talking about, but surely not about Pegasus reprint. Noone in whole AfD discussion questioned it, you simply decided to ignore it's presence.
• 4. 100k hits for "the noob"?! That's a classic. In line you were replying I stated that this prhase has 1.8 million hits! You clearly didn't checked, took numbers from of your ass and again, BLATANTLY LIED TO THE PUBLIC.

There were so many ABUSES during this AfD, the bans should fly. 87.205.132.43 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)JoeTF[reply]

• Overturn Deletion and Keep
  • Notability asserted due to publication in other sources besides it's home page - MMORPG.COM, Pegasus Magazine.
  • Notability asserted due to positive article placement in the European World of Warcraft website.
  • Notabliity asserted due to nomination for arguably THE major webcomic award, the WCCA in 2006
  • Notability asserted due to Alexia.Com rank of 32827 as of today, and a constant 20 million hits a DAY.
  • Notability asserted due to a number of valid reviews of the comic.

The article can be stated as notable for any of these reasons, the fact that is has five of them makes it even more so. Granted that some of the notablity isn't first class (a nomination, not an award). Granted that some of the reviews are mediorcre, but the FACT that is was noted for a review is criteria enough. Having said that, any one of these items is a valid argument for meeting notability, the fact I can list five should be more than enough for a keep decision. The nominators, and the administrator who enforced the delete decision are using AFD indescriminatly, when citation and improvement tags should have been used instead to address their concerns about the article.

At the very least, there was specific, qualitative and quantatative support for a keep decision, there was no consensus for delete as asserted by the deleting administrator, and a no consensus decision should have been the very minimum outcome. Timmccloud 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The notability of the WCCA is in question. It is not so rock solid as to automatically convey notability to anything it nominates.
    • The WCCA article has been restored from deletion, and is under discussion. All the more reason for ANY webcomic to be given a "no consensus" until the WCCA question is settled.Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way that site is getting 20 million hits a day. Suggesting it gets even 200k is a stretch, and a single system at The Planet (even if it hosted nothing else, which it doesn't - thenoobcomic.com shares its server with other sites) would quickly exhaust its resources and bandwidth given that level of load. Furthermore, it is only a PR5. NetOracle 06:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, 3 million page views a day on 2/14: Alexia.Com proof here. Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NetOracle could only attack two of my five assertions of notability. Notability asserted due to the other three. Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I believe that there was no consensus to delete, and the administrator was too quick on the trigger here. There was valid argument in both directions, and anyone reading the AFD should agree there was "No Consensus". The noob had been through AFD before with a no consensus, and the article had been improved between AFD nominations. Also, improvements were made to the article DURING the AFD to address some concerns raised in the AFD, and they were ignored. Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. There was not consensus to delete - there were as many crap delete arguments as there were crap keep ones. Proto ► 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You have gotta be kidding me. There were as many crap delete arguments as there were keep ones. There were valid delete arguments. Please take some time out to read the arguments instead of counting the "votes". — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore-Even giving considerable leeway, there was no solid consensus to delete. At worst, the result was no consensus.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per comments above. AfD is not a vote. The result of any AfD should be determined by whether the discussion has shown that the topic meets our guidelines. In this AfD, the sources on The noob were discussed and none were found to be reliable and non-trivial by the delete voters. The keep voters did not convincingly address the concerns. Regarding "crap" delete arguments, I think Proto must have read the wrong AfD; almost every delete voter indicated that he/she evaluated the sources and found there was not enough reliable source material to satisfy our guidelines; see e.g. some of the comments of User:Sandstein, User:Nydas, User:Dragonfiend, User:Seraphimblade, User:Leebo86, and User:JzG (sorry if I missed a couple of good ones). Pan Dan 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion This was a well-judged call by the closing admin. As per Pan Dan, the delete arguments were much stronger and rooted in policy than the keep ones, which were flimsy, relying on somewhat exaggerated fansite mentions (which are unreliable indicators of encyclopedic notability) and self-published books (via lulu.com) (And as for the WCCA awards, the "honorable mention", this means that the comic failed to get into the final four nominee stage i.e. 5th place gets you a mention in the also-rans list - this is a weak assertion of notability). AFD closing is not based on vote-driven consensus that exists outside of fundamental policy requirements. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure I have made some deletion decision on large, complex AfDs, and have also closed AfDs against the "!vote tally" based on the strength of the arguments. In reading through this closing, I find this a borderline case. However, I'm not going to recommend overturning the AfD because the large amount of sock puppetry and outside participation makes me concerned with the difficulty in gaging true consesnsus, and I think the weight of the arguments by the delete proponents was greater than that of the keeps. It's a close call, but I think the blatant sock puppetry is enough for me to not want to reopen this. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - The number of votes is irrelevant, as AfD is not a vote. The closing administrator was right in applying established policies and guidelines to the article. The whole point of having policies and guidelines is to ensure consistency in encyclopedic standards. If you don't like the policies, build consensus and change them. This is, after all, a wiki. Overriding widely applicable policies for the sake of one article is inconsistent with the entire point of having policies - AfD is not the place to re-factor policy on a wide scale, as AfD tends to involve only a small cross-section of editors. General policy changes tend to involve a broader group of editors, and requires a consensus from a greater part of the editing community. Should consensus establish policies which allow the material we just deleted, then the article can be un-deleted and editing can resume from where it left off. NetOracle 05:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The keep arguments were rooted in the exact same policies as the delete arguments - there were more of them, and they were more widely accepted by established editors. The consensus of the editors engaging in the AFD was crystal clear... and this consensus plays a critical role in Wikipedia's core policies and in particular the deletion policy. This isn't about counting votes; this is about looking at opinions and bringing a community into agreement (Of course, the "vote count" has some relevance in testing for consensus; see Wikipedia:Consensus. Broad support does not entail consensus, but consensus entails broad support) This is not about puppets; it's fairly easy to discount all the puppets looking at the AFD.

Let me explain exactly what the problem is. To quote what Wikipedia:Deletion Policy says about closing an AFD: At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains. Let me emphasize this: According to Wikipedia policy, a rough consensus for deletion is required to delete. This is not optional; this is part of a policy, not a guideline.

There was no rough consensus to delete the article. You can make claims (which I, of course, along with many others, will call patently false) that the "delete" arguments are in fact stronger, but you cannot support the contention that there was a rough consensus of any kind favoring deletion among the AFD editors. The comparison to the first AFD is particularly striking in that regard; the "keep" side offers vastly stronger arguments and has much wider support among wikipedia editors than in the first AFD, concluded as "no consensus," while the "delete" side is unchanged.

The closing admin does have the right to make some judgement calls in interpreting the consensus of those contributing to an AFD; the closing admin, however, is not asked to, and should not, decide by personal fiat, constructing something that cannot be truthfully called a consensus to delete an article essentially from their own opinions. This DRV is all about the question of whether or not an administrator can exercise not only the role of interpreting consenses of AFDs, but decide on what the "consensus" is on his or her own - over the objections of the rest of Wikipedia.

If the latter is the case, then our next task is the truly monumental one of stripping all mentions of consensus from the various applicable WP:Policy and WP:Guideline articles, because the term is simply no longer applicable in such an environment.

This is not a webcomics issue. This is a Wikipedia policy issue. This deletion, and several others like it, are setting new policy through precedent, removing the rough consensus clause and replacing it with the remarkably different clause "The administrator may or may not consider your opinions and then will delete or not delete the article as s/he feels fit based on their own personal opinion of the article's merits."

Pan Dan and Bwithh, my apologies for putting you on the spot, but do you really endorse the piecemeal destruction of consensus at Wikipedia? If so, I invite you to put up an AFD on Wikipedia:Consensus, because it's going to have to go eventually if this keeps up. Balancer 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DP is clear on this: "So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing."

WP:DGFA is clear on this: "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. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions."

Furthermore, the article on Rough consensus describes rough consensus as "the "dominant view" of a group as determined by its chairperson."

This is not an attack on consensus. Consensus was reached, and the closing admin used his discretion to properly weight the points made, apply policy as appropriate, and consider issues of bloc voting and puppet voting (as AfD is not a vote). NetOracle 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus does not say that majority votes overrule core policies such as WP:V. My comment "AFD closing is not based on vote-driven consensus that exists outside of fundamental policy requirements." reflects this, and is in line with Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. It has nothing to do with lobbying for the "piecemeal destruction" of WP:Consensus. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. To sum up what Bwithh and others say above, the closing admin was correct in applying the mandatory core policies even in the face of a lack of numerical consensus. Sandstein 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability was mentioned by exactly one "delete" voter, who was (a) busily denying the existence of the multiple non-trivial materials found in sources independent of the comic that the "keep" voters had been busily pointing out, and either (b) apparently arguing about notability, not verifiability, or (c) neglecting that the "independence" property of WP:RS does not apply to this class of articles. I quote from WP:V: Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

In other words, WP:V is not an issue for this class of articles; it is trivially easy to verify per WP:V anything you like about the content of The noob simply by examining the comic itself. Copyright violation is not present, and it is clearly possible to write a NPOV article about The noob, so the other two key policies are also out as suspects. None of the core policies apply.

Note that by definition of consensus, the administrator cannot manufacture the consensus, only encourage it and read its presence or absence. According to the logic presented in defense of this deletion, the entire AFD process is left up not to administrator judgement of the consensus of participating editors, but administrator whim. The closing administrator could have at least as easily passed judgement saying "keep" or "merge" or "no consensus" by your standards, and other administrators probably would have decided differently, in which case the AFD becomes a real crapshoot based on who shows up to close the article. Balancer 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, the second nomination appears to have been tainted. RFerreira 08:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote, and I believe that the closing admin did more than count numbers, by relying on the weight of the arguments used. Nick interpreted policy correctly. riana_dzasta 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. Consensus was clearly to keep, and there were valid arguments offered on all sides, closing admin chose to value own opinion more. That's not the same thing as "not a vote": AFD isn't a vote, but admins can't ignore others opinions just because they disagree with them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment was a sum of all the arguments presented in the debate. The keep arguments were not ignored. Do you have evidence of its notability? Sources? Links? Claims should be verifiable. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My reasoning above was the sum of all the discussion that took on the AfD discussion. Could you provide the valid keep arguments which I have seemed to ignore? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Determining consensus does not mean head-counting, nor does it require taking WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments into account. NetOracle's nominating statement covered the bases, and his points were not obviously refuted by anyone arguing against them. Admins can, and should, ignore opinions (including all variations on "NOT FAIR!", "this number is BIG", "seems notable enough to me as a fan", "all my buddies love it") which contradict Wikipedia policies and guidelines when closing AfDs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angusmclellan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Opinions ignored included "published on a huge portal", "nominated for awards", "Alexa ranking bears out... very heavily trafficked with great prominence", "regularly very highly ranked", "recognition by notable websites", "cited by established publications", "referenced by notable sources", "referenced on major sites and published", "sufficient sourcing of a reliable nature", "three published books on it" (from the person who made Notability a guideline, no less), "cruft cannot be the primary reason for deletion", "more then two real reliable sources". That's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT style arguments, and that's a lot of them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of them are. The first two you mention are variants on "big number" and "I've heard of it". As for the other things you mention, "cited" means something very different in my idiolect, likewise "referenced", and so too must "sufficient sourcing"; based on the googlecache the article had no reporting that would have impressed me with its independence, non-triviality, and reliability. The published books were not, again employing the McLellanese idiolect, "on" the subject; they are part of the subject. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - some desperately unimpressive reasons for keeping, lots of ILIKEITs, but there seems to be sufficient reason to have another look at this with a semi-protected AfD. Needs some more eyes. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep The article was obviously after my research about a notable comic although unknown to me personally. Don't know the story behind this controversy deletion. But I think it should be given benefit of the doubt. Lord Metroid 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AFD is not a vote, and weighing arguments is the job of the closing admin - the closing admin does not just rubber stamp a debate after just counting the arguments. --Coredesat 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn No, AfD is not a vote but this kind of decision is an abuse of the admin's discretional power. What's the point of having a 5-day AfD process if an admin then comes and says: "actually I understand policy and you don't so I see a consensus to delete." In the long run this creates frustrations in the community that are extremely harmful. I consider myself a deletionist and my own preference would be to not have things like "the noob" on Wikipedia but I am aware that this might not be the majority's opinion and I'm willing to accept that fact. No credible evidence that the article contradicts fundamental policy was made. There are clearly good primary sources on the subject and some not so convincing but not completely trivial either secondary sources were also available. I don't think it passes the WP:WEB bar but I think enough people disagreed with that assessment in the AfD and there was no clear consensus to delete. In the absence of consensus, the default is to keep. Pascal.Tesson 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The five day AfD process did not yield enough keep arguments having valid reasons for including this article. None of the overturn "voters" on this DRV have giving an inkling of reason or evidence (as in multiple, non-trivial, independent sources) as to why this article should be included in Wikipedia. I am glad you are not an administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I - and apparently most of the other 27 non-puppet "keep" voters - feel otherwise, that we have invoked either mentions in multiple, non-trivial, and independent sources to establish notability (MMORPG, World of Warcraft, and WCCA nomination all can be taken as independent and non-trivial mentions) or the specifics of the WP:WEB criterion (being published on an independent and well-known site, e.g., MMORPG.com)). That you, unlike the vast majority of participants of the AFD as a whole, do not agree that those sources are non-trivial and independent mentions does not magically create from the handful of "delete" votes a consensus to that effect. We have a "no consensus" result (seen in the previous AFD for this article) for a reason. I will note that this case is similar to the Starslip Crisis and Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards AFD closures (the former involving the same administrator, and the latter involving a similar case of the administrator deciding against a clear policy-based consensus of Wikipedians), which have already been overturned in review as improperly closed.

• I realize my arguments are lengthy and difficult to read, so I'll summarize. Wikipedia:Deletion Policy tells us that the closing admin can only delete an article if there is a rough consensus to do so (there was not) or if the article cannot but violate of one of the three non-negotiable conditions of verifiability, neutral point of view, and legality under copyright law (all easily satisfied by the article). Ergo, the deletion is in violation of policy. Balancer 08:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the sources that say that it was well-sources? Where are the reliable sources? Please stop the continuous jabber about rough consensus. Consensus only forms on the back-bone of policy. Arguments outside policy are not considered valid. Stop referring to the number of "votes" on AfD. AfDs are discussions and not "votes" for deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The back bone of policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) is something you're not supposed to ignore as an administrator, nor is the rough consensus clause of Wikipedia:Deletion policy a clause you can freely throw away without rewriting that policy.

• If you didn't see where the talk about sources was on the AFD, it was entirely inappropriate for you to close the AFD. As far as the "sources": Read WP:V and pay attention to the clause that I already quoted for you above regarding verifiability. Read also WP:WEB, bearing in mind that MMORPG.com and Blizzard Entertainment are independent of The noob and quite prominent indeed, meaning that (a) MMORPG.com publishing The noob qualifies under the WP:WEB standard of being published by a well-known independent source and (b) it meets the standards for being discussed by multiple independent published sources. All this was, of course, discussed at great length in the AFD. To everyone else, I suggest you read closely Nick's comment above and pay attention to the value he is placing on consensus. It demonstrates my point about precedents precisely. Balancer 10:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is formed on policy. Rough consensus is gauged by taking the weight of delete and keep arguments in mind. MMORPG.com is a single source of trivial credibility. Moreover, it has published a mere comic strip of The noob and makes no comment whether trivial or substantial on the subject. Where is the link to Blizzard Entertainment site? Is there any more than a trivial transitory mention of the subject. Or is The noob subject to substantial attention on the website? We need multiple, non-trivial and independent sources for the website. Quit going around in circles. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, please don't resort to personal attacks. As you can see on User:Timmccloud/The noob, an effort was clearly made to support the article with sources. Yes the sources are of fairly low quality but they are not all blogs or forums. It has gotten some recognition through the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. As I said, it is indeed pretty fringe but there was no consensus that these were insufficient. Pascal.Tesson 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you have a major misunderstanding of policies here. I am not resorting to "personal attacks". I see nothing more than exchange of pleasantries and badinage. Kindly review the policy, please. You are trying to unilaterally re-write all the guidelines. Do so on the relevant talk pages. Also, I must request you to take a look at your previous request for adminship which failed due to a lack of knowledge of the core policies of Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. majority rules —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.2.60.97 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • No it doesn't. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. -Amarkov moo! 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I might point out something here: Simply because Wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that an admin is always totally justified in going against a majority. It seems to me that some of you here think that should an administrator choose to support a minority opinion, he must automatically have good reasons for doing so, and thus is beyond questioning. Particularily since the administrator's job here was to determine whether or not a consensus for deletion existed, this is obviously not the case. This isn't to say that a minority can't create a consensus, (although I don't think that they did in this instance) but please don't use the fact that Wikipedia isn't a democracy to auto-justify every minority victory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.5.239 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn. Prolly the people who voted delete are sticklers for notibility in a sense that if they never heard of the site, it's not notible. 24.185.47.131 (talk)
• Overturn per Balancer. The page was initially kept so how can a site become not notable? Hendry1307 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NetOracle put forward 2 arguments; that the comic is not notable, and that there was a excess of 'cruft'. Notability was demonstrated clearly through the fact that the comic has been mentioned and even published on independant and notable sites.

http://www.mmorpg.com/humor.cfm - This is where The Noob is published on MMORPG.com

http://www.wow-europe.com - A news post was made on 16/2/06 about The noob. I dont think anyone is doubting the notability of World of Warcraft.

Since it is clear the comic is notable, and this can be proven with the above links, this leaves only the cruft argument. An article can not be deleted on this basis alone. I will admit that the article could use cleaning up, and that would have been the appropriate tag, rather than an AfD. The article should be restored and protected, and I will get to work cleaning it up a bit. Luckyherb 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn It is quite obvious from reading both AfD, WP:WEB, WP:RS, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and even this review that the admin based his deletion on flawed argumentation. First of all the Reliable resource is obviously the online comic itself, being the primary source. Naturally, the so-called non-verifiability claim for deletion is an impossible one since the primary source still exists! Also, Nearly Headless Nick cites WP:WEB by claiming it needs to have multiple sources, which is simply not true. WP:WEB clearly states that any one of the three criteria is enough for notability and in this case the third criterium applies. In short, there was no basis for deletion (in my humble opinion). --Livinginabox 03:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As mentioned above, a Norwegian magazine has published a chosen page of the comic, and not "just a mention of the name/site" but as content provided to the reader. A magazine specializing in fantasy articles and coming out 4 times a year thinks that this comic's content is worthy to occupy some of its space. That's a published work, however minor, and independent from The Noob books, so the WP:WEB criterion seems to be satisfied. Maurog 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is no criterion for inclusion. Content and review are absolutely different. The source you provide is in itself, not worthy of substantiating any article with – [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not worthy just because it is new and only 2 issues are out? In a few years when there are 20 issues, it suddenly becomes "worthy"? I may be with you on that, just trying to prevent a state of events in which something is referenced and/or published in written works but is not recognized as existing by Wikipedia. When I search for a subject on Wikipedia, be it an online comic or anything else, I expect to find information. I'm only here because I did, and I didn't. Maurog 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs to establish notability, buddy. Then only it is worthy of inclusion. It happens all the time, some articles just don't pass the WP:N threshold and then they have to be deleted. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
• I strongly suggest that Nearly Headless Nick actually read the WP:N before citing it, and responds with arguments based on actual Wikipedia policy! Notability has clearly been established according to WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability_(web). May I also remind him that "(..Notability..) is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" (source: WP:N)", so it's continued (re-)distribution on http://www.mmorpg.com/humor.cfm is enough for a notability claim, as very clearly defined in Wikipedia:Notability_(web). Also, this is not a discussion on inclusion, a clever attempt at sidetracking though, but a review of the deletion by Nearly Headless Nick himself. -- Livinginabox 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC) This was Livinginabox's third edit. Spartaz 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - it looks like it was a reasonable judgement call by Nick. Guettarda 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deletion and keep *As a casual Wikipedia user the continuing war against webcomics in Wikipedia raises concern in my mind. These comics are an essential critique of the exponentially growing subculture of online gaming. The noobcomic, although appearing trivial to an outside viewer is infact an insightful parody into the world of massively multiplayer online role playing games. It strikes this parody against even the oldest mmorpgs such as text-based mud's through to Ultima Online and to the most current of games such as World of Warcraft. Despite the contrary discussion above a simple search on google into 'the noob comic' reveals 899,000 hits and 'cliche quest' (the fictional mmorpg on which the comic is based reveals 598,000 hits [accessed 22:39 on 19/02/2007]; This seems highly indicative to the large interest in the article. I cannot understand the logic behind the removal of this article considering the comics social commentary value and its clearly wide appeal. Indeed removing it greatly diminishes the usefulness of Wikipedia as a source to Social Science students who may be studying the subculture and indeed the value of Wikipedia as an all-encompasing encyclopedia. Additional alarm is raised when considering the removal of this article when there was clearly a vote in favour of keeping the article even with the silent majority not being counted. I hope this article is reinstated soon as with the removal of GuComics article last week and any other webcomics which seem to be suffering a wiki-witchhunt at this moment in time. Concerned Wikipedia User —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.16.70

Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe the consensus was misread. Most people believed that merging the articles, either into their parents or into a single article, was the right way to go, but the closing admin decided it wasn't "practical" to do so and just went with "delete", because the list was indiscriminate. The delete votes were "listcruft" or "unencyclopedic" with no real strong reasoning, and none objected to a merge (some supported it). I believe the list is not indiscriminate (and cannot see where it qualifies as such), I believed the closing admin overlooked consensus improperly, and I believe there was doubt here, and when there is doubt, do not delete. I would like to see this and the other articles involved in this AfD overturned so that they can be merged. UsaSatsui 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, the admin acted on his own opinion, not the concensus. If he wanted to argue it was impractical he should've done so in the AfD. Sockatume 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. "Impractical" is not a valid reason to go against consensus. Consensus was clearly for Merge, not Delete. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Merging was more than practicle (sic) enough to do. (jarbarf) 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; the closing admin actually did close it as a merge but deleted the edit where he did so. I don't believe the listing of difficulties should be kept, but a simple list of songs in a game based on music is not a problem. --NE2 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As I learned in my delrev for United States Presidential trivia it is possible to protect the redirect to preserve edit summaries for gfdl licensing impracticalities, while still meeting community concensus for merging the article into others. The concensus was extremely clear for merge Jerry lavoie 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, weakly. A merge was impractical because the articles were gigantic already, and merging them was ludicrous. The closer didn't get that point across particularly well, but the correct decision was made (there was as strong an argument to delete as to merge). Proto ► 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does turn out these articles are impossible to merge, then I would support a deletion without question. I just think the attempt should be made first. --UsaSatsui 09:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. Consensus was to merge, and I see no reason why that could not have been accomplished. RFerreira 08:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid closing argument. Kusma (討論) 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, valid and strong reasoning. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, `'mikka 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid reasoning. The impracticality of merging these articles anywhere is one of the reasons I nominated them on AFD to begin with. The result would be several incredibly long articles, or one article that would be one of the longest on this Wikipedia (the SuperNOVA list had previously been fourth on that list). --Coredesat 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's valid reasoning, I'd like to know what the thought process was...he looked at it, said "Can't be done", and left it at that? I also can't see the logic behind "This is getting too big, let's axe it". Wikipedia is not paper.--UsaSatsui 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from closing admin: Many AfDs get a lot of merge opinions because people are reluctant to delete. In many cases, and many AfDs that I've closed, it doesn't appear as if people have actually considered what to merge and how the merge would be performed. In this case, the sheer size of some of the lists makes merging them into the articles impractical—the articles will be overwhelmed by the merged song list. Once an article is merged it is deleted (blanked actually because of GFDL), and only one person said the lists should be kept. That leaves delete as the viable consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for giving an explanation. I disagree that people vote "merge" because they're too afraid to vote "delete". To me, it says "I want to keep, but not in this format". I also agree that while merge was the consensus, there was a disagreement on where to merge it too. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't reword my phrasing. I didn't say they were afraid. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Either way you phrase it, it works out to the same thing: you're considering "merge" to be "I want to delete, but I don't want to actually say delete". Unless you'd like to clarify your comment, because that's how I read it. --UsaSatsui 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposed merge was not into the articles, but into one list with all the duplicates unduplicated. --NE2 06:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your comment makes me wonder if you read the AfD. There are 5 suggestions to merge into the parent articles (what my comment above references); one comment favoring merging into the parent articles, but also supporting a merge into a single list of songs; 2 suggestions to merge into a single list of songs; and one suggestion to merge all of the articles and all of the song lists into a single article. Frankly, it doesn't matter which one of those you want to consider, merging is impractical. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI have a suggestion: The main disagreement seems to be on the viability of merging, either into parent articles or into one article, and nobody really agrees that the articles should be kept as they were anyway. Let me try it: put the pages into my userspace and let me see if I can do anything with them. I do have a couple of ideas. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a very workable suggestion. Balancer 10:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This was a fully sourced article that met WP:V, there was a clear majority for keep and the article referenced notable sporting achievement. Yes, it still needs work, but that is the way with stubs. Simply, a wrong admin decision. Overturn and Keep. Bridgeplayer 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Text recreated here – User:Bridgeplayer/Hillcrest Christian School. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per above. Also, if anything, the closing should've been at least no consensus according to the debate--† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate schools, but we have repeatedly shown that there is no consensus to delete them. Undelete this and move on.--Doc^g 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia works by consensus, and a consensus did not exist to delete this decent article. (jarbarf) 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I was so expecting this to come to DRV. Although the outcome of this debate was no consensus, I endorse the deletion as I strongly stand for the reasons I gave when I nominated this for deletion. No user provided sound arguments against those reasons.--Húsönd 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read this post (and the thread that follows) on Slashdot if you don't think any "sound reasons" were provided. (jarbarf) 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read positions such as those in the thread countless times. Supporters of high school articles often reduce the issue by saying that those articles are useful and harmless. Wrong. They are useless, as the information they possess is almost always unencyclopedic material that should be hosted on the schools' websites instead, such as timetables, teachers, addresses, POV reviews, etc., and they are also harmful as they waste precious recent changes patrollers' time with the huge amount of vandalism they receive and dubious edits that are hard to decide whether to revert or not.--Húsönd 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but you and I must have been reading completely different articles then. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. (jarbarf) 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not news for me...--Húsönd 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I may though suggest high school supporters to become active vandalfighters. That would be really useful for them to understand why so many people are against these articles.--Húsönd 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hogwash. Feel free to review my past 500 edits, many of which are vandal reverts. Vandalism is widespread all around Wikipedia and is hardly a reason to delete an article. (!) Any subject which someone feels passionately about (politics, religion, school) is vandalized. This should not be a surprise given the open nature of the project. I am surprised at the lack of respect for consensus though. (jarbarf) 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's really a moot point. Politician articles are among the most vandalized articles on wiki as well. Should we stop creating those? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion While I like good school articles that have real N, which roughly translates as something to say, most of them don't. and this is one of them. The total claimed N is a small share of local & state championships in a few sports. Any school that competes at all will occasionally manage that. The RS are very marginal: one is the college alumni magazine for the coach of one of the teams, the local site for an obscure sport, and a directory listing. And the teaching of spelling is not among the notable successes of the school DGG 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, "secondary sources" are trivial mentions and as such are properly disregarded. The school was mentioned in them in passing, as a place where a sports event happened to happen, a club happened to be formed, or a sports player happened to attend. There is not enough in them to support two sentences, let alone a comprehensive article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There is no reasonable way to conclude that the AfD for this article supported deletion. At best, it was "inconclusive". Consequently, the article was deleted in error, regardless of it's mertis. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. AfD followed due process, the notability concerns were not addressed. If someone feels like recreating the article with sufficient notability cited, there's nothing stopping them. Sockatume 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Has this school won any major (or even minor) academic awards? Athletic awards? Is it historical in some way, like being the first private school in Mississippi? The article as I see it in the userspace doesn't assert notability. I have no comment on whether to overturn or not right now, but I do have a reminder: AfD is not supposed to be a vote. --UsaSatsui 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn there was no consensus for this deletion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There is no consensus to delete schools, and keeping this debate open as the number of school articles heads into the tens of thousands is disruptive and pointless. Cloachland 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support Overturning. As the nominator of the article for the AfD said (Húsönd 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)), "the outcome of this debate was no consensus". Any time there is no consensus the result must be to keeping the article. Mathmo ^Talk 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Husond and Sockatume. The concerns of the nominator were not addressed, and schools can fall under WP:N (lack of a policy specifically regarding schools is not a reason to keep them). --Coredesat 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, no consensus to delete, no significant policy argument to override the lack of consensus, thus should not have been deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/ undelete no concensus for deletion. Very concerned about post above that says "Although the outcome of this debate was no consensus, I endorse the deletion"... are we just ging to throw out all rules here except WP:IAR? Jerry lavoie 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - yet another AfD closed with no clear consensus for delete and no rationale provided by that admin for his decision to ignore the numbers, eg if the arguments were much stronger for delete, then the decision must be explained.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, schools are not inherently notable, and the AFD failed to produce evidence of notability. Proto ► 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As it happens the school has had a number of state-wide athletic successes which indicate notability. However, that is not the point. We are not re-running the Afd but deciding if the AfD was properly closed. The closing admin went against the body of opinion and arguments and that is unacceptable without a good reasoned argument in the AfD closing. See Golden Wattle's well made comment above by another admin. Bridgeplayer 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and undelete. The closing administrator provides no insight or rationale as to why this was deleted, and there appear to have been signs of notability within the article anyhow. Silensor 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Unless I missed it, nobody in the debate indicated that they actually looked for sources to find out whether this school passes or fails our guidelines. So there was certainly no policy-based consensus to delete. So overturn. However, since the burden is to show that the school passes our guidelines, relist. Pan Dan 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have beefed up the Alumni in the user space version. We now have Mississippi's first junior Olympics finalist and a 2006 Miss Mississippi winner/fourth finisher in Miss America 2007 who got a commendation from the Mississippi Legislature while a pupil at Hillcrest. Bridgeplayer 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the arrival of new information, but honestly, the fourth finisher in Miss America brings as much notability to this school as she does to the market where she buys her groceries. The school has nothing to do with the award and it cannot be considered notable just because she happened to be a student there. Notability is not contagious. --Húsönd 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so, which is why notable alumni are in the draft schools notability criteria. However, a commendation by the state legislature while a student unarguably does bring notability to the school. Bridgeplayer 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - schools are notable, no reason to override apparant lack of consensus. --BigDT 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per above comments, I can see a fair case of notability being made for this school. RFerreira 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I believe schools are notable, if only because of the huge impact they have on their pupils (how many people reading this, for example, learnt to read at school?). I don't understand the crusade that some editors appear to be on - constantly demanding to know why schools entries should exist. There are plenty of entries on Wikipedia that I have no interest in what so ever (e.g. the thousands of article on US roads), so I don't read them. Why can't people do the same for schools? Markb 08:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mmm, I thought about it overnight. All schools are notable doesn't seem to be a valid argument to me. The article, in this very case, did not provide independent and reliable sources to validate a keep closure. However, in the interest of the encyclopedia - I would suggest overturning my decision because -

1. Husond has rightly said that these articles attract the largest amount of vandalism. Vandalism is good in everyway. It gets us new contributors.
2. Since many of our active contributors are teenagers and school going students, I believe keeping school articles would have a positive effect in getting these students to experiment and edit the encyclopedia. Students inherently like to edit their schools' articles.
3. Wikipedia needs to be professional, in my opinion. We are an encyclopedia and we would generally not list articles that do not provide good-quality reliable sources. If we were to include only schools that are nationally known in some country, or are internationally known, we would end up having articles only on a small percentage of them.
4. I would further like to suggest lowering the notability threshold for schools and have a concrete inclusion guideline for schools. Ref – WP:SCHOOL. Thank you, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The argument that 'this school is not notable in comparison to its peers' seems to me incorrect. By such a standard we should delete William Howard Taft for not being particularly notable in relation to other Presidents of the US... and the vast majority of city/state/country articles for not being particularly notable in relation to other such locations. Very few grade/high schools are significantly more notable than others of their kind... but every school is more notable than your average 'Joe Citizen'. The question then becomes whether a topic in general is considered notable or not. Presidents, countries, and even towns have been accepted as 'all notable'... even towns with populations less than some schools. I'd say that schools are also notable... pick almost any school and you can find hundreds of references to it in local newspapers. Usually spanning decades. That's notable. IMO the reasons people argue otherwise have little to do with notability and alot to do with the fact that many school articles are poorly written and heavily vandalized... but neither of those is a reason for deletion. If it's poorly written tag it for cleanup. If it is vandalized protect it. --CBD 12:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We are delving into the notability guidelines for schools here. The schools do not inherently pass WP:N. Cite anything from the deleted article that conforms with WP:V and WP:RS. They were all trivial sources with a transient mention of the schools. You might want to help out at WP:SCHOOL. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Notability guidelines should be set for schools, but I am inclined to think that schools should remain, especially if they are decent articles. Rkevins 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Administrator's closure did not reflect a rough consensus or invoke non-negotiable conditions. Balancer 10:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per the above. --Myles Long 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Russ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

"Nadia Russwas a fully sourced article. It was deleted with no reason. Need recreation. 2:47, 15 February 2007, Mount 135 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.88.88.200 (talk)

Key points raised in AfD were "little indication that the artist has had much impact beyond a small circle of friends" and "most sources are unreliable, trivial, and/or unrelated to the subject of the article". These need to be addressed here. Sockatume 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, without addressing any such points-this is not round 2 of AfD. Clear consensus was to delete, no counterarguments were provided, nor new sources. AfD already addressed the triviality/unreliability of the original sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD was quite clear, no new evidence offered. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I think it is an abuse of this forum to posr article for delrv just because you disagree with those who contributed to the discussion. This is supposed to be for where you disagree with the admins determination of concensus of those comments. The debate had clear conscensus, so this delrev should be speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion.`'mikka 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion there's no reason to overturn the result of an AfD in which every opinion expressed supported deletion. Pascal.Tesson 15:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

Page was deleted after a number of sockpupet votes for deletion; sockpuppet votes for "keep" were discarded but sockpuppets for "delete" were arbitrarily kept; initial nomination for deletion was a publicity stunt and not legitimate. More information available here and here. --zandperl 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, due to abuse of process. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me. The process might have been abused. However, the point to relist is moot. The article explicitly pass the threshold of notability by providing multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to call for its inclusion. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So, in other words, you're going to stick to a clearly fraudulent vote, even though far more than half the delete votes were sockpuppets, and even though the nomination itself was a sockpuppet? I'm sorry, but not at least relisting this thing brings into question the validity of Wikipedia itself. At the very least, it proves that sockpuppetry is encouraged, and in some cases (for webcomics in particular), endorsed by mods and admins. -- Grev 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  AfDs are not votes. They are discussions and debates. It finally lies upon the closing administrator to gauge consensus by considering arguments based on policies and guidelines, while ignoring the WP:SPA trolls. We are not encouraging sockpuppetry and trolling here. Do you have independent, reliable and non-trivial sources for the article? If yes, please let us know. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't mean that we endorse sockpuppetry. If a sockpuppet says to do X, and they're right, should we then deliberately not do X and hurt ourselves, just so that they don't get to be right? -Amarkov moo! 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If the original AFD was handled properly, then a new one would reach the same conclusions, so there wouldn't be any harm in doing one purely to clear out the appearance of impropriety. If the original AFD was NOT handled properly, then a new AFD would absolutely be the right thing to do. There's no potential downside to relisting, only potential gain. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any evidence to prove that I did not handle the AfD properly? Or is it your own opinion and interpretation of policies? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is, at a minimum, the appearance of potential impropriety, which you did nothing to dispell when you had the opportunity to do so at closing, choosing instead to say only that it was deleted and redirected. If you had decided to disregard the opinions of the large number of SPAs, you should have said so. If you decided to use admin discretion to disregard the relatively large number of "keep" opinions, you should also have left an explanation of why at the top of the AFD, as is customary in such things. These two errors, when combined, have made things look VERY sketchy, when there was no need for this. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Think of it this way: If a guy was convicted in a murder trial, and it later turned out that some of the witnesses had perjured themselves, or that the medical examiner didn't actually have a medical degree, the defendant would get a new trial (even if he were probably guilty). It's the same kind of thing here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, nobody provided reliable secondary sources. If you have any, though, please tell us. -Amarkov moo! 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn and relistEndorse Deletion, original AfD was bad faith nom. Even if it's non-notable, we need a real consensus, Which I'm now convinced we can get here. Wikipedia is taking a publicity beating over webcomics right now, in case any of you haven't noticed, and if we allow "anyone can walk in off the street and delete anything" to be repeated enough times we lose all credibility. The more important issue is, WHY were there no {{spa}} notices on the original discussion? --Random832(tc) 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we need real consensus. This particular webcomic did not pass the threshold of notability. Do you have sources that comply with WP:V and WP:RS. If yes, please produce them, and if not, stop beating the dead horse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the place to relitigate the AfD. The deletion was tainted, it needs to be listed again, period. The original AfD also quoted as "consensus" things which are still being discussed, like WCCA notability. This whole thing raises serious questions about the deletion process, like the fact that only Keep votes get their contributions checked for {{spa}}. --Random832(tc) 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of interest and as a recent nominator (prod and AfD) of multiple webcomics: could you give some links to the "publicity" beating Wikipedia is getting right now? Fram 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to the article which precipitated this DrV, see http://www.websnark.com/archives/2006/10/time_for_the_ye.html --Random832(tc) 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but I thought so: the "publicity beating" we get "right now" is, apart from the thing that started this, a comment from four months ago. Using this as an argument to review this AfD is a bit strange. I don't mind restarting the AfD (nor do I mind letting it be despite the sockpuppets), but please don't overdramatize this situation. Fram 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and I thought this guy was going to put up something from CNN or BBC websites. Silly ol' me. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Comics Journal: http://www.tcj.com/journalista/ (search page for 'war on comics'). Also Fleen: http://www.fleen.com (look anywhere) Boxjam 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its Weblogs now, eh? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Guess I'll go nominate The Comic Journal for deletion now. Boxjam 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Join me, and together we will rule the galaxy. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More links from the Schlock Mercenary Blog: One, Two, Three, along with things the blogs link to. --Sid 3050 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Starslip Crisis won the WCCA in one category and has been nominated for numerous more categories, thus fulfilling WP:WEB ("The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. (...) Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.", and I think I have seen some arguing that WCCA Notability is not even vital since the award is very well-known in the webcomic world, but that is semantics). See also the long debate that makes it clear that the WCCA non-notability is NOT widely accepted consensus and may very well be overturned: WCCA DRV. --Sid 3050 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Source? Back up your contention with sources that comply with WP:RS and WP:V. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Source for what? That the WCCA non-notability is not consensus and that it may be notable? Click the DRV link. Sources for the WCCA included a NYT article, a radio interview and an episode of Attack of the Show. Sources that Starslip Crisis won the WCCA? Here. That it has been nominated for more categories? Newcomer, Black and White, Flash, Site Design and Writer (indirectly). Additionally, the 2007 nominations (winners to be announced) for Black and White, Site Design, and Sci-Fi. --Sid 3050 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are two sites, and very reliable sources they are. Please review WP:RS. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The 2006 pages were hosted off-site, but they belong to the WCCA (check the WCCA site to see where the 2006 link goes to). Your emphasis on "very" implies sarcasm, I assume. WCCA strikes me as a reliable source because it's now in its 7th year, it will be presented at Megacon this year, it has been (in my eyes and the eyes of quite a few people in the AfD and DRV) non-trivially mentioned in the NYT, AotS, a radio station, plus there is discussion about other sources (which ended up in a discussion about who or what is a notable source online). Maybe you should just follow the DRV link instead of smugly tossing guidelines around. --Sid 3050 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still not convinced. /me tosses a guideline onto Sid's head. Whee! I am leaving, guys have fun here! :D — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to throw my hat into the ring, there's a question of just who it's meant to be notable to. Using the general press as measures of notability of a subject is fine for popular subjects, but it would lead to the conclusion that Feynman diagrams are not a notable subject. On the other hand using physics literature to justify the inclusion of Feynman diagrams would perhaps be akin to using webcomics blogs to justify the inclusion of any given webcomics article. And then you've got to wonder whether a general readership actually gives a damn about either. Sockatume 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ...but it would lead to the conclusion that Feynman diagrams are not a notable subject. That example makes no sense whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While the example can of course be proven wrong, the basic point remains. An almost completely web-based medium is bound to receive most of its coverage online (except for the uber-major sites like Slashdot - even though the current Slashdot article does very little to prove notability... hm...) because most of its audience is online. Just like scientists don't wait for some newspaper to inform them of a breakthrough in their field. Completely and systematically dismissing web source notability is bound to lead to a Notability term that excludes web-based content almost by default. The only ways to be notable under these rules are getting a dedicated article in some major newspaper or to get published in some way (other than self-publishing). Either is fairly unlikely, and even the few that pass this high guideline are in danger of deletion (like Evil Inc. recently). --Sid 3050 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While the example can of course be proven wrong, the basic point remains. Nooo, that's kinda the point of "proving the example wrong". --Calton | Talk 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You proved a more or less poorly chosen example wrong and thus disproved the point behind it? I don't think it quite works that way. Feynman Diagrams have made their way out of research papers and into books, so the example doesn't really work well. Try more along the lines of things that scientists have just now found. Stuff that's not yet in widely available books. (Even then, it wouldn't FULLY work because I'm almost willing to bet money that Wiki has special rules for things like research papers - it would make sense and in a way is what this is all about.) Your reasoning right now is "Feynman Diagrams have been discussed in many books. Thus, web notability can be based only on the traditional press without the need to consider online sources as indicators for notability.". I'm not sure if you mean that, but that's what you got right now. --Sid 3050 01:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me the *fair* thing to do would be to relist temporarily, but put it up on VfD again immediately and ban Kristofer Straub for process abuse. DannoHung 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...what's Straub's Wiki account, and how has he abused process? *cocks head* --Sid 3050 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He abused it by making ten sockpuppets to show how easy it was to delete the article. absolute textbook WP:POINT. --Random832(tc) 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the info, I missed it completely. But why bring it up here? I'm sure that there are proper places for such things. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the way this AfD was handled, other than it being a possible reason for why this deletion had been a form of retaliation... correct me if I'm missing the obvious, I'm genuinely confused. --Sid 3050 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevermind. I didn't know that this AfD had been started by one of his puppets. (Yes, I didn't check the second link in the nomination there. *hangs head in shame*) *laughs* Good one XD Err, I mean, BAD! Bad Straub! --Sid 3050 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh - it was pretty funny, but a clear violation of WP:POINT. Anyway, checkuser has confirmed the status of all but one of the socks. I have to wonder where the guy who's always putting {{spa}} tags in webcomic AFDs was when this was going on. Anyway, I've changed my !vote. --Random832(tc) 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This needs to be debated without distractions and abuse.--Eloquence* 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.
• This makes me wonder whether we need more solid guidelines for closing AfDs. There were a handful of strong points made for keeping the article which were not countered. There no clear concensus to delete and I suspect the closing admin may have (with egregious wrongness) treated it as a vote. Sockatume 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and relist per the apparent abuse of process. (jarbarf) 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As an aside, because this seems to have escaped a lot of people: AfD IS NOT A VOTING PROCESS. VfD WAS. THAT'S WHY THE NAME WAS CHANGED Sockatume 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, most "delete" arguments were properly formed (lack of secondary sources, unverifiability) while most keep arguments were poor and properly discounted (ILIKEIT, GHITS, It's popular!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist. Not sure there was consensus, but it appears there was a lot of nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, and there is no sign that the closing admin was sock-puppet vote-counting rather than closing based on valid discussion of policy.There is also no sign that the sock puppets unduly influenced the discission, since the silliest of the sock ideas (such as "Delete ... Straub hasn't even been invited as a guest to conventions") were rejected. I see no reason to allow the sockpuppeteer to WP:POINT disprupt wikipedia by relisting the article. In the end it doesn't really matter if the socks were socks or new users as there is no ballot box to stuff. -- Dragonfiend 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point, there. No matter who made it, he made a compelling case for the deletion of the article. However I'm still not sure that all relevant Keeps were dealt with, although you've got to wonder where you draw the line. Sockatume 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request from likely closer Can someone who believes that sock puppets were an issue in the AFD close make sure this dicussion has a clear link to the evidence of suckpuppets - for example, the checkuser case? It will make my life easier come closing time. GRBerry 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume this is it: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Salby, also check the second link in the DRV nomination, it links to the guy behind the Keep Delete (sorry, my brain broke there) socks stating the what and why. --Sid 3050 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) + Sid 3050 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one more, related for at least one opiner. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad. GRBerry 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, I am a fan of Straub's work and do not wish to see anything he has created sullied by any association with Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.135.126.29 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Overturn not on the basis of sockpuppetry, but contingent on the fact that those moving to delete did so on the theory that Starslip Crisis did not meet the notability standards of WP:WEB because the deletion of the WCCA article meant that the WCCA were "non-notable," and therefore did not qualify as an independent and well-known award. To quote WP:WEB:web-specific content are deemed notable if they meet any one of the following criteria ... 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Claims that the WCCA is not well known and independent on the basis of "non-notability" cannot be considered to hold true, particularly if the WCCA article is undeleted as seems likely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balancer (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  Concur, the discussion seemed to swing on that to a degree, so that leaves more than a few Keeps up for debate. That's a good enough reason for a recreation of the article and (IMO) a relist to address those points. Sockatume 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While Balancer did spend a lot of time talking about online awards, meanwhile other editors were talking about things like "What we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. " Actually meeting our policies was never addressed by anyone wishing to keep the article. -- Dragonfiend 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB are the official guidelines specifically developed to deal with applying WP:N to online content. You might want to read through them sometime. Balancer 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your input; I helped write WP:WEB, so I have read through it quite a few times. That guideline is not, and was never intended to be, a replacement for every other policy and guideline on wikipedia. -- Dragonfiend 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why does WP:WEB have the award rule then? It's apparently not fulfilling policy, it effectively gets brushed aside, so am I right to assume that WP:WEB in its current form is flat out wrong? And since you helped to write it, why did you never take that rule out? It had been in there for more than a year. --Sid 3050 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist on AfD. Too many potential irregularities with previous AfD. Nick should not be held accountable for this, as no one person is able to forsee all potential abuses of process. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Definitely an attempt at disruption to try to prove some kind of point, but not done very well. No point in rerunning the process for the same result. --Calton | Talk 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist no consensus, no rationale provided by closing admin for ignoring vote numbers--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/ Relist the integrity of the AfD was polluted by fraud. It is impossible to determine the proper outcome from it. It would not hurt anything to relist it, and it would ease concerns over impartiality and socks. Jerry lavoie 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There's no need to relist; this whole travesty was a blatant violation of WP:POINT from start to finish. Put the article back, and if someone still legitimately feels that it doesn't belong here, it can be renominated and all sides checked for sockpuppetry. Rogue 9 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep The WCCA is the major webcomic award, to ignore that notability is absurd. Please note that the WCCA deletion itself is also up for deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_11, and if that is overturned a major argument about deleting this article is nullified, almost requiring a review. Timmccloud 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've declared the entire nomination and deletion debate void ab initio and reinstated the article. This is not a situation where the process was affected by some irregularity and the question is would the outcome have been the same absent the irregularity; the situation here is that the entire nomination and debate were corrupted and permeated by bad faith and abuse from their inception. Nothing useful can come of trying to salvage any portion of what happened here. Leaving the article deleted on this record is out of the question; overturning and relisting would be inappropriate because there has never been a good-faith deletion nomination; even overturning and keeping would be inappropriate because there was no good-faith deletion nomination or opportunity for discussion. If concerns about notability remain, there should be a new nomination and discussion without reference to the earlier debate, which should be treated as if it had never existed. I will note that I made that decision before I saw this deletion debate, but I would have done the same thing in any case. This is not, of course, a criticism of Sir Nicholas, who closed correctly based on the views that were available to him, or any participant in the earlier discussion or in this review other than the nominator and those who used sockpuppets in the worst abuse of a Wikipedia process that I have ever seen. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous only in death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article needed cleanup/review, not deletion. The discussion was fairly split evenly (as noted on the deleter's page). I feel the problem is about scope & specificity not the title or concept behind the list. --Duemellon 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion Unless the entries all had references from an WP:RS confirming that they had become famous after death then its hard to see how this could have been anything other than Original Research. --Spartaz 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, fair interpretation of the debate. Arbitrary and subjective. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The Administrator, in closing, decided delete when there was no clear consensus for delete. When queried as to his decision making, the admin declined to comment, ie did not put forward the proposition that the merits of the delete arguments outweighed those of the keep arguments. The issue is perhaps that there is lack of shared understanding as to what "rough consensus" might mean. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus perhaps gives insufficient guidance. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). 56% in favour of delete seems to fall outside the current understanding, the result should have been no consensus unless the closing admin articulated his reasons otherwise. If the closing admins had perceptions, perhaps he should have been contributing to the AfD and leaving it for another to close. The debate was opened 9 February, the standard to close is roughly 5 days (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_lag_times), there would have been little harm in letting the discussion go just a little longer.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has very little to do with numbers. It has to do with the validity of argument. There could be 99 people making a nonsensical claim "X" while only one person makes an insightful, reasoned claim of "Y". The "Y" would carry the debate, even though it is only 1%. If both sides are well reasoned, rational views, and no solution can be found through discussion then the result is "no consensus", and the numbers do not matter. -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your guideline or policy supporting the view - it does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia:Consensus which is policy. Moreover my objection is that the deleting admin failed to advance any argument for ignoring the numbers, even when questioned. No consensus by the way (which is what I think it was) means don't delete.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion reasonable and fair evaluation of the debate. Jerry lavoie 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Agree with closing admin. List is also, like Guy said, too arbitrary and subjective. Garion96 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As is often said here at DRV, "AfD is not a vote". This means that administrators weigh arguments as policy when determining the outcome of a debate not just raw (or even adjusted) numbers. In this case the fact that there is no clear numerical consensus does not mean that a close based on the broad consensus enjoyed by policy and guidelines was mistaken. Eluchil404 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a head-count, well within closing discretion. Daniel.Bryant 06:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, but only if there is no prejudice to recreation in a better form. There has been some serious work put into this list, but it also seems that there was resistance to making the improvements necessary for it to become encyclopedic. Renamed, reorganized, with good criteria, sources and citations it could be made acceptable. If anyone wants to make an attempt at resurrecting this list, I'd be happy to provide them with the deleted list to cannibalize. Most good articles and lists start out as defective, flawed articles and lists. -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with plenty of prejudice against recreation in any shape or form - a bundle of WP:ILIKEIT votes do not a consensus to keep make, or a even a no consensus. The worst thing was the way in which people seem to think "notable" is any less subjective than "famous": it isn't. For starters, what definition of "notable" do you use without falling into original research? Within administrative discretion. Quite apart from that, a list like this could become absolutely vast and unmanageable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, `'mikka 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endore relist The actual title of the page belies it's intent & application in practice. The criteria for determining the degree & intensity of the fame has been created & was being debated well before the proposal for deletion came up. The criteria, indeed, is much more specific than the title states. Fame does NOT have to be as subjective nor original research. There doesn't have to even be a consensus regarding the fame of an individual to be included. The list is useful and can be done without opinion, if criteria is agreed upon & specific enough. I vote it is reinstated but after or only when interested parties make a concerted effort to develop criteria which reduces the chances for opinions & POV. --Duemellon 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The arguments for deletion were much stronger and carried the day. I also doubt that any recreation can be capable of fixing the problems with the premise of this article. — coelacan talk — 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse The discussion on the AFD could be taken as a rough consensus to delete, IMO; although more explanation would have been valuable and a "no consensus" result would have probably been most appropriate, the action was defensible. Re:Supermajority and Golden Wattle, there is a point to be made in terms of general AFD policy. Balancer 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per my comments as nominator and per echoing what's been said above. Otto4711 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Another of those arbitrary deletions of good and - yes, useful work. <KF> 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Maya Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Torry Castellano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Brett Anderson (The Donnas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Speedily deleted as db-band, but this person was a member of The Donnas, a notable band, at the very least this article should redirect there. Deleting admin Brookie declined an undeletion request. Catchpole 08:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merged reviews for the three people; no need for separate discussions, all opinions to date in the other two were of the form "see Allison Robertson discussion below" GRBerry 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - this piece had already been deleted last year by another Admin. This "article" conisted of one bare sentence that completey failed to establish any notability. Looks like band pushing to me. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, "notability by association" isn't. If the article can be recreated in a way that shows why the individual (not her band) is notable, someone should, else she should be covered in the band article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect each to The Donnas. Notable band, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they all have articles someday, but the deleted ones were A1 cases that shouldn't be undeleted. I see no reason not to redirect though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you'd be justified in being bold and just setting them up as redirects. It's not like the possibility of redirecting was raised and dismissed in an AfD. If anyone does object, blame me and point them at this comment. Sockatume 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all, assertion of "notability" provided, and that's all it needs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Unclear that any of them are truly notable other than by association with The Donnas, and the articles themselves were essentially stubs. Therefore, redirect as appropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, per Seraphimblade. Halo effect is not credible. Feel free to re-create with credible assertions of independent notability in the shape of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion you do not need the decision overturned to make redirects, you just need to press the edit button. I give you permission. Don't wait for this delrev to be over, JUST DO IT. Jerry lavoie 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be so bloody patronising. I would like the articles undeleted because they were incorrectly deleted, the fact they could be redirects is just another reason why the deletion decision is strange and a text-book case of WP:BITE. Catchpole 07:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Temper - Temper - intemperate outbursts are hardly helpful! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 10:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Brookie and Seraphimblade. There is no need to restore a vacuous article to history behind the appropriate redirects. Band members shouldn't have independent articles until they can establish independent notability. Eluchil404 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion `'mikka 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Stamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Dennis was actually a fairly notable wrestler in Texas and Florida in the 70's. He held numerous (10) N.W.A. championships and was even featured in Sylvester Stallone's movie Paradise Alley in 1978. Because of his somewhat dubious appearance in Beyond the Mat in the late 90's he has gained a bad rap as fancruft, but I think he is really a valid notable part of wrestling history from the 70's in the South. Jamestrepanier 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if you can source your statements. The article that was deleted does not seem to have mentioned them. -Amarkov moo! 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and that means unsalt the thing. If you can provide sources. -Amarkov moo! 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion None of the attempts at a biography in the article's edit history contain either sources or an assertion of this person's notability. This request also fails to contain both of these essential qualities for a notable biography. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• James, if you can provide some reliable sources to back up what you are saying I agree that the article should be restored. (jarbarf) 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was a clear concensus to delete. Until the points raised in the AfD are addressed (I suggest using the article's Talk page, and this space here, to coordinate this) there's no reason to undelete. Sockatume 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus in AfD, no new evidence offered. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment duplicate nomination created on tomorrow's log page. I've moved the information not already here to the article's talk page, as it was in my opinion too long and too poorly formatted to be included here. GRBerry 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with no predudice against recreation. If a properly cited NPOV article can be created IAW WP:BIO. Perhaps make it in your userspace, then ask an admin to unsalt it, then move it. Jerry lavoie 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have provided the evidence and sources at Talk:Dennis Stamp Jamestrepanier 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Jamestrepanier 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice. There was absolutely nothing improper about the closure. Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Puff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

My apologies for bringing this back to DRV, but I was bothered by it's second close. This AfD was first closed by a non-admin as a "speedy keep", which was reversed since it there were valid objections. The second closing, by admin Wizardman (talk · contribs), was a keep. My problem is that the keep argument was extremely weak; all the keep supporter were claims "She's a major character!", without showing any reliable sources that prove these claims or show any other notability of the character. The delete/merge arguments were grounded in policy (namely WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FICT), and the keep voters did not address any of these problems. Considering the strength of the arguments, I argue that the AfD result should be overturned and the article deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my dispute. Based on what WP:FICT says, I'd put Mrs. Puff as realtviely borderline between major and minor, leaning towards major. Having watched Spongebob regularly, she appears rather frequently and would be worthy of an article under WP:FICT. WP:RS really needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it is far more difficult to find them with fictional characters. WP:V is a difficult issue with fictional characters, as the only way to verify mot information is to watch the actual episode. that being said, the article does have some sources in it now, and I would keep the article again given the chance. endorse keep --Wizardman 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, since there was an assertion that she has real-world significance, and that claim deserves a chance to be substantiated. I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable overturning such an overwhelming keep count of established editors, either. -Amarkov moo! 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep, there were a lot of voters on it. Only one made a plain delete vote, and even that one in the comment afterwards suggested alternatively merging it. There is not one person on that AfD who was strongly for deleting. I think the consensus was very clear to the admin when the decided to keep it. Mathmo ^Talk 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the WP:RS concern I cannot see any real concerns which would make me call the article unverifiable. The Spongebob Squarepants series itself is a valid primary source reference of the existence and events concerning the character, and the entry on Nickelodeon's site is not independent but does qualify as reliable enough. Self published sources in articles about themselves is valid. The issue of the notability of fictional characters is decided on a case-by-case basis and the inherent subjectivity involved in making such determinations means that notability is not as hard a rule as WP:V or WP:NOR in the terms of overriding community consensus. On this AFD there was a clear consensus to keep this article and WP:FICT guidelines are relevant so arguments relating to the character's importance are perfectly valid. Wizardman's close was the only correct call. Endorse closure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, I am curious about something. 'Keep' voters on fictional character/elements, claim the character is "major" as if there is some kind of inherent subjectivity involved, as you say above. However, WP:FICT states that all characters should be kept within the main article on that work of fiction, regardless if it is a major or minor character. And that a major character can have its own article if it has "encyclopedic treatment" (ie. Out-of-universe perspective) and the main article is already too long. I take that to mean that a character would need to have (at the very least) one secondary source that describes it outside of the in-universe context. Am I missing something? Also, WP:RS concern is not about unverifiable info, it is about finding a reliable source (ie. non-promotional) saying she is a major character, or notable enough to mention (certainly SpongeBob is written about in academics and the press, but Mrs. Puff?). --maclean 01:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, since I don't see anything wrong with the process here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per WP:SNOW. Wooyi 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden-Road.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Golden-road.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Golden Road.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page about a site that was deleted due to being hightly biased and written poorly. I would like this reviewed. Jeff Defender 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep current version. Jeff Defender 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - The reasons given for this review as stated by Jeff Defender are fabricated and distorted. If one examines the previous AfD, it is obvious that article was deleted simply due to Notability requirements not being met. This is why the article was initially nominated for a speedy deletion today, until someone pointed out that it had already been deleted a little over two weeks ago due to an obvious consensus in an AfD. Also, the User:Jeff Defender account appears to be a sockpuppet created only to resurrect the Golden-Road.net article. This user has demonstrated a great deal of understanding of Wikipedia policy that a new user would not possess in such a short amount of time. Jeff Defender would seem to have little NPOV in regards to this article. Hatch68 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - I seriously doubt our site is notable enough outside the Price fan community to warrant a Wikipedia entry, and even if it were, the article as it existed two weeks ago was a badly written piece of junk that was probably beyond the point of salvaging without a complete rewrite. I know of at least four other site staffers besides me who feel the same way about this, so...yeah. -TPIRFanSteve 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and rewrite redirect. The owner must of felt that the site was not getting the respect it deserved in the first time around. --KP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karim Prince1 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  i agree that User:JzG's suggestion is the best course of action. Karim Prince1 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and rewrite. The fact that the site takes viewers behind the scenes plus the fact that it gets tons of hits each day is more then enough to make it notable. Most game show buffs would agree. As for Hatch68's claim against Jeff, it's possible the user might have read policy a long time and then created the new name. Notibility is a difficult factor to be neutral about. In any case, his reposting was not malicious. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - The page has been restored (yet again) since its speedy deletion yesterday, despite a specific request to the contrary from the Webmaster of golden-road.net. He recognizes that his site is not wiki-notable; that should end the discussion. If the poster immediately above me plans to fill the new article with phrases like "tons of hits" and "most game show buffs," I doubt he'll be able to improve on the old one. I'm an active participant on g-r.net, but this page (in any form) is simply fancruft. JTRH 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  no, I don't. I plan to state that the site provides extensive information, is visited by many former contestants. The point it that the page was originally deleted because it was highly biased. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another false statement that is not based on the original AfD dialogue. It was deleted because it did not meet the notability requirements, plain and simple. No where in the AfD discussion is "bias" mentioned. Hatch68 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, valid closure. If you want to create a better version in userspace (with sources and assertions of notability), then review that one here, go wild. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm the admin who recently speedied it as a recreation of an AfD'd article. I've just done so again and protected it against recreation. If/when Deletion Review decides that it can get a rewrite, an admin will need to unprotect the article. A note should also then go on the talk page informing any future potentially "deletion happy" admins that it's been resurrected via DR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I hoped for a better outcome, I posted altered {{deletedpage}} on a couple of variations. The first one was not edited, so full protecting isn't nessecary. I'd semiprotect, though since all recreations were done by new users. NoInsurance (chat?) 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and redirect. The owner doesn't mind whether or not his site is listed on WP, so a good compromise is to redirect it to The Price is Right where is it referenced. 148.4.32.14 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, i checked the site today and marc, who launched the site stated he's not interested as to whether this is listed on wikipedia. I'm sorry if i mislead anyone, but as of now i will have nothing further to do with this. Jeff Defender 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc did NOT say "he's not interested," he specifically asked that people NOT keep trying to revive the page.JTRH 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (sole reason for keep appears to be that it could act as a FAQ for the site, which is absurd), allow redirect, which seems unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. Process was followed. `'mikka 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion, but Redirect per Guy, but restore the history and protect as redirect to allow users to see why it was deleted. 63.116.153.5 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion no notability, although a funny site. Wooyi 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and redirect, per Guy (Help!). Hendry1307 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, if notability means the site is referenced by a non-trivial source, then I will cite this site as one of them. 208.120.75.157 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per above. If the page needs to be deleted again, we'll do a second AFD. Jim Pooele 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, pretty notible as far as TPIR is concerned, too bad it's not an official site. In case you're wondering where all the newbie comments are coming from, see this link. Axiomm 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bwebliesl.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Image Copyrighted:FreeUse Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin is removing picture of Bio subject(CopyrightedFreeUse) without stating reason, during ongoing AfD discussion, then protects page, thus stopping addition of picture.Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is here. It's called CSD I3. Endorse deletion as a blatant speedy candidate. Daniel.Bryant 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Which portion of CSD 13 does this fall into, please? Captain Barrett 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep-I just uploaded the image to the creative commons with the proper copyright attributes. I should have done this before, but I'm still learning. :) Captain Barrett 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This one, and this one. Daniel.Bryant 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThanks :) If I did say it was only for wikipedia use initially, i was incorrect. I have now asserted a Fair Use claim, based on standard wikipedia procedure. Thanks again for your attention to this matter.Captain Barrett 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the letter i and a 3, not the number 13. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid I3. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - That picture (as all of his pictures are) are free for _any_ use, commercial or otherwise. Does not fall into section I3. Thanks MacGyverMagic for being the first person to explain :) Captain Barrett 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion per above reason, obviously free image, even not free it is fair use cuz it is the only picture available (thus irreplaceable) to illustrate this guy. Wooyi 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

A relatively new admin closed this discussion as a clear delete, even though there was very limited participation. Based on my read, it seems to be either a no consensus, or something that should have been left open for more comments. --Elonka 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion — the argument was split down the middle by the few who participated, which means there was no consensus to keep or delete. Therefore, the article is kept by default. Moreover, the article is/was in the process of being expanded and sourced, although there are already a few fairly reliable sources. For these reasons, I feel the article should be returned. — Deckiller 09:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, there is a conflict of interest situation here – [3]. The article tried to assert notability, but fails to fulfill WP:BIO by providing multiple reliable sources. The Washington Post link does not work, the other two make transitory mentions of the subject. Keep deleted. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link works fine for me: [4]. — Deckiller 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Plausible close per WP:BIO, limited participation is not a good reason for overturning since AFD debates don't have a quorum. >Radiant< 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — WP:BIO states that a person is notable if it has been the subject of multiple (more than one) reliable secondary sources (explained on WP:BIO) that are independent of the person, with non-trivial coverage). I see multiple newspaper sources (Contra Costa Times, Jewish Weekly, and Washington Post), and in all three, this person is either the subject or one of the primary subjects. Moreover, there are two other sources; one a website, another with similar significant coverage. Also, the person has performed in TV shows which, obviously, have significant coverage and viewing (loosely based on the final optional criteria). I feel that it passes, albeit somewhat weak. — Deckiller 11:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually hold the mere existence of an article in the Post as a good argument for keeping, but in this case, it's not so much an article as a short, local, "What's On Guide" (the dates and prices give it away, IMHO). The Jewish Guide wasn't really an article about him, just a brief mention in a similar guide/ranking thingy. yandman 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm surprised by is that this person performed on some extremely notable shows, yet he did not receive at least partial attention from a single article about him. That Post miniarticle is somewhat thin, but I still feel that there is just enough to cross the threshold and keep the article (especially if one adds google hits). On the other hand, this man has only recently become popular, so it might take some time before he catches more notice of the scholars and the reporters. Also, it might be possible to dig up other sources; we'll have to wait and see for the duration of this review (the page has been userfied). I'm not too concerned either way, although I'm glad to see additional discussion taking place now. Too bad it did not occur during the AfD. — Deckiller 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Seems to be a proper reading of consensus. 3 deletes (including nom); 2 keeps, but 1 keep is an acknowledged friend of the subject who presents no argument based on policy and the other keep is a weak keep based on borderline notability so "the article can grow". I don't think the keeps established their position relative to the deletes, so the consensus was fairly judged. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to appear like a comment troller, but I feel that Elonka established her keep well in comparison to W.marsh, who did not reply to her final reply. The second keep vote concerns me as well, but s/he was working with Elonka on the article and is a relatively new editor, which alone has numerous pros and cons. — Deckiller 12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure after other editors have agreed and the closing admin has made clarifications. Clearly, there is no need to be stubborn here. The article has been userfied for future potential. — Deckiller 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll try to be more verbose in my closing comments in future. Apologies. yandman 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that helps whenever the consensus is not obvious from the sheer numbers. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

GameTZ has been covered twice in GamePro and been the subject of a syndicated TV spot discussing online trading and bartering (the whole "multiple, reliable, unrelated sources" thing). It was the first game trading site (begun in 1996), spawning the creation of such well-known failures as Switchhouse. I do not see how that doesn't meet the notability requirements. On top of that, there was no consensus at all on what should have been done, so it should have been closed as "no consensus." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closing admin: Just a reminder, this is not a rehashing of the arguments on the AfD. In my closing note I stated that the case for notability made by the keep arguments were not convincing. The decision in this review needs to be based on whether my reasoning in determining consensus was correct. Other than this statement, I abstain from comment. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that you were incorrect as the items I mentioned clearly make the case. A TV spot and coverage twice in a major gaming magazine definitely qualify as multiple, reliable, and unrelated sources, and therefore I believe your reasoning was incorrect. I also stated that there was no consensus either way on the discussion as the arguments for deletion focused on the USA Today article, which was incidental to the main articles/TV spots used to establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid close and good judgment. Fails criterion #1 along with #2 and #3 of WP:WEB – The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself – Only a trivial mention on the USA today link. The other references are not independent, linked to GameTZ's own site. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this comes off as sounding rude, but are you even paying attention to anything I write? The USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability. You are acting as if the two mentions in GamePro and the TV spot aren't even there. They are (or were, anyway) clearly referenced in the article, and the USA Today mention is merely incidental to these others. I agree that the USA Today article does very little to indicate notability. I have never claimed that it did. In fact, I've stated several times (here and in the original AfD) that it's not being used to establish notability. I don't know how I can state this more clearly: the USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability, and in fact is not even necessary in the article as the WP:WEB notability requirements are very clearly met by the GamePro articles and the TV Spot. Again, I apologize if this comes off as rude as that is not my intent. It's just very frustrating to have people completely ignore these points and use other completely irrelevant points to "back up" their claims. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that GamePro is completely independent of GameTZ. They have no connection at all other than people who play games use both. The same goes for the TV spot. It was produced independently of GameTZ, and GameTZ had absolutely no influence on the content of the spot (other than having a member of the site be interviewed in the spot). How these can be construed as being linked to GameTZ is beyond me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not being rude and I appreciate that you cared to comment. The GamePro magazine you cite as source does not even look notable to be included, considering the state of the article. Moreover, there is a complete lack of multiple independent sources. Perhaps we interpret guidelines differently, I see this as a valid closure. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't (and shouldn't) judge one article based on how good another article is. Just because the GamePro article is not quite up to snuff doesn't mean the magazine isn't a notable magazine, and therefore good for use as a reference. There are plenty of notable topics which either have very short articles here or no article at all. And I still don't understand how GamePro and the TV spot don't count as "multiple independent sources." There are two of them, which make them "multiple," and they are both independent of GameTZ. Exactly how does that not qualify? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't judge one article based on how good another article is. The problem is GamePro itself is not a source that is covered by WP:V and WP:RS. Moreover, you are unable to provide us online links for an online portal like GameTZ.com to justify its inclusion. Should we take your word for it that it was published in some other non-notable magazine? And given a coverage that was more than trivial? Even if all zis was true, the article is still has trivial which do not justify its inclusion in anyway. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how GamePro is not considered a non-notable magazine. In terms of video gaming magazines, it's been around forever. Are you expecting a magazine that's the video game equivalent of the Journal of the AMA? Within this subject area, GamePro (along with EGM and a few others) is a notable source. Dstumme 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion, per points made by 日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}. The closing admin should have taken these points into account, they clearly mean it is notable. It seems maybe too much weight was given to considering other sources that are not the primary reasons for why it should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Seems to me that everyone got hung up on the USA Today article, while ignoring multiple other sources. Dstumme 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Go Magic Go is notable because it was started on Thursday, July 28, 2005, as the first podcast for magicians by magicians. One needs only to search "podcast" here and find dozens of informational entries for podcasts of note, some of which are as short as one or two sentences. Adam Curry has a page for every one of his podcasts in Wikipedia, not just the one that he supposedly birthed podcasting with.

In addition to GMG's notoriety as the first magician's podcast, they have been recognized by the magic community as such. They have hosted such great magicians and mentalists as Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer and more. The hosts themselves have been interviewed by Scott Wells on his live show at the IBM Convention, where they also served as judges for up-and-coming magic acts.

If you don't know who Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer, et. al, are... then that shows that you don't understand the notoriety of this podcast, its hosts and its impact on the close-knit and growing community of magicians.

The GMG entry should remain since the administrator trying do delete doesn't understand it. Just because Alphachimp is simply not aware of the significance this podcast has in the magic community, or the fact that it is growing every week.

--Indyhouse, magician and GMG listener

As a fan of Go Magic Go, I really was dissapointed with Alpha chimps decision. Go Magic Go is the first and one of the leading podcast concerning magic. We have been an increasingly popular podcast. I meet magicians who know me by the shirt I won from this podcast! My magic instructor found out about this podcast about the same time I did. Go Magic Go is an important resources for performing artists. Wikipedia is a great place where the users can add and collect data and history about this podcast as it continues to grow. I would like to see the correct title[s] unblocked also, it was an extreme disrespect to have to move to an improper title. Please reconsider GoMagicGo and Go Magic Go. Go Magic Go is the official title, however the YouTube account and myspace page is under GoMagicGo. Thanks! NordicSkier 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that the revival of this page could happen. Alphachimp deleted our page calling it unremarkable. Go Magic Go is the first magician's podcast, and has over 5,000 listeners. Magic is becoming very popular from magicians, such as Criss Angel and David Blaine, the number of magicians in the world are growing. This podcast serves to link the magic community together.

All of the Go Magic Go listeners are hoping you will change your mind about your decision, -The kid houdini —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The kid houdini (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion and salting, if not speedily. Various deletions were valid A7 or G11, and all appear to be valid. Various incarnations of the page violated various parts of WP:NOT, such as WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and WP:NOT#FORUM, and the various recreations were copypastes, making them subject to the very same criterion under which they were previously deleted. None of the versions assert notability per WP:WEB, and on the internet, 5,000 listeners isn't a remarkable number. Also, the fact that other magicians are notable doesn't make a podcast about them notable. --Coredesat 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, keep salted The fact that your podcast has a forum community willing to recreate your article over and over and over again does not mean that you are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Quite simply put, none of your revisions actually attempted to assert notability. I'd encourage admins to check out the deleted revisions. alphachimp 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. Serial and obsessive re-creation by editor with no other contributions invites scepticism. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, keep salted Unless some new sources can be found that are non-trivial, reliable sources then it should stay deleted. --sunstar net^talk 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to clarify that the podcast is not about these magicians, they listen and endorse it. The forum community is trying to recreate the page because we did not know of this deletion review. I think I found it. We accidenlty made another one when a listener tried to make a new page, but made it under the wrong name. how would we prove it is non-trivial? New sources? Reviews of the podcast, We just never linked you to them, I don't remember the sites, but I will ask around in the forums, If thats what you need. Have any of you seen mindfreak, a good number of the magicians who work with Criss, are supporters of our show including, Banachek, the man who fooled the scientists. We were in a german magazine. Here are some links. http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie01.jpg http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie02.jpg

We all still hope you will change your mind,

-The kid houdini

http://www.magician.org/webcam.html -- specifically: http://www.magician.org/videos2006/Scott_wells-sat/video1.rm -- approx. 33 minutes into the program taped live at IBM (International Brotherhood of Magicians), Andrew and Keith are interviewed by Scott Wells and recognized for their contribution to the magic community. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that the article was deleted before any outside sources could be added. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other references to GoMagicGo from other, "non-trivial" sources, they were never compiled into one place before, which is why I think the Wikipedia entry was started. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if adding the standard "internet-publish-stub" would help the entry? It should have been added to begin with. Like this entry, which as far as I can tell is less-cited than GMG: Polyamory_Weekly Indyhouse 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-UKGareth aka Garethwitty : Well I am very shocked at this deletion, what happened to Wikipedias goal of collecting as much information as possible about things like this? How can other magicans find GoMagicGo if its deleted! I ask that GoMagicGo be put back to its place so other users can and ad make the page MORE relevent. Well I wont be using Wikipedia again! I hate sites that go against freedom of speech! Now I am all for protecting agains vandalism of artcles, thats fine, but this, this is a joke! but I am not laughing. I am quite happy for my account to be closed if the mods here dont like what I have to say.

I saw that one of the podcasts I linked to as an example got deleted, so how about this one: Daily_Source_Code Indyhouse 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, I'm fine with 'pedia deleting any reference to Go Magic Go at all, for several reasons. (1) To keep Andrew's prediction (that GMG would be deleted) accurate. (2) The fewer people who learn about GMG, the less possible exposure there is. (Let 'em find Henry Hays' book!) (3) Wikipedia has shown a remarkable antipathy to magicians in the past, exposing and ruining many magicians' acts. (ex: Dave "Slim King" lost a recurring $1500 gig because of this "Let's destroy careers" attitude.) Let's celebrate.

-Granpa Chet

17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)~~

GU Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

From the deleting editors talk page

If GU Comics is irrelevant and lacks notability, then so do most other webcomics present in the Wikipedia free encyclopedia. The difference being if you contact Sony Online Entertainment and ask them what GU is they will tell you that GU was the first webcomic to cover their game, and powerful enough to have forced change in the way they related to their community after leading a player boycott of their products. We could however have John Smedley contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Blizzard makers of World of Warcraft about what GU is. They could relate to you how GU was the first webcomic to talk about their game and as such was invited as a guest of honor to BlizzCon to run a panel in conjunction with Mike Krahaulik and Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade and Scott Kurtz of PVP. Or we could have Rob Pardo contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Sigil Games, makers of Vanguard, about how they feel GU Comics is a vital and essential part of their community makeup. A site that can actively take in the voices of the community and translate it via the comic into criticism that is not dismissed lightly. Or we could just have Brad McQuaid contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Mythic about how they knew GU's influence and thus GU was one of the first sites they contacted to spread the word about their upcoming game Warhammer Online.

Or maybe the references to GU by GamePolitics.Com is enough. Because apparently they feel our take on certain aspecs of gaming is notable.

The simple fact is this, GU is considered to be a crucial element of the MMOG landscape. And the fact that every major MMOG Developer/Publisher out there knows our work and respects our commentary as the voice of the community makes us notable. Or we could just have our sizeable readership which includes CEOs, designers, developers, community relations people, PR firms, marketing firms to contact you on our behalf.

20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my above comment. Do not have anyone contact me. Personal and anecdotal knowledge is not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. Instead, please provide references to specific reliable sources, such as magazines or newspapers, that support these claims to notability. Alternatively, you may also request undeletion at WP:DRV, but such a request will likely fail if no reliable sources are provided for the comic's notability. Sandstein 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for being referenced several times, at least for World Of Warcraft, Blizzard Entertainment referenced this comic on their main page on (at least) 19/01/07 (verifiable via http://www.wow-europe.com/en/community/recent-communitynews.html). Additional references from the same source appear at http://www.wow-europe.com/en/community/news2006.html, at least on 08/12/2006, 25/08/2006 and 18/08/2006. The creator of GU Comics is neither a Blizzard Employee, nor does he excercise any kind of control over Blizzard, so i think these can not be explained as "Vanity Publishing" references. TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername 07:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Overturn WP:CSD#A7 Zz9pzza 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Zz9pzza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My account is not a single purpose account it was created becuase of an error in the page about UUCP. There is usually nothing I can usefully add to a discussion or document.

• Endorse deletion. The google cache shows that the article did not demonstrate or even assert notability, so it was deleted fairly. You may try recreating the article at User:Zz9pzza/GU Comics if you think you can demonstrate notability per our WP:N guidelines. Once this is done, the article can be re-evaluated. But at this time there is no reason to undelete. — coelacan talk — 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reposted it with references and links. Hopefully that should cover the basics. I am sure more links and references will be coming.--Breandán 09:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as deleting admin. See also the discussion on my talk page, now archived at User talk:Sandstein/GU Comics. Those inclined to recreate the article should follow the procedure outlined by Coelacan above. Sandstein 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The actual notability of the website is at this point immaterial, as the article under review right now clearly did not assert that notability; as such Sandstein acted effectively and correctly. Several people have since come forward for arguments for notability and suggested sources, but these should be added to the article, along with an assertion of notability, via the procedure outlined above. The comment above advocating an overturn, as well as many of the comments on Sandstein's talk page, simply miss the point that we are not debating the notability of the website, but rather the initial article's failure to assert it. --Tractorkingsfan 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why wasn't anything put on the articles talk page stating that it was currently lacking any assertion of it's notability? Why the speedy deletion instead of an AfD? Not even a chance to correct it. I've seen that before on a number of pages, someone places a warning that the page is lacking and will be deleting unless it is improved. Why not in this case? --Paul Barkley 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that too. It's definitely a courteous move, but not required. With all of the pages being constantly created, it's difficult to notify the creators of all of them when the pages meet the criteria for speedy deletion. But look, is it that hard to assert notability? You're writing an encyclopedia article, don't you think that you might stop to think why the subject of that article is important? Either way, it's part of the agreed upon criteria that articles assert notability. This one does not, as anyone who reads it can see. Therefore, it fit the criteria for speedy deletion. I just don't understand the complexity here. The article can be recreated, it hasn't been protected to prevent that, it just needs to follow the guidelines to avoid being speedy deleted and have sources to prevent an Afd. Why is it the fault of the deleting admin if the person who wrote the article didn't avail him/herself of the wealth of information available regarding the basic necessities for inclusion? --Tractorkingsfan 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines why is it the article's fault that contributors failed include what is deemed necessary for this entry (but not applied equally to other entries)? This item was not created or maintained by Me (Woody) and those persons responsible for adding the article may well not have not that such strictures existed as this is supposed to be an encyclopedic relayance of knowledge not a demi-hypocritical evaluation system given more to ignorance of the article's import than to accurate transference of relevant material. Whearn 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's fault? People write articles. These people didn't assert notability. And it seems pretty common-sense, at least to me, to say why the subject of the article you're writing matters at all. As far as other articles go I can't say, but please keep in mind that this debate is about this article, not other ones, and so continuously referring to that doesn't get anybody anywhere. As far as "ignorance of the article's import," the idea is for the author not to assume that everybody knows how important this comic website is. The notability of the website is highly "relevant material," and should have been included in the first place. That's all anybody here is saying. Nobody is claiming, or really cares, whether Woody or anybody else wrote or maintained the article. The article didn't assert notabilty, therefore it fits the speedy deletion criteria, as defined by Wikipedia (which is where we are). Thats all! How "demi-hypocritical" you consider this to be is similarly irrelevant, and if you want to debate that guideline, you can do it on the WP:CSD talk page. --Tractorkingsfan 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment You all seem to want to debate something different that what is being discussed in this particular forum. The question here is: did this deletion follow policy? The answer is yes, because it didn't assert notability, and that is the policy. For all the rhetoric regarding selective application of policy (which you can read about at WP:INN) and what Wikipedia is, in your opinion, "supposed to be," I haven't seen anyone effectively dispute that. If you have some kind of moral problem with the current policies, why don't you debate them on their respective pages? --Tractorkingsfan 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who put the article together, I can attest that A) it was not Woody who put it up (in fact, I don't think he was aware of it until I contacted him for permission to use an image), and B) I was unaware of the specifics of notability. That being said, the article DID reference many of the events that GU Comics had been involved in that were major events in the gaming industry, and a citation needed tag should have been placed long before a jump to speedy delete. If someone had let me or other contributors know that it needed such, they would have been provided as has already been done at User:Zz9pzza/GU Comics. Speedy deletion was a mistake in this case, and I believe the deletion should be reversed based on that premise, and the article re-evaluated.--Breandán 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion Until such time as all webcomics are held to the same criteria, no webcomic should be summarily deleted. It was my understanding, until today, that an encyclopedia existed as a source of information, and a free online encyclopedia served as the perfect platform of unending, readily available information not limited by ineffectual criteria. Beyond the immediate inconsistancy between purpose and actuallity, GU's entry, lacking trivial assertions of notability, deserved the opportunity to be corrected. Ignorance of GU's importance within the "notable" MMOG industry/community simply is not reason enough to speedy delete its article. From a statics standpoint Wikipedia constitutes less than 6/1000ths of a percent of GU's monthly traffic. So obviously, its existance in this database is purely for the purposes of disseminating relevant information which is what an encylopedic entry should be for. And as far as notability is concerned, GU's position as a notable item has nothing to do with its popularity and everything to do with the perceived merit of its commentary by genre related news sources and its relative importance within the gaming culture. Simply stated GU is more relevant than a wealth of other items still readily available at Wikipedia. Whearn 08:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Whearn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Overturn deletionNotability was partially established by references to many of the events that GU Comics had been involved in within the gaming industry, some of which were to be found in print, online, and even video media, and a citation needed tag should have been placed long before a jump to speedy delete was made. As the initial deletion is in question, the deletion should be reversed, the article reviewed, citation needed tags placed, and references placed appropriately.--Breandán 09:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion While notability was not as clearly established as it could have been, a citation template would would, IMHO have been the most drastic measure appropriate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn deletion While I might agree on the article not properly asserting its notability, I think the article subject (GU Comics) meets the criteria of being "famous" (see previously cited references and general support). As per Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments, "all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable". I think it is better to have an article about a notable subject that "needs work" (with the appropriate tag(s)), than to do not have article at all. Solf 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To support the claim of the being "famous" somewhat -- to the best of my understanding, Woody Hearn (author of the GU Comics) was made into Horizon MMORPG NPC "Hoody Wearn" at some point of time. Unfortunately the only information I have is from the GU Comics forums itself: http://www.guforums.com/archive/index.php?t-9025.html I hope someone can provide more independent information on this. Solf 11:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, pages must stand on their own; saying that since we keep some webcomics we must keep all of them is fallacious. >Radiant< 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion Using AfD and/or adding comments on the talk page should have been the first step. Outright deletion was not needed. Mikemill 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion Outright deletion of the comic is unwarranted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion per Mikemill. Mathmo ^Talk 08:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion We shouldn't keep all webcomics, but in the gaming community, this is an important one. I'm very disappointed it was speedied. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, article is well written and provide enough details. No AFD nomination. 70.107.9.150
• Overturn deletion and merge history with current article. The article has been reposted with what should be sufficient assertion of notability and citations, but the history is currently missing because of the deletion. Furthermore, the deletion was an improper speedy in the first place, because the article most certainly did contain an assertion of notability, referring to Woody's stature in the MMORPG development and player communities, garnered through his webcomic and related activities. It can be quibbled whether that's actual notability or not, but it's most certainly an assertion of it. Powers ^T 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this article, right? I don't see any assertion of notability in there, at least not of the comic, and not under any notability criteria I'm aware of. People, it's really quite simple. Per WP:CSD#A7, any web content article that does not clearly assert notability may be immediately deleted, period. No further notices, tags or procedures are needed. Otherwise, we'd be even more full of web vanity crap than we are now. Sandstein 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request closure. This DRV is now moot, as the article has been recreated with a sourced assertion of notability, and is thus no longer speediable. That's how the process is supposed to work, actually. Sandstein 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Messianic Judaism (edit | [[Talk:Template:Messianic Judaism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Administrator User:Avraham thought it was a clear consensus to delete, yet the only consensus was by those opposing Messianic Judaism outright - notably Jewish editors who have a history of bandwagoning Messianic Judaism deletions. Furthermore it didn't help that the VfD was included in a "list of Judaism related deltions" from which the noticably anti Messianic Judaism Jewish editing community could engage in a mass deletion support. Administrator should have recused himself from deleting the template since he is part of the same group, is obviously biased against Messianic Judaism, as he has voted to delete other Messianic Judaism articles before - that through true consensus were retained. Furthermore, this VfD was submitted out of process since there was a previous VfD of the same template which took place just two weeks before with a resolution to KEEP due to no consensus. Submitter of the new VfD did not go through this review process, but simply bypassed process and submitted a brand new VfD. Administrator did not acknowledge this in his decision, and is clearly biased against Messianic Judaism; and the only clear consensus that was reached in the VfD was only a consensus of non Messianic Jewish editors - whereas both Messianic editors and non Jewish editors were in favor of keeping the tempalte. This is an abuse of power. Those that are not Jewish voted to keep the article or improve it, and many of the non Messianic Jewish editors voting "delete" voiced a similar opinion to keep the template even though they marked their votes to delete it - and the admin should have counted their votes as "keep" instead. Based on comments and reasons for votes, an outright deletion entirely was not the consensus of any two groups. This is a clear example of the vast majority of one group exercising its censorship over and against the efforts of a much smaller group that simply can not field as many supporters for its pages without multiple requests for comment from those outside the debate. The Admin should have recused himself. The Template is extremely useful to readers interested in learning about other topics that relate to Messianic Judaism. inigmatus 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the admin probably slightly overstated it by saying a "clear consensus for deletion" when 8 different users had voted for keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi inigmatus,

Given that the previous TfD was 36-19 and this one was 34-8, I think it's a pretty clear decision. Your point about bandwagoning is taken, but by my (albeit quick) count, 10 of the votes to delete are from editors not associated with the Judaism project, while 6 of the votes to keep are from editors not associated with the MJ project. Even if you totally discount the opinions of editors associated with either project (which obviously shouldn't be done), that's still a 62.5% majority.

I agree that it should have gone to deletion review after the previous admin kept it despite a 65% majority to delete (which he called 'leaning towards keep'), but once this one got rolling it wouldn't have made sense to disregard it.

As to Avi's involvement, it didn't seem that any other admins wanted to touch the subject - the previous TfD stayed open for 12 days, and this one was on its 8th. Of course the thoughts of any other admin would be most helpful here, but as Avi was likely the only one following this TfD, his delete call on an 80% deletion consensus shouldn't be too controversial. Daniel^C/_T+ 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, the vote was 26 delete, 9 acceptible if significantly improved (either stated outright, in a roundabout way like "delete and recreate", or suggested in comments), 8 keep. The MJ community agrees that some of the criticism is valid, and indeed is working on improving the template. I think the 26-17 nonconsensus, combined with the out-of-process concerns, and the fact that people are actively addressing the concerns, should really tip in favor of keeping the template. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was adequate time for template adjustement to have been made during this process, during BOTH processes. That was not done. It is disingenuous to count those as "Keep". They stated that as the template stood, deletion is their choice. A completely different template (recreate) would be a completely different question. -- Avi 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an amazing observation Avi, since no one actually put forth any specific improvements during the discussion! Except for suggestions to delete listed articles based on a subjective POV that certain articles should not be listed on the template (and no one really gave any reasons except more POV), would have defeated the purpose of the template anyways. There were no IMPROVEMENTS offered. Just unsubstantiated POV. At least I provided SOURCES for the articles listed. No one disputed those sources. So again, why should the template have been deleted? This is POV censorship at best, and I will tell it like it is. I didn't see ANY good faith attempt to resolve the issue with any SUBSTANCE or SOURCING that discounted the sources I put forth - all I read were just POV comments upon more POV comments. The VfD was a show trial; and you should have recused yourself. inigmatus 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason demonstrating the inapplicability and impropriety of the template in question . Regardless, the issue here is process; which was followed. Create a new template substantially different from the one deleted, and it will be a brand new ball game. Further, your continued suggestion that I needed to recuse mysef is both against wiki policy allowing admins to close discussions in which they have voted, as well as, perhaps unintentionally, personally insulting. Shall we forbid you from editing Messianic articles because that is the faith you subscribe to? Shall we forbid you from editing Muslim articles because that is a faith you deny? You are either allowing your frustration to prevent you from thinking your comments through to their logical end, or worse. I will assume the former. -- Avi 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent deleter of MJ content, and your historical bias against Messianic Judaism, your involvement in the final decision is in question. This wasn't a simple matter of having voted and then being responsible to delete it and then for me to go "oh, well he voted against it in the first place..." no - this is a matter of your historical bias and involvement in deleting MJ content altogether. You should have known that your involvement in closing this VfD, should have been reconsidered, especially in light of the VERY LAST COMMENT and request for third party involvement, in the VfD discussion. inigmatus 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChristTrekker,

Delete and recreate is a significantly different concept from keep. I don't think anyone at all thinks that there is no place for an MJ template - see the first TfD discussion for examples. What's at issue is that those who voted to delete believe that in its previous form the template was unacceptable, and there were no efforts to bring it around to a state that is not inherently deceptive as to the position of MJ as it relates to Judaism. Many editors, myself included, fully support a recreation of the template in a more accurate form. There were various suggestions as to what that form could look like in the original TfD, none of which were followed up on, indicating that the previous template was unsalvageable. If and when you or someone else chooses to recreate, I guarantee that members of the Judaism project will be ready and willing to help. Daniel^C/_T+ 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say it was "deceptive" is POV. There is no substance to the "deceptive" charge; and this is the reasoning for 100% of the delete votes. This useful navigation template refering readers on Messianic articles to other articles "related to Messianic Judaism" was deleted based on a POV reasons that said the articles linked to it were not related to Messianic Judaism. Nothing substantiated was offered. Ever. Oh except for the sources proving that these articles WERE related to Messianic Judaism - those no one disputed. inigmatus 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi inigmatus,

I understand how this must be frustrating for you. You're the best contributer to the MJ articles, and have certainly put a great deal of excellent work into them. Please step back a little, and realize that the aim of this TfD was never to censor MJ, but to present it in a fashion that's acceptable from what everyone can agree is a NPOV. You've had many offers to help recreate the template, so please accept them in the spirit of cooperation that they're given in. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, thank you for your apparent understanding of my frustration. Your solution seems valid, only that the original design of the template has not been disputed: the template as it was designed by me, is to be a template showcasing articles directly related to Messianic Judaism and the terms, issues, subjects, and more that a visitor to a Messianic synagogue would encounter. This concept is not in dispute; since it appears on other religious templates. What was in dispute was that the articles I listed in the template "had nothing to do with Messianic Judaism" yet no one would provide a source as to why this is so when in fact I provided sources proving that they were relevant! That is my frustration. I want to see MJ articles and template improve in order to better assist the reader from an NPOV. But I can't do this if deletions of MJ material are proposed for no other reason than one's POV. I want substantial evidence and argumentation as to WHY certain articles could not be listed on the template as "relevant" to Messianic Judaism. No one provided any hard source, and worse yet, no one disputed the sources I provided proving otherwise! That is what is frustrating. Perhaps you can help - can you go back through the VfDs and post a list of disputed article names and the sources provided to substantiate such claims that they are "not relevant to Messianic Judaism" - or even better, can you go back through the VfDs and glean any noted disputes about the sources I provided proving each articles listed as being relevant to Messianic Judaism? If you could do that, then THAT WOULD be a good faith effort at improving the template and perhaps spark a reformation in how other Jewish editors should engage in the debates. inigmatus 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi inigmatus,

I'm not going to again point out the shortcomings of the previous template that have been highlighted by various editors for some time now. An offer to help create a new template is just that; please don't take advantage of it to try and prove a point. Daniel^C/_T+ 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ is admittedly a small community. It takes more than 8 days to come to a consensus regarding direction to take for changes. If we could "call a meeting" and get everyone's input right away, sure. But not when we're talking about a small number of busy volunteers. The three common criticisms were that the template was too similar visually to another, that it was too big, and that it contained too many things not specific to its purview. The first one is the only point that might be somewhat easy/quick to address, and to me it's the least significant. (But I'm a techie, not an artist.) The others would require more time, and would likely be a gradual process of refinement rather than a single massive overhaul for that reason. Now, whenever the template is recreated, it will have to be manually readded to wherever it existed before—tedious. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use Category:Messianic Judaism to find the articles, and then just transclude the article. It should take less than five minutes. Also, as a pice of advice, the larger the new template becomes, the more you want to think about in which articles it is placed, because it will overwhelm the small ones. But that is just an æsthetic issue. -- Avi 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion With over 30 distinct delete opinions compared to less than 10 for keep, I think that is about a clear a consensus on wikipedia as you will find, outside of the WP:100, especially on a controversial topic. Process was followed accurately and undeletion is both unnecessary and counter to our processes. Further, accusations of bandwagonning will usually be made by parties in the minority, regardless of which side would have had their opinions most clearly stated. Also, it is reasonable for editors with specialties in a given field to have more of an interest in that field. Should we prevent all doctors from commenting on medical topics? How about all Sikhs from commenting on Sikh-related topics. The template as it stood was only helpful in confusing readers between Judaism, Christilanity, and Messianism, which may have been the intent of the authors, or maybe not. Regardless, there was plenty of time over the two TfD's for it to have been radically changed enough to obviate many of the issues, which was NOT done, and the template AS IT STOOD had a clear consensus to delete. Inigmatus, if you wish to create a new template, by all means, but please keep in mind the issues that consensus has shown to be problematic in the prior version. I will presume your suggestion that I a) abused my privelege, and b) should have recused myself is out of frustration, instead of a calculated insult and intimation that Orthodox Jews are not to be trusted in regards to applying wiki policies accurately in contentious issues. -- Avi 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseFirst, as an administrator of the majority opinion, you should have recused yourself and let some other administrator OUTSIDE of the MJ vs J debate handle the VfD. Second, last I checked, 30:10 is not consensus when it doesn't involve the consent of all parties, and furthermore violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a democracy. A claim of bandwagoning, no matter who its from, should be taken seriously and not swept under the rug because it's somehow the 'norm' for minorities to claim of majority rule. This is a serious issue, and I am surprised that you as an administrator are not taking a stand against it, and want to seem to sweep it under the rug. As I mentioned above, there were no improvements offered. Just unsubstantiated, unsourced POV. inigmatus 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. -- Avi 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want me to "see above" and recreate the article not in the way it was "by consensus" determined it should not be... perhaps you could do the entire VfD a favor by explaining to me what exactly the consensus was and what the consensus says should be avoided? There was none. Sources for article inclusion were provided. Those sources were NEVER disputed. This template should be reinstated because there was no consensus to delete it outright, and no consensus in its improvement. There IS a need for a template describing a list of articles RELATED to Messianic Judaism. Is this an illegal idea? Last I checked, many templates exist like this as a list of "related articles". Are you advocating deleting those templates too? inigmatus 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)inigmatus 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This person knows what he is talking about. The people who are voting to delete are mainly just evading the issues and being counterproductive. "As per above" just doesn't cut it, especially not when the "above" makes no valid points for its suggestion of improvement whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noogster (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. There was an obvious clear consensus. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. See my comments above. Daniel^C/_T+ 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I !voted to delete in the AFD, so I know for a fact that not all of the deleters were "Jewish editors" as Inigmatus claims. Everything looks to be in order, here. No reason to overturn. — coelacan talk — 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. This clearly the result of editors of one religion ganging up against a religion they don't like, because their two religions share so many commonailities, which was exactly their professed reason for wanting to delete the template. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not. I am not an adherent of any of the religions involved here. You really should read WP:NPA as well, because you're treading on very thin ice with that comment. — coelacan talk — 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well I'm not either. But to me that's the obvious gloss, and the sad reality of the situation. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Try dispute resolution. If I were an editor who spoke Hebrew and/or Yiddish, I wouldn't have closed this TfD. Seems like common sense. Regarding the general tone of the TfD, I'm reminded of the fact that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Kendrick's comments above make considerable sense when read in conjunction with Izak's nomination at the first TfD and a considerable number of pro-deletion views in both TfDs. At a basic level, it seems to me that DRV is the wrong venue for this matter. Whatever DRV may decide, the matter will not be resolved here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted The discussion relating to deletion was fairly detailed, and suggestions were given on how to make sure that this topic isn't deleted outright. I for example offered that Messianic Judaism be merged with a relevent Christianity template. Guy Montag 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Coelacan etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (for the record) with rationale given above and in the earlier discussion. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, per various arguments. This is obviously a tricky discussion, as there is a clear difference in opinion whether MJ is Judaism or Christianity, but let's try to figure out how to solve that problem before creating contentious templates that hijack the premise. --65.192.167.194 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Valid close, debate had plenty of input. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It was up for more than the required amount of days and had more than the required consensus to delete. Everything seems proper. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - and regarding "Jewish editors" please see WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know why it would be uncivilized to point out that you, the closer of the TfD Avi, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Guy, PinchasC, JoshuaZ, 6SJ7, Daniel, and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg are Jewish, or that other editors on the TfD, such as the nominator Ķĩřβȳ, Guy Montag, JFW, IZAK, Doniels, gidonb, Leifern, Batamtig, Beit Or, Olve, LordAmeth, Gzuckier, Kuratowski's Ghost, Shirahadasha, Redaktor, DLand, mikka, GabrielF, Kari Hazzard, El C, Dfass, Dovi, and Shlomke are Jewish, or at least speak Hebrew, as well. These allegations of bandwagoning aren't a form of personal attack; obviously cross-posting the TfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism skewed the results. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of fact, JzG at least is Christian. (In fact we had a funny situation a while ago, where he presumed I was also Christian and attempted to use that "fact" for rhetorical effect). JoshuaZ 07:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful now, Kendrick, one would almost think that you are attacking a certain group of editors for who they are, as opposed to discussing process (not even the content of the article/template--this is DRV, not TfD). Somehow, without hearning some rather ugly words in my head, I am not sure how the linguistic capabilities of these editors affects their understanding of process, unless you mean to say that all of us are ESL, and we do not understand the guidelines? -- Avi 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I look at the TfD, the main argument I see is Template:Messianic_Judaism is not WP:NPOV, because it links to Judaism articles, and Judaism WP:OWNs them. Its the debate between these two guidelines that seems to have gotten lost here. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Avi, I was eavesdropping and I totally agree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that Kendrick7^talk was personally attacking that group of editors in a condescending manner and in flagrant violation of Personal attack and WP:CIVIL. I found his remarks offensive. You or anyone of the editors can file a complaint with an Admin. Hope this helps. I will keep an eye in case you need further help from me. Lcnj 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Threats of calling for admin action are uneccessary as are largescale bolding. Furthermore, I suspect that if admin action were called in, Kendrick would not be the only user who would be blocked for civility problems. Let's discuss the article and its AfD, not bicker and make threatsJoshuaZ 07:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • JoshuaZ, please be civil. You may disagree with my opinion but I don't!... Thank you for adhering to WP:CIVIL. and allowing me to remind the victims of such attacks of Wikipedia rules including calling for admin action, when necessary. Lcnj 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hear, hear. I believe this is going to be the single largest point of contention between Judaism and Messianics on WP. Obviously the articles in question relate to Judaism, but since MJ is Judaism too, MJ has a vested interest in them as well. MJ editors shouldn't be censored solely on the basis that "the mainstream" disagrees with their view, with all Judaic articles wiped clean of mention of messianism. This is not asking for undue weight, as I believe most MJ editors are willing to have a parallel article to highlight significant, specific messianic points. But when mere links to messianic articles on judaic articles, or vice versa, are somehow not acceptable—that's a problem. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • First, limit your comments to the arguments at hand and not the person. Second, it is wrong anyway to brand those who did not clearly identify themselves. Third, I find it telling that such branding takes place in relation to Messianic Judaism, whose adherents go out of their way to prove their alleged "Jewishness." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I'm going to re-create this template pretty soon (which seemed to be the consensus). But seriously, when I do, WHAT WOULD WE EVEN CHANGE? I think that the people who voted to delete our template really know why, deep down, they voted how they did; most of them hate our religion. Would would we add, or remove, or make different, to appease the nebulous demands of the people that voted to delete?. Because, in all fairness, the template as it was seemed quite perfect to me. The situation itself speaks much louder than any words: if our template was made to be "deceptive", or "tried to lend a false Judaic veneer to MJ", or convince a single Jewish Wikipedia editor that MJ is something it's not, then it's obviously failed from the very first edit. Messianic Judaism is relevant to every one of the links that was on that template, and not ONE SINGLE PERSON has been able to argue with me otherwise. Noogster 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I see at least four serious policy based deletion arguments. The notion that relevancy is all that matters is also not accurate. That's one reason WP:NPOV has an undue weight clause- there are degrees of relevancy. In general, accusing people of "hating" is generally not productive. JoshuaZ 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That hits the nail on the head, Noogster. But Angus is surely right; your best bet is dispute resolution. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I'm inclined to agree that in the best of worlds Avi would not have closed this discussion. While I trust Avi enough to think that he would not let his own opinions unduly influence the closing, appearances of impropriety can be almost as bad as actual impropriety. Furthermore, AGF aside, some of the comments from the traditional Jewish editors could easily be construed as calling for deletion due in part to religious attitudes and doctrines and not Wikipedia policy. All of that does not change that a large number of editors did bring up a variety policy based issues and similar causes for concern that were not well addressed. Even if one removes all of the traditional Jewish editors calling for deletion in a way that can be construed as being religously motivated based on what they said (and we interpret this liberally) there is still a majority for deletion. I see no substantial process issue or other possible problem. JoshuaZ 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua, if we lose our template, the members of the Messianic Judaism project can kiss the integrity and productivity of their work goodbye, because well will lose all centrality. A template is only as good as its links; the fact stands that all of the links in the template were relevant. Noogster 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noogster, you feel that Category:Messianic Judaism is worthless? For all the articles are linked that way as well. -- Avi 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What policy based issues? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. People kept saying "delete but recreate". That should be treated as "keep but cleanup", since we don't delete things just to lose the edit history, and the idea wasn't that it shouldn't be recreated. -Amarkov moo! 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I already have the Wikicode of the template (in the state it was in before it was AfD'd), so it will be very easy to do the re-creation process. Always keep a backup. Noogster 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. On the talk page we had a conversation for possible improvements, and now that is lost to us! The "delete but recreate" suggestion is complete bogus that just makes life harder for those of us who are trying to improve things. I cannot see how losing the edit history benefits anyone. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When a new template is created with the same name, I (or any admin) should be able to selectively restore particular edits from the edit history to regain those suggestions. -- Avi 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if it's not created with those suggestions, it will be a repost, and thus eligible for speedy deletion. It's reealy hard to improve something while it's deleted. -Amarkov moo! 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Coelacan, JoshuaZ, etc. 6SJ7 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If anyone wants the template's code, I'll gladly give it to them. There's no good reason for starting from scratch; deleting the template's discussion histories is only antithetical to the purpose of improving it as is the consensus (which is also antithetical to having ever put it up for deletion). Noogster 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, once a different template is created with the exact same name, it should be relatively simple for an admin to selectively restore the edit histories with the suggestions. That is not a big issue. -- Avi 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Chris, Noogster, et. al., I have restored the suggestions whose loss worried you to User talk:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate. -- Avi 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, Avraham! ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Avi, now that I look back on it it looks like Kirbytime is a person that likes to curse, throw around insults, and violate WP: CIVIL. He happens to be the same person that nominated for deletion; I think the man has got some form of personal reasons for wanting to have the template deleted, if you read his old comments. Noogster 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your accusations are themselves a violation of WP:CIVIL. Quit talking about contributors and start talking about content. — coelacan talk — 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted Speaking for myself, i have no particular dislike for your religion, and I would and have always voted to support the inclusion of topics about it. But this template unfortunately became a divisive POV issue between you and what you regard as your parent religion, and the net result was disruptive towards both groups. There are times when including other groups articles in one's project helps, and times when it even helps NPOV. But the use made of this topic did not help, as was seen, and in my opinion seen correctly, as POV-pushing, for it amounted to a POV interpretation of the articles.

I would strongly suggest that if you were to introduce a new template, you limit its use to the articles that are distinctively about your religion--or I think the overwhelming consensus will be to delete it again. Some comments above indicate a disinclination to give you that chance, by calling for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted content. I would be reluctant to say this until it was apparent how it was being used.DGG 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted because as we have seen this template is nothing but a POV magnet that disrupts Wikipedia always. Its defenders keep on violating WP:POINT (which, in spite of Inigmatus's protests) is what it's all about since it can never come with anything original as it was only mostly a plagiarism of Jewish articles and the {{Judaism}} and {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} templates. Let's be done with it once and for all and let the Messianic Judaism editors come up with something original for a change instead of wasting everybody else's time by turning WP into a battlefield, violating WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and just plain pissing everyone off, to put it mildly. IZAK 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Avi, IZAK, Kirby, and others: tell me HOW can MJ articles direct readers to other articles related to one researching about Messianic Judaism? Do we have to create our own Messianic Tzitzit article, or Messianic Festivals, or Messianic Torah, when Tzitzit, Jewish holiday, and Torah exist? Answer that fundamental question will you, to the entertainment of whatever poor admin has to go through your POV rants to see that there really is nothing of substance you are offering to actually help improve readers to be directed to MJ related content, and that in reality you wish to see MJ content on wiki go away and be reduced to a single paragraph subsection on some forlorn unreferenced page. Last I checked, other religions have similar templates directing readers to related articles not exclusive to the religion, so why can't we? Avi, you suggested using the Messianic Judaism category - GREAT IDEA MAN...only answer this $2000 question to the entertainment of a point: would you obviously then have no problem with us listing Category:Messianic Judaism on Judaism, Tzitzit, Tefillin, Torah, etc. etc. etc... all things that relate to Messianic Judaism, then? Let me read your mind: nope. Didn't think so. Stop contradicting yourself. I mean, you and the others are all for having MJ articles reference other wiki pages that relate to Messianic Judaism in someway, and therefore you will be fine with applying your suggestion to put them in a Messianic Judaism category, but do you realize what you are saying - for we could just put that category then on EVERY article that relates to Messianic Judaism? Perhaps realizing the folly of this suggestion based on the antiMJ bias Jewish editors have of anything smaking of Yeshua, perhaps you will then suggest putting such related article links in the "See Also" subsection of MJ articles? Ooh that's good, so then could you tell me why you deleted the template that essentially would do the same thing? You and others are not offering any true solutions. You are only giving us the runaround to meet your unmeetable demands. This is pointless. What good is AGF is you don't even contribute something worthwhile? Do a real favor for wiki and tell your List of Judaism related deletions friends to back off from bandwagoning deleting MJ contributions, while real people actually work on improving content instead of outright deleting it. We in the MJ editing community have bent over backwards to meet your catch 22 demands, and by doing so our numbers of dwindled to a frustrated bunch of just me and another editor. By offering advice that you yourself would VfD, revert, or remove later, you obviously don't care about the idea of actually linking readers of Messianic Judaism articles to other articles relevant to Messianic Judaism - instead you tell us to work overtime meeting conflicting demands that can not be reasonably met together. This template was perfectly safe, tucked out the way from interfering with any articles OWNED by Judaism on wiki, and only directed readers from MJ articles to related content on Judaism OWNED articles by means of this template. This TfD should never have happened, and it should be OVERTURNED and if there are ANY specific article listings disputed, such a dispute should be on the Template's talk page, and not in TfDs. So far no one offered ANY resistance on the Template's talk page for ANY of the items listed after I sourced them, and there was NO DISPUTE over specific articles after I posted the sources. The only thing that was done was a TfD long after I sourced the article and no one disputed; and in that TfD nothing was offered but a bunch of useless POV comments. Reviewing Admin, please note the length of time after I posted sources on the template's talk page, to the time someone someday got the bright idea to just TfD the thing without comment or dispute on the Templates own talk page. The first TfD was out of process, and the second one was even more blatantly out of process; but who cares right? Majority rules. inigmatus 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bringing my comments over from the discussion you began at User talk:Coelacan: "If "the Messianic movement is anything but monolithic" [Noogster's words], then this is an even better argument for making your own Halakha in Messianic Judaism, Messianic Jewish eschatology, Midrash in Messianic Judaism, and similar articles, since you could discuss all the different approaches that various congregations take toward these topics. What a great opportunity for you! There wouldn't be any squabbling over whether your content belongs in those articles or not, since there is Halakha in Messianic Judaism and the title of the article makes it clear; it would be obvious that your content belongs there. And there would be plenty of room to spread out and discuss different congragations' perspectives." I think you would see only benefits from making articles specific to Messianic Judaism. It would be a significant amount of work, but wp:there is no deadline and you would have room to discuss details and variances without breaching NPOV's "undue weight" clause which you would be doing if you tried the same thing at the general Judaism parent articles. As for "out of process", I still disagree, but it's not like all your options are off the table here. — coelacan talk — 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see here, Orthodox Messianic Judaism, Messianic Halakha and others have already been VfDed, or name changed to "prevent confusing with Judaism" or removed for some other POV reason which MJ editors just arent enough around to confront such POV mass-bandwagoned reasons. And your wp:there is no deadline is a noble concept but it didn't prevent the VfD of List of Messianic Judaism important figures, and although it was created as a good faith effort to address issues of "confusion" on the Messianic Judaism template, the article was also deleted for "being too redundant with Christian and Judaism lists." If we were to create Messianic Tzitzit or Messianic Tefillin those would be VfDed too for "plagarism" to use IZAK's words - and he'd be right, since hardly little if no content would change from Tzitzit and Tefillin to Messianic versions of the same article - and IZAK would see to it to inform every Judaism editor out there irregardless if they knew a thing or two about Messianic Judaism just to get them to voice a "deletion" vote per the nom! Don't you see now that their demands are a catch 22? Don't you see our work is futile? This admin review is to overturn a TfD that was unjustly deleted without any JUSTIFIABLE reason except the caving in to the so-called "majority" POV which when translated simply means the opposition managed to quickly throw in a ton more votes than the minority could feasibly put together to counter. inigmatus 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Inigmatus: Why do Judaism editors need to help you create your religion? If you think that Messianic Judaism is a unique religion then prove it without borrowing from Judaism articles. This is exactly like when: "Elijah went before the people and said, 'How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.' But the people said nothing." 1 Kings 18:21. Thus if you are truly commited to Judaism, talk real Judaism and if you are truly commited to Jesus talk real Christianity, but why don't you get that you CANNOT utter them both simultaneously and talk out of both sides of your mouth and expect anyone to take you seriously here?...Perhaps you are confused as you are maybe more used to audiences of ignorant people listening to your sermons, but around here there are real scholars of Judaism who do not have time for your blatant distortions of Judaism. So far, for all your verbiage, you are like those people that were confronted by Elijah that said NOTHING since all you seem to do when people point out the fallacies of Messianic Judaism's arguments is to jump up and down and screech "we are like you, we are like you" (as apes copy the motions of the humans) which is what the monkeys in the zoo seem to be "saying" and "doing" when they see people and yet no-one pays attention to them either (amazing isn't it?) IZAK 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• IZAK, WP is not a soapbox to enforce your POV. And this admin decision review page is not a theological debate page. No one from the MJ community ever asked you to "help" create MJ articles. You volunteered to get involved yourself. If you want to help MJ articles succeed, then help them succeed; otherwise you aren't helping at all, and just POV pushing - the same thing you accuse us of doing. There's a word for that: hypocrisy. If you haven't noticed, NPOV is what I'm desiring in all MJ articles... and this means even removing YOUR POV from them (or even defending against your attempts to POV delete them). You can gloat all you like that you have the popular majority on wiki; but truth isn't decided by popular opinion. Thank God you don't have the corner on truth. Let's stick to sources instead, and lets stay on topic: now do you or do you not have any sources to refute the list of articles that were listed in the template that you voted to delete? Yes or no? If you want to help, you'll actually help instead of POV rant again; otherwise I call on the reviewing admin of this discussion to OVERTURN this unsupported, out of process, biased POV TfD. inigmatus 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could both of you calm down please? Izak, Inigmatus is correct that you appear to be letting your personal theology get in the way here. Inigmatus, I think you need to calm down and presume a bit more good faith (I understand how Izak might be making that difficult). I suggest you take a look at the current list of Judaism related deletions to get some idea that having a large number of Jewish editors in favor of deletion doesn't mean they are jumping on some bandwagon. Furthermore, multiple editors (I think three at this point) who called for deletion have stated that they are not Jewish. And as I already pointed out there is at least one Jewish editor who initially favored keeping but switched to favoring deletion. This does not support claims of monolothic deletion votes based on theology. Inigmatus, if you think there was a serious process problem it might be best if you were to explain in detail what you think was out of process. I'd also like to point out that while everyone has been busy shouting over here Avraham has been doing very good work sourcing and NPOVing a number of the articles related to Messianic Judaism. JoshuaZ 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To Inigmatus: You are the one that keeps on carping about Judaism editors not doing this that or the other, so when you are told that the Judaism editors do not have to help you create a new-fangled religion that is basically disowned by both Judaism and Christianity you go into verbal over-drive and cry wolf yet again. So grow up and cut out the theatrics because by now you have worn out the proverbial welcome mat from those editors concerned about the welfare and intellectual honesty of Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Nothing personal just noting the situation. IZAK 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To Josh: I do not have any "personal theology" (do you?) the discussion, as always is about Judaism and the way that Messianic Judaism wishes to assume for itself something that is not true, mainly that Judaism = Christianity or that Christianity = Judaism. Why is there no Messianic Islam or Messianic Hinduism or Messianic Buddhism etc but there is only "Messianic Judaism"??? The answer is quite simple, that if anyone would claim that there could be such a hybrid between two opposing and distinct religions like between Christianity and Islam or between Christianity and Hinduism, or between Christianity and Buddhism then they would be laughed out of the room. But when the claim is made that there is a "Messianic Judaism" then some people think it should have its day in court when it deserves to be shown the proverbial door and thrown into the heap of oxymoronic fallacies. Yet Inigmatus keeps on arguing as if logic and facts do not matter here, only the desire of MJ's to be regarded as just "another" type of "Jew" when they are just a pretty poorly disguised set of Christians dressed in Jewish garb spouting Jewish slogans, but worshipping Jesus only. That is not "personal theology" it's just the reflection of the chasm that separates Judaism and "Messianics" --> just a euphemism for Jesus freaks. If Inigmatus dishes he must also be prepared to take it. Thank you, IZAK 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if you read the sources that we have on the messianic Judaism article and the Jews for Jesus article (If you want I can track down the specific source) it isn't that simple. Combinations of Buddhism and Judaism are common among certain circles. Now, I think that's stupid and idiotic, but that's my personal POV. We can't make judgement calls based on our personal intepretations of things, we can only do so based on what reliable sources we have and how many there are. If hypothetically, the number of messianic Jews and "rabbinic" Jews in this world were flipped, along with the number of reliable sources discussing the relevant notions, the matter would be flipped. Regardless of who is correct. As I just said to Inigmatus, Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Noogster and inigmatus have been asked to remain civil. Their failure to do so is still not an excuse for you to return the favor. The rest of us have to read this too, and we'd rather not have this discussion in the middle of a minefield. By the way, the Christian/ Muslim/ Hindu/ Buddhist/ Jewish/ Jainist/ etceterist hybrid you speak of is called Unitarian Universalism, or Baha'i, depending on your tastes in scripture. — coelacan talk — 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Joshua: you seem to miss the point that verifiabilty deals with facts (sadly, perhaps the truth seems to be a too noble and a hard-to-attain notion and commodity on Wikipedia, but I do not agree with "the death of truth on Wikipedia" movement yet) and the fact of the matter is that Judaism and Christainity are two different and opposing religions. Now I do not say this as my own "POV", it is just a NPOV fact that is acknolwedged by probably 99.999% of all Judaic and Christian scholars. Messianic Judaism and its pushers maybe fall into the .001% of extremists (in the intellectual sense, I cannot find a better word) that just fail to grasp the fact that Judaism and Christianity are two rival and opposing faiths, in spite of, or perhaps because of, Christianity's early connection with Judaism which it has long renounced both institutionally and historically by its hateful acts against both Jews and Judaism for 2,000 years -- again these are FACTS, but Christians have long renounced the bond that the the Apostles had once upon a time had with Judaism so, quite simply, it is a fact that it is not within Inigmatus's powers or anyone else's to undo the Nicene Creed and the First Council of Nicaea by means of these tiresome and wasteful debates and actions that just waste editors' time.IZAK 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost but not quite, what matters is not that these are facts but that they are verifiable facts. JoshuaZ 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• IZAK, I ask that you remain civil. This discussion is not the place for your POV soapbox battles, wars of wits, personal testimonies, et al. If, for the record, you care, we Messianics are just as strongly opposed to Gentile Christianity/anti-Torah/a goy Greek Jesus/the council of Nicea/antisemetism as you are, but unlike you we have the reasonable sense to to believe that the corrupt dealings of Gentiles, the Hellenistic Nicean councils, the antisemetic spilling of innocent Jewish blood, et al, in any way fundamentally changes the historical Yehoshua/Yeshua and his early Pharasaic Netzarim talmidim. Again, IRRELEVANT to the discussion, though. I don't want to see it or smell it here again, is that clear? Thank you. Noogster 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Historically, Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism. This is verifiable. Thus it makes perfect sense why there may be "messianic judaism" while the others don't exist. Don't descend to being ridiculous trying to make a point. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Judaism [...] Jesus [...] why don't you get that you CANNOT utter them both simultaneously" Says you. The MJ claim is that it is a completely valid expression of Judaic faith to accept Jesus as the messiah. Whether or not that is true is not the place of WP. That's what the claim is, and it's a verifiable claim. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think User:Coelacan hit the nail on the head. You have the opportunity now to focus on what makes Messianic Judaism what it is, what about it you feel is so special and different, that Judaism or Christianity alone do not suffice for your service, belief, and faith. There is nothing "messianic" about Tzitzis, it is not a "messianic" mitzvah, it is a Jewish mitzvah that some messianic's still keep. Whereas belief in Jesus, and how to jibe the Passover seder with the crucifixion and resurrection is something unique to Messianism. Also, "Halakha" was VfD'd because that is a Jewish term, and one which also implies keeping the Torah, in which Moses said that all prophets who come afterwards and attempt to change the Torah, even if the perform miracles, are not to be believed. And Jesus changed Torah observance, no one argues that. (cf, Dueteronomy 13:2–6 and Rambam Mada, Yesoidei HaTorah chapters 7 & 8). Regardless and regardless, this is NOT the venue to discuss ANYTHING other than process, which was duly followed. -- Avi 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Great response, but totally POV. Following Torah is as Messianic as one can get. The Jesus you and other Jews think changed Torah observance, is not the Jesus I know. I dispute anything that says otherwise, and I have the sources to prove it (Deut 13:1-7, Matthew 5, Acts 15, Saul, and others). But this again isn't a theological debate page. I'm not looking for a chance to separate Messianic Judaism from Christianity or Judaism. In my opinion, both are off track from true Torah obedience. One ignores Torah entirely, the other holds oral traditions higher than the written Torah. But your involvement in this TfD was inappropriate, especially after my last comment asking for third party comments. The template IS needed to direct readers to other wiki articles related to observances, practices, and terminology in Messianic Judaism. If one wanted sources for the articles that were listed, I posted them in the talk page of the template...which you have deleted. So what am I supposed to do? Pretend that hours of source work means nothing to you or others who voted to delete the template? No one said a word about the sources I posted. In addition to the other charges of out of process, I ask again for the reviewing admin to consider the mere fact that no single article that was listed was still in dispute on the talk page of the template when weeks later it went to a TfD. OVERTURN this TfD and lets get to work on improving it if people really have objections to the content on it. inigmatus 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • /sigh. See above. All the talk page suggestions are now on User talk:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate. And again, what process was violated? There was a clear consensus to delete the template as it stood. You have plenty of offers of help on creating a new one, myself included. Oh yes, Gartel, Tztzis, Halakha, are all disputed on that template, by the by. -- Avi 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inigmatus, I believe what Avi means to say and is supported in the Messianic Halacha AfD is that the use of the term for anything but Halachah as interpreted by rabbinic Judaism and ruling out Jesus is a neologism. Since the (as you would call it) rabbinic defintion is the only defintions we have any reliable sources for, that is as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the defintion. Remember, we work off of verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 07:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For Gartel, Tzitzits, Halakha, sources were provided and not disputed. Process to dispute first in the talk page was obviously violated. Instead disputes were made known in the TfDs only. Second TfD was submitted before the first didnt even go to this deletion review page. inigmatus 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inigmatus, I cannot believe you even say this with a straight face...any other person would be ROTFLMAO x 1,000. IZAK 07:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, I think that is the primary "process" complaint in this case! Don't re-TfD only a few weeks later—take it to deletion review. That's what it's here for! ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I am particularly incensed by the accusations of bandwagoning, a "crime" of which I am undoubtedly considered. My vote to the TfD read "Delete per nom and all above". And yes, I found out about the TfD through the "Deletion sorting" list on WP:JEW. However, I personally analyzed the issue at hand thoroughly and took both arguments into account before voting, making sure to carefully read the comments before me. My decision was delete (clearly), for the reasons that had already been enumerated before me, and I felt no need to add to the discussion when others had formulated their reasons to delete so cogently. To intimate that my vote, and votes like mine, should be discounted because they reflect an overly casual attitude toward the debate (or whatever the exact criticism is) is a textbook example of bad faith. --DLand^TALK 07:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Not withstanding some of the claims made above, the deletion seems not to have been "out of process". The AfD was listed more than 5 days, it was properly listed, the closing admin was entitled to close, opinions for keep and delete were legitimate and made by legitimate and diverse users, suggestions were made for improving the article, and there was a consensus for deleting. So what is the case under the relevant policy? gidonb 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "listed more than 5 days, it was properly listed"—yes and no: it was a re-TfD only a few weeks after a prior attempt, rather than deletion review. I believe this is the main "process" complaint. "closing admin was entitled"—true, but given the very contentious nature of the debate, he would probably have been wise to recuse and find a 3rd party admin to review the situation. "opinions [...] were legitimate [...] diverse users"—debatable, since the TfD was mentioned at WP:JEW and thus very possibly got extra attention and "bandwagonning" that otherwise would not have occurred. "suggestions were made for improving"—not really, perceived faults were listed and some ideas can be inferred from that, but very very few positive suggestions were made by the pro-deletes. "there was a consensus"—democracy does not a consensus make, valid albeit unpopular views can be unfairly suppressed. It can be very hard to tell if that is indeed the case when the issue itself is so emotionally charged. This is why it is so important that a 3rd party admin review in these cases, as Avraham's involvement introduced the appearance of bias. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OVERTURN "because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." Bona fide ground: Template removal does not meet ANY TfD criteria:

proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);

• The template was helpful in directing readers to other articles related to other articles containing terms, concepts, and theology related to Messianic Judaism.

2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;

• The template would be redundant only with the Judaism template, however no non Messianic Jewish editor will allow the Judaism template to be posted on Messianic Judaism articles! Such an action would cause an even more fierce debate. This reason alone is why the template was created from the Judaism template in the first place.

3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");

• Template was on all exclusive Messianic Judaism articles.

4. The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement)

• No editor demonstrated that the template could NOT be modified to satisfy this requirement. POV charges were addressed with sources provided in the template's talk page proving that listed articles WERE INDEED relevant to Messianic Judaism terms, concepts, and theologies. Sources were never disputed by anyone either in the talk page or in later TfDs. Furthermore, the nomination itself, and some votes counted as "delete" were votes actually acknowledging that the "template COULD be modified to satisfy this requirement." Exact details as to what specifically should be modified were not sourced.

As you can tell this TfD didn't meet a SINGLE TfD criteria. The tempalte was not proven conclusively that it was POV. No counter sources were provided disproving the sources provided substantiating the template's NPOV. Furthermore:

Step III of the process wasn't followed as notification was not put on the talk page either.

Just because several days passed and lots of people voted, doesn't mean the Messianic editing community got involved and consensus was achieved. This TfD should be overturned, and the sourcing for the article listings SHOULD be disputed IF this is an NPOV issue. As such, no one has done so. That is why this TfD is out of process. Totally. inigmatus 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn by same user from above -- Avi 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)*OverturnNo consensus was reached. VfD submitted out of process, and too soon after a previous VfD "keep". Bandwagoning in question. Admin has history of deleting MJ content and should have recused himself to prevent charges of enforcing personal bias. VfD discussion provided no clear consensus on outright deletion, nor improvements discussed came to consensus nor issues with template ever substantiated with evidence. Template for referring readers to articles related to Messianic Judaism is needed since much of the content in potential MJ articles can be found in Jewish and/or Christian articles. inigmatus 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oveturn AfD process not met. I'm mostly paying attention to the Wii Health DRV, and I'm surprised at the heatedness of this debate, so I thought I'd put in my comments. I feel like I'm an outside observer, and present a fairly objective POV.
  1. There were a substantial number of "Delete" comments that were not valid reasoning for a delete. Several of the "delete" comments were appropriate for a rewrite, which shouldn't require a deletion. In fact, recreating the template, meeting their desires would be allowed. So maybe that should be done, but create the template without POV, as I'm pretty sure that that can be done.
  2. Even the inappropriate Delete comments aside, the (reported) result was a majority of deletes, but not WP:CONSENSUS to delete.
• The process was not followed. McKay 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion No valid arguments in favor of overturning were raised. Beit Or 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, several arguments in favor of overturning have been raised. Can you refute all of them as being invalid? McKay 19:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT Alright, this discussion has become completely inappropriate. All theological debate and/or POV battles must end right now; they are irrelevant (and I am looking at you, IZAK). This encyclopedia is not a soapbox. Apparently, consensus is that: 1. the template before had something wrong with it and 2. those issues need to be addressed before we put it back up. However, Erev Shabbat is again fast approaching and there still hasn't been any meaningful conclusions reached as to what belongs, and what does not belong, on the template. Clearly, if there was some minor issues with the template that needed to be addressed, then a TfD is obviously the last thing we needed to be doing. My suggestion is that an administrator restore the template, and we take this discussion of potential improvement of the template back there to the talk page, because we probably have almost no other shot, I think, of reaching such conclusions otherwise (certainly not here). Trust us, we Messianics ARE honest, ethical people that want straightforward, NPOV articles as much as the rest of the community, and we will work with you gladly to improve the template if my suggestion is taken to action. Thank you. Noogster 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even better, there is a copy of the beginnings of a revised template at User:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate, and all the suggestions are at User talk:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate, so a proper template can be built there and then re-entered into wiki templatespace. -- Avi 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Now that I look back on the old discussions for template: Messianic Judaism, I see that here at: [5] Inigmatus had made a case-by-case explanation for why each and every one of the links in the template was relevant and factually tenable. No one was really able to provide a decent rebuttal to his assertions about the link list. With that in mind, why do we need to go over this for a second or third time, when such an argument has already been decided by a landslide? We COULD repeat such a discussion again, just to be safe, but the genuine honesty of this whole situation seems to be on its last legs. Shabbat shalom. Noogster 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Marginal religion must not be surprized to have marginal support. No violation of deletion process. During votes for deletion Inigmatus was given a number of advices how to create a template which will be not too ambituous. `'mikka 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment I really don't know what you mean by "overly ambitious template". That language is pretty nebulous to begin with. Inigmatus has concretely proven with little or no direct challenge, more than once even, that the list of links in the MJ template is solidly relevant. Noogster 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's why WP:NOT being a democracy is important. I understand that they are marginal, but I can't relate to complaining about their linking to Judaism articles from a template per se. Maybe it's just because I'm from a religion where there's some new sect springing up every five minutes. or maybe it's because of the words of Rabbi Gamaliel as recorded in Acts 5:33–39, but frankly if editors from the Church of the Holy Wingnut show'd up here tomorrow, and had WP:RS's validating their existiance including a belief that Jesus was an android, and the Virgin Mary was a toaster, yet they want their template to link to the seven sacraments, I just can't see wanting to shout them down, if they really believe their church has a valid claim on the sacraments. Now if they wanted to make St. Mary a disambiguation page to a range of kitchen appliances, I'd draw the line, you know? They want a see also to Virgin Mary (toaster) I'd cut them some slack. When you want to build an omelet of all human knowledge, that's gonna mean breaking a few eggs. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wouldn't be a problem, as long as they call it the Church of the Holy Wingnut. OTOH, if they decide to call it Wingnut Judaism, that would be inappropriate and confusing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So a religion can't call itself what it wants to unless it gets your prior approval? Good grief... ⇔ ChristTrekker 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to re-creation. My recommendation to the editors who support articles about Messianic Judaism would be to prepare a version of this template limited only to those topics which are undisputedly related to Messianic Judaism. It is not necessary that this template identify everything related to this religion because that is what the actual content of the encyclopedia is for. This template should not try to imitate Template:Judaism or Template:Christianity because both of those templates are themselves way too long. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT It really is in poor taste to recreate the template as it is undergoing DRV. Not to mention, a breach of policy. -- Avi 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't mean that they should re-create it now while the DRV is still going on. --Metropolitan90 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT You're trying to make this situation seem complex, whereas it's actually ridiculously simple. Tzitzit is part of Messianic Judiasm, so it goes in the template. Jesus is part of it, so it belongs. So is the organizations section. So is Bible, or Talmud. These things are all related to Messianic Judaism, so there is no reason not to have them in the template. If we list articles that are ONLY specific to Messianic Judaism, I guess that means we can remove Jesus from the template, too! That's what, in effect, what you're saying, or else you have a preconceived bias against anything Jewish that might be inherent in the religion. Noogster 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't think that's what Metropolitian meant, i.e. The people who wrote the New Testament were all Catholics. You're not Catholic, therefore your template can't link to it. I think he's just not grokking the nature of the dispute. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand the proposal Yeshua would be linked, rather than Jesus. It isn't clear to me why you would have an issue with that. JoshuaZ 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, this should be fixed -- there seems to be a difference in scope between Yeshua (name) and Yeshua (person?) which should get a disambig, though I'm not sure how to name the second one. Maybe Yeshua of Nazareth would do? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My objection is that with this viewpoint you would expect us to create Messianic Jewish viewpoint articles about everything and anything, such as Messianic view of the Bible, Messianic view of the Talmud, Messianic View of Jesus, Messianic view of the tallit, Messianic view of Jewish Prayers, etc. In that case, it would take years with the size of our active editing team (less than half a dozen) to flesh out such a project with any quality. I promise you that with time and space given to us we WILL eventually develop plenty of new articles that state Messianic Jewish views on various subjects (so long as these articles are not at all redundant), but it wouldn't nearly be to the bizarre extreme that some have suggested before. Noogster 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

user:mckaysalisbury believes consensus was not reached, particularly not in favor of a delete McKay 14:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Endorse the afd seems to be almost totally delete comments, with refutation of that being things like "The trivial section doesn't say anything about 1 page news briefs having a 1 sentence mention being trivial", "There is nothing in Wikipedia policy (that I'm aware of) that specifically excludes blog entries. It does say things about comments to a blog post being non-reliable, but doesn't specifically exclude the blog posts themselves". --pgk 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per clear delete consensus among established users. Valid AFD. --Coredesat 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Endorse Consensus had been reached in the Afd, with a wide majority in favor of the deletion. CharonX/talk 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstand the difference between WP:CONSENSUS and majority. McKay 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Consensus was extremely clear. --- RockMFR 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If there were any valid refutations of the basis for deletion in the keep !votes, I didn't see them. This was an unusually well-supported deletion. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should make my point more clear. I don't think that consensus was reached because I was still discussing the points that people were making. I was surfing around last night trying to find information on new Wii games, and I saw that the article was up for deletion, so I made a few comments, I found that I thought that people were making decisions with incomplete information, so I tried to fill them in. A discussion started, then the AfD closed, and the article deleted. Yes, I understand that there were a majority, but the issues raised with the minority were not resolved, and therefore consensus was not reached. Am I mistaken in any of my assumptions? Where is this going wrong? McKay 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't have a chance to reply to your last post in the AfD before it was closed. My feeling remained constant: the only thing that can be said about the game is that it might come out some time, and not even its name is known for sure. It's not enough to sustain an article right now, but I would not be opposed to recreation in the future once a solid announcement by Nintendo is made. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Having a firm working title is *not* required for wikipedia. We no next to nothing about Star Trek XI, yet there's an article. The early versions of the article (over a year ago!) had a 3 year release span, were filled with speculation and rumors. Harry Potter 7, Shrek 4, and many others have articles and don't have a confirmed title. Is having a confirmed title a requirement for Wikipedia? No. So please stop using that as an excuse.
2. There was an official announcement from Nintendo. So sure, there's a possibility that it might not come out, but an official announcement from Nintendo clearly passes WP:Crystal. The original announcement is in Japanese, and I'm not skilled enough to find it. Yes, this means that it might not come out in the US, but that doesn't make it any less notable. Heck, there's an entire category dedicated to Category:Japan exclusive computer and video games that's about 450 strong.McKay 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep the discussions open indefinitely, if some new information comes in during the closing of a debate where the rest of the participants don't see that information a review may be relevant, but should be on the basis of new material rather than no-consensus. Alternativley simple rewrites addressing the core issues of the AFD maybe a reasonable alternative. However realistically the points you made weren't that strong and to my view wouldn't invalidate the AFD. Attempting to suggest 1 sentence may not be trivial just because the policy doesn't explicitly spell it out seems to be a stretch (What would you believe to be trivial?). As for blog posting being considered reliable, anyone can create a blog for little or no cost and post anything they want. I can create a blog (or blogs) saying the exact opposite of any you care to point out, do you consider them reliable? You need to see WP:RS#Self-published_sources. --pgk 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Consensus Isn't new information basically the definition of "No Consensus"? I admit that I'm not sure of the terminology here. If I had new information to bring in after the AfD was closed, that would be one thing, but the fact of the matter here is that there is obviously some discussion about how notable these sources are. I thought that that was what consensus was all about. I make a change, and there's some discussion about it. While that discussion is occuring, consensus has not been reached. I definitely agree that these articles are borderline cases, and that's why there should be some serious discussion on the matter.
2. AfD Policy that does seem like a decent idea. How do you think it could be changed?
3. Trivial I do admit that the triviality of these sources are somewhat in question. As far as I'm concerned it should really be the only debate here. What would I consider trivial? Well, WP gives an example of trivial: a one sentance mentioning in a several hundred page biography seems trivial. When a post is about several different things in the game industry going on. Or When Gamasutra recounts the several different things mentioned in a press conference, I would assume that each point is non-trivial, (if they get a direct mentioning). I would assume that the official announcement in Japan last year would have several japanese news sources reporting. Alas, I can't find them because I don't speak Japanese. (Hmm, gamasutra thanked "game-science" for the translation of Japanese news sources. How can I get that information?)
4. Blog WP:RS There are several criteria that make a source reliable. Many blogs do not fit this critera, and all message postings to blogs do not meet this criteria (This is stated in WP:RS. I believe it is possible for some blogs to be notable and reliable (like Joel on Software But I feel that it's very clear that this IGN blog *is* notable. It's not just some blog made at blogger.com. It's the blogger of an employee who is getting paid to write articles about video games from a reputable publication. What he writes in his blog *is* news. Let's go through the RS criteria for non-scholarly sources one at a time:
   1. Attributability We know quite a bit about him. [6] He's the editor-in-chief of IGN cube!
   2. Expertise He's the editor-in-chief of IGN cube
   3. Bias He's the editor-in-chief of IGN Cube. He's being paid to
   4. Editorial oversight "editor-in-chief" probably has some editorial oversight?
   5. Replicability if anyone thinks that he's making leaps of faith from Nintendo's information, please pring forth some evidence.
   6. Declaration of sources He's pretty open about where he gets information. As a the editor in chief of a reputable news source, his sources are virtually the same as the rest of the news source?
   7. Confidentiality No confidential sources
   8. Corroboration Has anyone ever said "No, I'm sorry, Health Pack isn't coming out"
   9. Recognition by other reliable sources Gameworld Network, T3, and cubed3 are notable enough to be included in Google news, is that enough? should I find more? Oh, and that's just a few of the people referencing this particular blog post. Should I check the thousands of others who link to his posts? What about the millions(?) that reference either ign cube (of which he is the editor-in-chief), or ign itself?
   10. Age of the source and rate of change of the subject Information is new.
   11. Persistence Permalinks are available.

So now does anyone have any real reason to believe that his blog posts are not a reliable source? McKay 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New information isn't the definition of no consensus. As to trying to get afd to change so people can trickle bits of new information in to keep the process open indefinitely, you can try but I wouldn't be hopeful (and yes there are some areas people would try). Notability of the blog isn't important, so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up, being notable and being a reliable source are not directly linked.

As to your assessment of the blog as reliable: The criteria you list have to be taken in context of the information you are presenting, clearly some items which are merely factual representation (I've been told X) aren't subject to questions about derivation or being able to follow through the logical thought.

Corroboration so you reckon stuff which hasn't been denied anywhere else is implicitly corroborated?

Declaration of sources this isn't about making assumptions that because he gets information from certain sources it makes everything he says reliable. Does he state the source of the information being referred to here?

Editorial oversight you seem to skip over.

As WP:RS says of such items "Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

Regardless is you can make a case for it being reliable you still have to overcome the non-trivial and multiple independent. --pgk 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe I'm misreading it, but WP:CONSENSUS basically says that new information *means* that there isn't consensus. '"Silence equals consent"'. If I say something contrary to what's been provided. That's a lack of silence, and therefore a lack of consensus. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus." I have a disagreement as to how the policy is applied. Polite discussion is how consensus is reached.

Yes, I agree that we should exercise caution with blog posts. It doesn't mean the source shouldn't be used, it means we should check for corroboration.... With regards to corroboration, I've showed on countless occasions that Nintendo, Gamasutra, cubed3, t3, next-gen, gameworld network, nintendojo, and others all corroborate with him. I *thought* that that was understood. In order to show lack of corroboration we'd have to have information which contradicts what he's presented, which is why I presented what I did. I never said that just because one person has said something means that it's corroborated. If I implied that, I apologize. Oh, and I have on numerous occasions discussed why I believe that the sources represent "multiple, non-trivial, independent" sources. The "Multiple", and "Independent" clauses *should* by this time be undeniable. If you need me to say it *again* though. I will. The purpose of this DLR is to determine whether their is enough information to bring back the AfD. I believe that the articles (at least some of them) are non-trivial. Furthermore, I petition for the AfD to be reinstated so that the AfD can decide whether that is the case or not. McKay 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding in this matter those others have referenced this blog, that isn't corroboration. They may well have corroborated other things he has written and indeed may do for this at some point in the future, but you cannot assume that corroboration of past things he's written makes his writing on this intrinsically reliable. --pgk 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point, but that doesn't mean that his work isn't corroborated by others either. So, His most recent post (probably unbiased) has several points of corroboration: Google(Nyko Wireless Wii Sensor Bar). I could do this with each of his other articles, but I don't particularly want to. McKay 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Process was followed. `'mikka 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be less Terse? Care to tell me where I made my mistake? What about my "new information"? I've got evidence to the contrary. Can you refute it? McKay 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It's a real game. I know many people who play it, it is growing in popularity all the time, and it deserves an article. I tried to visit this page because I thought it was a reliable source of information (specifically, I was looking for details on the Game's rules). Imagine my surprise to find that it was deleted, and on top of that, protected from undeletion. I am an infrequent participant in the internal goings-on of Wikipedia - if this is not the proper way to undelete an article, I would appreciate if someone told me what is. The Game is not a small, isolated phenomenon. I personally know people from across the United States - Connecticut, California, New York - who all knew about it independently. I do not understand how such a strong consensus against this article came to be, but I now ask the Wikipedia community to reconsider their decision. Kevin S. 10:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. The Game I am referring to is the one that you play by trying to forget that it exists, and lose by remembering it. If this article was about a different game, disregard my post.[reply]

• "The Game" has no coverage in multiple reliable sources, and thus violates WP's verifiability policy and notability guideline. It was deleted for that reason, and the deletion was endorsed here at DRV soon after. Without new evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, published sources, any future requests to revive this will be speedy closed. WarpstarRider 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can remember back when the article existed, and yes it was about that game which you are refering to. You are right in that it is extremely widespread. For instance my girlfriend from britain (I'm living in the opposite side of the world, in NZ) accidently lost last week by sheer chance because I was talking to her about something quite unrelated which caused her to remember. Of course then she had to insist on repeatedly telling me that she had lost.... which caused me to lose too. Darn. Anyway.... none of this is a good enough to have the article. We need several sources for it. Currently we don't know of any. You are welcome to go and look for them, I kind of suspect the must exist "somewhere" simply because of how famous it is. But without knowledge of them, we shall have to assume they don't exist and not allow the article to be recreated. Sorry. Mathmo ^Talk 11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and for making me lose I'm going to invoke WP:IAR so that I can ignore WP:NPA because you made me loose.... &#@$*#$ #$&(~ #$&* `#$# $#^%#$ (%*!!!! Cheerio, have a nice day! Mathmo ^Talk
    • I've just noticed it was nominated for deletion a lot (about half a dozen times or so). Some of those were a keep, if you really want to get this page back you might like to look into why those times it was kept (also check out the AfD's when it was deleted). Maybe it could get back, if you get stuch at any points feel free to ask me for help (and any of the many other helpful wikipedians here). Mathmo ^Talk 11:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous "Keep"s were due to a lot of "I've heard of it" arguments and (later) one small column in a non-English newspaper. Back then, there wasn't as much emphasis placed on getting multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources to support the article as there is now. It's the same reason it took so long for articles like GNAA (18 AfDs) and LUEshi (7 AfDs) to finally be deleted. WarpstarRider 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think there were a lot of other issues which caused GNAA to be deleted, but yeah.... I did get the general gist of it when I skimmed through The Game's AfDs. I'll note that I am not currently supporting that it gets undeleted. I'm just not ruling out the possibility that perhaps one day I an article could be made. Though of course we shall first have to wait and see several sources here first. Mathmo ^Talk 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vesica_Piscis_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

valid_current_artist 71.223.0.53 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn, contested prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturned (I'm the deleting admin.) Contested PROD. (It's back) - TexasAndroid 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Energy Network Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I need source to attempt to rewrite this article so that it will pass review. GENI has worked for over a decade with (among others) the IEEE (a respected engineering association), and has had numerous articles about it in various popular newspapers and magazines. Also, one of the "delete" editors is no longer with Wikipedia, so I would enjoy learning how to write in encyclopedic style to allow GENI to gain entry to this online encyclopedia, where it deserves to be. Please send source to [email protected] Also, I was not notified that this article was deleted. Is there any way to be notified of impending deletion? Geni-pmd 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. While I'm not sure I like the AFD close (I would have relisted it), the article was spam, and possibly a G11 candidate if it had not been AFDed. --Coredesat 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, keep rewritten version. Both delete votes in original discussion were based on a lack of notability being demonstrated, and the "Selected Media References" section of the rewritten article clearly shows that GENI has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself", as per Wikipedia:Notability. --Stormie 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't realize I closed this (and wasn't informed either). Looking at it now it's still the same kind of company brochure it was before, and the supposed media references don't look convincing either, given that the institute tends to consider endorsements for Buckminster Fuller's initiatives as endorsements of their own, which is a pretty standard attempt to create notability by Halo effect. I'm also not sure why this is listed here since the article is already recreated (G4?). ~ trialsanderrors 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]