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

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

He is getting more popular, and people need to know of him67.183.248.48 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion The purpose of Wikipedia is not to document "up and comers", but to document individuals who have achieved a certain level of notability. If you have such evidence, please present it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If people need to know of him, the implication is that nobody does know of him, thus meaning he doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, due to no reason for undeletion presented. "people need to know of him" is doubtful, and even if so isn't cause for an encyclopedia article: people need to know their cholesterol level and how much gas is in their tank, too, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia is the place for such information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. "He is getting popular, and people need to know of him" - sounds like a self-contradictory nomination. If he is getting so popular, then wouldn't people already know of him? JIP | Talk 11:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Until people know of him, we don't have an article. We are not here to help things along. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Doemain of Our Own (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Another speedy deleted webcomic by this admin Naconkantari (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#A7. The article had undergone an AfD in 2005 and should have been nominated if the admin felt that it does not belong. The comic is published by Plan 9 Publishing and is a hosted on Keenspot. I move to overturn the deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Always, always, overturn anything which has survived an AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per survived AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on AFD - overturn since it survived an AfD, but relist because that AfD was nearly two years ago. It should be sent back there rather than speedied. --Coredesat 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid, in fact obvious, Articles-7. Nothing on WP:CSD says that they don't apply to articles that survived an AfD back when policy and practice were different and we were more lax about inclusion (especially with geek-friendly topics like webcomics). The previous AfD contained no arguments for inclusion, and any admin who understands policy (hopefully all of them) would have closed it as 'delete' nowadays, or have their close overturned here. We're talking about shoving an article onto AfD whose entire prose content was "A Doemain of Our Own is a webcomic by Susan Rankin, regarding the lives of an anthropomorphic deer and her friends". Sending that back to AfD because of some made-up bureaucratic process reason makes no sense. If you can write an actual article using reliable sources, nothing prevents you from doing so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The made up bureaucratic process reason that a deletion is obviously controversial if it was kept before, yes. You can't just dismiss things by calling them bureaucratic process reasons. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• From CSD A7 "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead" thus overturn and relist (then probably delete)--Doc^g 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, the CSD are clear that if it's been AFD'd before, you can't speedily delete it through A7. Proto::► 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and a relist shouldn't be necessary as it meets WP:WEB anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What part of WP:WEB does it meet, considering it makes no claims of notability and has no independent souces? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Not being able to see the article, I'm not sure what the sourcing situation was, but sourcing is not a reason for speedy deletion anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What medium is both well known and independent of the creators? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keenspot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keenspot is not in and of itself sufficient to acquire notability for all of its comics. This has been established in previous deletion discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree, and nothing can be "established in previous deletion discussions.". WP:WEB certainly doesn't reflect that, nor did a discussion on the talk page gain consensus for such an extension. As Keenspot is "a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" of the comic, assertions that a comic is hosted there should preclude any speedies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I will concede you that, but not that it by definition meets WP:WEB. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • And we disagree with that. I'm basing my opinion on the guideline, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If "nothing can be established in previous deletion discussions" it follows that the deletion discussion (two years ago) is irrelevant now and the article can be speedied as an A7. >Radiant< 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Apples and oranges. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It strikes me that you're using WP:CCC to argue against any precedent you disagree with, but ignore it for precedents that you happen to like. Apart from this being a fallacious approach, WP:CCC does not at all mean that precedent is irrelevant, and neither does it say so on the page. >Radiant< 10:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is that there have been editors that dispute the "well-known" status of Keenspot and the ability to produce verifiable information because of it. (I'm not going to name any names, you can take a look at the WT:WEB archives). ColourBurst 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to point out that this entire back-and-forth about WP:WEB is largely irrelevant; the article had survived an AfD and then was speedily deleted under A7, which specifically says that it shouldn't be used in such a case. Any argument about WP:WEB should be saved for the almost eventual AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as it already went through Afd. Anyone is welcome to relist it if they want to, though I don't think that should be a direct outcome of this review. --- RockMFR 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as per EVula. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per WP:CSD#A7. The article has been AfD'd in the past, therfore it requires an AfD now. Lithorien 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidairy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|RfD)

This redirect pointed at Subsidiary Alliance and was deleted at WP:RFD. See the RfD log from 6 January 2007 for the discussion. Now, looking at the history of the Subsidiary Alliance article, someone obviously made the typo confirming that it is a plausible typo—in fact, someone also had made the typo Subsidairy allaince which still exists. So that refutes the delete suggestions of the nominator and two of the five editors in favour of deletion who based their opinion on the fact that it's an unlikely typo. The other three who moved to delete this article relied on the comment "Seeing as how the main article isn't goin got be hanging around, no need for the redirect." This is not only poor practise, but the target will likely be merged into subsidiary alliance which is a more developed article and is not nominated for deletion. In my eyes the delete arguements are not sufficient and I suggest recreation of this redirect with subsidiary alliance as its target. BigNate37_(T) 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, that RfD was absurd. We can't go around deleting redirects because an AfD is considered likely to delete the target. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Reasons given for deletion are complete crap. Even worse that many users repeated "per Wizardman" even though he gave an entirely invalid reason for deletion. It's obviously a likely typo. --- RockMFR 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I had to look at "Subsidairy" and "Subsidiary" a few times to spot the difference, which pretty much establishes it being a plausible typo in my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I merged the one-liner from Subsidiary Alliance to Subsidiary alliance, added two references and set the redirect there. Now if someone who knows how to transwiki can initiate it we can close this request. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I have to agree, that RfD was bizarre. JuJube 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Being on the main page is not a reason to speedy keep an AfD; it's not relevant. Closure should be overturned and either the AfD should be restarted or resumed. Rory096 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy procedural keep Yes it is. See WP:CSK Bwithh 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Carrion Fields (MUD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Consensus on the deletion of this article only applies to a former article under the name of "Carrion Fields". "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article was re-written specifically to address the problems that led to the deletion of the "Carrion Fields" article in 2005. Yet "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" was deleted for the same reasons as the "Carrion Fields" article was. The consensus reached in 2005 only applies to the "Carrion Fields" article, not to the "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article. A request for prompt reinstatement is subsequently being made. 84.192.125.204 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. It was originally deleted for lack of notability, which this new article does not assert. I'd like an admin to restore for the sake of seeing if G4 was valid, but A7 would have applied anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes a multi-user dungeon which has been operating since January 1994, and which has had its code copied by several newer muds as well. Muds that lack notability do not last 13 years.  :-) It is a rather invalid assessment. 84.192.125.204 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did longevity supply notability? I've been living for two years longer, and I'm not notable. My grandpa has been living for sixty years longer, and he still isn't notable. Longevity isn't even an assertion of notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is an individual person a direct comparison to a free-to-play public mud that requires a solid fanbase to merit its continued operation? You also oddly make no mention of the second fact; that this mud has had its code copied on several occasions by newer muds. Why do muds which suppossedly are not notable get their code copied exactly? 84.192.125.204 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're using the same definition of "notable" I am. My definition is in WP:N, which says, paraphrased, "must have multiple independent sources discussing the topic". Excluding forums and blogs, you have 1, and that 1 is questionable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am rather new to Wikipedia, am not very familiar with its guidelines, and have been welcomed by having hours of work arbitrarily deleted in my face without prior notice or explanation from anyone. But this is completely besides the point of course. Are you basically saying I first need to link to for example references from websites such a TopMudSites which discuss this particular mud and the impact it has made on the mudding community at large over the (many) years? 84.192.125.204 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite amazing to see how a new user is virtually treated as a type of criminal for merely trying to save hours worth of editing to an article he wrote in good faith for this website. I am definitely drawing a number of conclusions from this, and the majority of them are not positive. As it is, could the article at least be reinstated for a brief period to 'see if G4 is valid', so I can at least make a notepad copy of the content should I ever be able to meet these guidelines at some point in the future? Or, could you please copy the full content of The Carrion Fields (MUD) article's edit page in a notepad, and send this to [email protected] through attachment? I would hope that there actually exists at least one administrator on this entire website who is capable of showing a hint of a benign and helpful attitude towards a newcommer. 84.192.125.204 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion a MUD would have to be something pretty special to get an article, and while longevity is worth something, it's not enough by itself. If everything 13 years old got an article, we'd have one for any number of hot-dog stands, diners, and truck stops, not to mention one for every high-school student! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally don't see how Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands is in any way more notable than one of the oldest still running muds on the internet such as The Carrion Fields, yet its article not only continues to exist but is in fact being protected by an administrator. I hope no conflict of interest is present there? 84.192.125.204 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not protected, the request for a speedy deletion was declined by an admin. This does not preclude nomination at Articles for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to get this clear, I'm not 84.192.125.204(mind getting a nick?), however I totally agree with his point. Being the editor of the Achaea (MUD) for over a year now(feel free to check) and being generally aware of the situation, I cannot see any other reason for the deletion of the Carrion Fields article other than lack of understanding of the matter amoung the admins or somebody being crooked in here. Facts are: 1.) Achaea and Carrion are both MUDS. 2.) They are of the same age. 3.) They are both always in the top five of the TopMudSites(the only possible resource for a MUDs notability). 4.) The number of players online is in the same range for both MUDs. These four points are virtually what those MUDs can be described by. The big difference is that CarrionF is a MUD with is run for free, while Achaea is a commercial organisation which has the funds to pay for the advertisements. For an encyclopedia this should not make a difference.
• Now sunshines, if you want notability in shiny neon-lights go to a Robbie Williams concert. If you're speaking about a subset of a smaller unit, adjust your proportions. Example: Music - everybody listen to it, subset(Bob Marley or whoever) - a very large number of people need to listen to it. If you take a village of 50000 men with one band, it'll be notable there, however 50000 compared to 6 billion is a very small number. Now to MUDs. If you only have say 2 million people having a solid idea of what MUDs are, having 80 000 people knowing what Achaea or CF is, is more than enough to make it notable.
• CF is notable and personally I don't see how the article for the general idea of MUDs, which is by the way 100% useless to 99,9998% of this planet, is more significant than that of CF, which is also quite useless to the general population. People who play MUDs, a "significant" group, know CF as they know Achaea or any other "notable" MUD. People who don't play them are simply clueless on this matter. Now the guys deleting it were both clueless and ignorant of the regulations. Just as easily as that I can start deleting articles about the species of pinguins in the rainforest, cause they have no notability to me or any of my fellows. The individuals responsible for the deletion should have their admin status overlooked at once AND revert the removal process. Now, either you delete ALL articles about MUDs or you do us all a favour and place one of the most played text based games on net back into your article directory. ~~MaxGrin 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe people haven't seen these other articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption of bad faith, anybody? The close must either have been crooked or due to stupidity, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with WP:V, WP:NOTABILITY or WP:RS, could it? Endorse close, no new arguments, just new attacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse deletion While the content of the articles is different, the relevant issues are not. The additional content in the new article does not include references to published sources that are independent and reliable. It consisted of detailed information about game features. Since it didn't address the prior reasons for deletion, I can endorse deletion. I wouldn't object to overturning and listing at AFD, but I expect that at AFD it would be deleted. GRBerry 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a free encyclopedia which has the slogan “be useful” in its first lines. What do you need (technically, e.g. 5 admins voting or whatsoever?) for it to get re-posted? On a side note, Achaean article has been approved as notable by the admin User:Steel359 and has been removed from the deletion list. This makes WP:INN no applicible. PS: Can anyone please point at what the article actually looked like? ~~MaxGrin 07:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're misunderstanding how the speedy deletion system works; if an A7 was declined, it only means that the article includes a claim of notability, not that it was "approved as notable". Determining whether or not the claim of notability is valid under policy is what AfD is for. WarpstarRider 08:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, my apologies, seems like I was wrong on certain matters. The article is quite different from an encyclopaedia entry and probably deserved its end. Thanks everybody for your help and please excuse the trouble caused (deletions are not exactly my strongpoint). However, it seems that the reason for the deletion was the respectable article being an advert rather than lack of notability. It’s notable, but the commercial structure had to be removed. May I suggest undeletion and trimming down to major facts with citations? I believe this would be a reasonable solution to the problem. ~~MaxGrin 11:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTARIETY IN A NATIONAL MAGAZINE ESTABLISHED Jellonuts 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate this page. He was reviewed in April, 2003 STUFF Magazine on Page 38. This establishes enough notariety.

• Note: This is actually about Ill Mitch which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch, then deleted twice more as recreations, the most recent being today. Metros232 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I understand that, but I have established sufficient notability so I do not understand why the latest page is being censored? Jellonuts 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, AfDed article was deleted 6 months ago, for different reasons than notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is a new article so whatever reasons there were for the old one are null. When it was made the author was not aware of previous deletion. I see no reason why this article is censored Jellonuts 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... yes... there is no good reason... that's why I said overturn. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note:Sorry, I misunderstood and did not see you had said "overturn." Thanks
• Comment: It was only while nominating this for AFD that I noticed that it had a previous AFD. If this is overturned, I will AFD for nn reasons. Obviously as the person who deleted this for the third time, I vote keep deleted. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to do that, but I don't see why. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you want it deleted? Notability is established and I worked hard on it. The guy produces records, has songs on itunes, has been mentioned in Stuff Magazine, has high google, and has high hits on his web site. What else would you like in order to establish notability as an internet phenomenon? ?Jellonuts 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review isn't the place for such discussions, but fails WP:BIO (which specifies multiple independent sources). The CDs are not available on the popular websites I've checked [1]. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when have independent artists been found on popular online stores?--69.140.240.105 21:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the proper place to discuss this then, I am new and I do not know? deletion review is not the place to discuss reasons for deletion or reinstatement? Where else is there? Also, check itunes, that is a pretty popular web site, so itunes, Stuff Magazine, google are three independant sources, right? Jellonuts 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why can't you at least do a temporary undelete since it was deleted without discussion? Restore it and go through the discussion process instead of deciding it for yourselfJellonuts 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit history restored. ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems to be that the article stays, so would an admin please restore it? 67.167.130.247 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no such consensus. Endorse deletion, where is this national magazne source? There were no reliable sources in the most recent version of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, the source is the international high circulation periodical "Stuff Magazine" April 2003 issue, page 38 where he is reviewed and acknowledged. Also, music is avaliable on itunes. Also, the artist is referenced on wikiquote. Also, internet phenomenon is evidenced by nearly 2 million web hits and google rankings. What more notability do you want me to provide to convince you that this should not have been deleted without fair discussion and valid reason? I would have gladly added the references to the original page, had I known that I should, but it was deleted without any request for notability reference or discussionJellonuts 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Once again?" Where was this first brought up? And iTunes existence is not notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, forget itunes, but Stuff Magazine is notable. Also, here is another article about him from "Bacon Magazine" http://www.frymybacon.com/articles/articles.php?articleID=422. Also, here is the article from Colorado Daily, the newspaper from Thursday, June 12, 2003 http://www.boingboing.net/2003/06/12/russian_rapper_ill_m.html Furthermore, he is mentioned in a song by independant artist U-Kru which was linked to on the article. What do you mean by "where was this first brought up?" It was brought up right here and on the deleters talk page becasue it was deleted without ever being brought up or discussed.Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither of those is a reliable source. Give us mainstream magazines, newspapers, MTV, something that's peer reviewed. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you seriously suggesting that Stuff Magazine is not a mainstream magazine. It is on every newstand and at every bookstore with high circulation in the U.S. and U.K. It is a sister magazine to Maxim Magazine. As for a newspaper, I also have also already given one of those, the Colorado Daily, from Thursday, June 12, 2003. I just don't understand what you are getting at, you are asking me for things I have already provided, and then calling them unreliable. I get the feeling that I am being held to an impossible standard to prove notability here. How can a newspaper and Stuff Magazine not be considered reliable independant sources? Here is a link to Stuff Magazine http://www.stuffmagazine.com/index.aspx Jellonuts 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, my Google search at '"ill mitch" -"illmitch.com" -myspace -wikipedia' returns 27,500, not 2 million. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the artists web site http://www.illmitch.com/ that has 1977735 hits. Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This DRV has been open for a total of 7 hours and there's no pressing reason to speedy close this. Metros232 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was no pressing reason to speedy delete it without discussion eitherJellonuts 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please familiarize yourself with WP:CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I apologise, but I am indeed a newbie and I am trying to learn as I go, so please forgive my ignorance. It would be a little more encouraging for new users if they were assisted in a polite way instead of having there work deleted with no discussion, and then having to defend themselves to seemingly inpatient and sometimes sarcastic experienced users. I did reading before I contributied, butyou can't expect a new user to know everything. I'm just trying to contribute a page for an internet phenomenon and I do not understand why it is deleted? Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to me which of the criteria the article violated that caused it to be immediatley deleted, with no nomination or discussion because I read the page and I don't understand?Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • We get thousands of new articles a day, most of them not keepable. Realistically, it would be impossible to hold drawn-out discussions on all of them. That's why options like this exist to review decisions. Fan-1967 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • See G4 in the speedy deletion criteria. G4 is for recreated articles of previously deleted material which is what this was deleted as. Metros232 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • To quote G4 "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject" It was not substantially identical at all and it was a new article on the same subject that, unlike the original deleted article judging from the original AfD discussion, conforms to wiki standards, so again, I ask, which policy did the article violate?Jellonuts 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Articles which fail WP:NOTABILITY, even if rewritten, still fail WP:NOTABILITY, and still fall under the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But it does not fail notability criteria, I have provided sufficent references of notability.
• Very weak Overturn - inasmuch as this article is substantially different from the deleted one and has a news media mention, but honestly, I think it's going to be difficult to create a well-written, sourced article on this subject. You may want to work on it in your user space until it is ready ... but to be perfectly honest I have a hard time seeing an article on this topic ever surviving AFD. --BigDT 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page and supplied all of the references and image tags. I am requesting one more time, after all this work, that the block be lifted so that I can replace the page with the new one. Then, if you don't like it you can nominate it for AfD and go through the discussion process rather than tyrannically deleting it without a discussion. I have satisfied the notability requirements, even if newspapers and national magazines are not good enough for YOU, they are good enough for wikipedia requirements and notability is specifically supposed to NOT be a subjective criteria. Please lift the block.Jellonuts 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you update the page, so that others can review what you did? And please quit referring to proper deletion processes as "censorship". User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Jellonuts has created the page on his user talk page, see User talk:Jellonuts. Metros232 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Metros. Having read that, I still have to say that no reliable sources have been provided. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • First, I don't believe it was a "proper deletion" because AfD was never done, and if it my mistakes had been brought to my attention I would have corrected them. Second, I had replied to your accusations that these sources are not reliable above and you never responded further. Please tell me specifically how these sources are not reliable, especially the newspaper and national entertainment magazine, and online magazine and see my comments under our previous conversation. Jellonuts 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read WP:V and WP:RS yet? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I have, have you? The sources are verifiable, and reliable. They meet all the criteria in WP:V and WP:RS It is obvious to me that nothing I could ever provide will change the minds that have already been made up. I tried to make a contribution in good faith, I have no alterior motives. I was just making an article about this internet celebrity rapper guy that I came across. I am apparently either very ignorant, or I am being held to an impossible standard. You people are very discouraging to a new contributor acting in good faith, it's a wonder anyone bothers using their time to contribute. I work on this page, then it gets deleted without ANY discussion. I talk to that ADM, who tells me to provide a source and s/he will replace it. I do this, and s/he ignores me. I come here to deletion review, and a few people agree. Those who do not request things like "mention in a magazine and a newspaper." I provide you with EXACTLY that, and then you tell me the very thing you requested in not good enough. I am told by one ADM to recreate the page in my user space, so I spend the time doing that, and then a different admin deletes things there because I am apparently not supposed to have images and whatnot in my user space. Why don't you assist people like me to improve their contributions rather than taking on an offensive to delete the contribution, and worse yet, drive the contributor away by fighting against them instead of helping them?

I am going to request one last time, since the 5 days are up, that this be unprotected so that I may restore the page and then it can go through the process of AfD if you so wish.Jellonuts 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The request is faulty, as the requestor has too much of a vested interest in the topic; the account was inactive for a year, and all edits since reactivation on 15 November 2006 are related to this artist. Google brings up the artist's site, myspace, and a bunch of forums, none of which contribute to notability. There appear to be no other articles, and the artist has no entry on Allmusic. As the available sources I can find qualify as self-published, article fails notability. MSJapan 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you "self-publish" in Stuff Magazine, or the Colorado Daily Newspaper? You know what, I've spent too much of my time on this. I tried to contribute, and it is obvious neither I nor my contributions are wanted here. I am tired of being judged and wasting my time on an article that obviously nobody wants on their wikipedia. Judge me because I have spent all my time on THIS article lately? Well, my time is important and if I did not have to spend all my time fighting against people who would rather throw any technicallity they can at me rather than help me learn, then maybe I would have time to contribute to other articles. Do whatever you want! I'm frustrated and I'm done. I truly hope you treat future new users with fair intentions better than I've been treated. If you make us all feel unwelcome and drivien away, wikipedia will not work as it was intended. You lost an educated and well-intentioned contributor today, and for what? Is wikipedia better off now without this article? How? You may think so, but I think not. There was an entry here about a silly rapper guy who has a weird cult fan following, odd but noteable. Granted, not on MTV or Time Magazine, but among many people and among several independant, reliable, highly circulated sources. (I can't believe you don't consider Stuff Magazine a mainstream publication? You better delete Stuff's wiki article too becasue it is not notable, right?) Now, it is deleted and anyone who ever wanted to seek information about it on wikipedia is SOL, and I am discouraged and disappointed. Congratulations, you win, but the wikipedia project loses. Jellonuts 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The other related articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Seifert, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Security Foundation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toufeeq Hussain in this series have been closed as delete or are clearly going towards a delete. But this one was closed as "no consensus". I believe that closing admin User:Cbrown1023 failed to notice that none of the two users who voted keep had a valid argument. One of them cited "Desperate wish" as the reason to keep the article, the another one cited what he called "notable references" -- but I clearly pointed out that none of these references are notable. Out of four links provided, one says that he is mentor for Summer of Code projects, second mentions that he is one of the many volunteers for OSVDB, third mentions he is author of a web scanner tool, fourth one has just one sentence: "Nikto, by Chris Sullo, is based on the next generation LibWhisker library." Jyothisingh 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see much to establish notability. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask your security folks what tools they use to make sure wikipedia.org is secure... I bet you they use Nikto as part of their kit. Yes, this is my article. No, I didn't write it. Have fun, whatever your decision is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csullo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. It doesn't really matter what Wikipedia uses; Wikipedia has not yet reached the point that anything it uses becomes notable because of that. Keep reasons made no sense. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The four links provided in the AfD give no non-trivial published works where Sullo is the primary subject. Fails WP:BIO. BigNate37_(T) 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, closure was incorrect. Proto::► 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - A couple of comments in favor of keeping this article follow. The wikipedia criteria for biographical works include the following:

"Being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works"

Chris Sullo and Nikto are referenced in several computer security handbooks and scholarly works. Please refer to the following lists of works via Google or directly on cirt.net

In his 2006 list of top 100 network security tools, notable security expert Fyodor lists Nikto as #12.

Nikto is listed as #1 in the more defined class of web scanners. In 2003, Nikto was awarded #16.

While the entries listed above include Chris Sullo and his work as one of several sources of reference, this also establishes the criteria of "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

"The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [sic] specific field"

The following is evidence of Chris Sullo's contribution to the security industry:

• Chris Sullo, Nikto, and OSVDB are widely known and well regarded within the computer security industry. This is evidenced by the reference material listed earlier as well as mentions made at various computer security conferences.
• Chris Sullo is the published author to publicly released vulnerabilities in Trillian, Apache, Verity Ultraseek, cPanel,

Netgear routers, MySQL Eventum, Cyclades Alterpath ([1, 2, 3), and more.

• Chris Sullo is not just "one of the many volunteers" for OSVDB; he is a founder, board member, and project leader.
• A short list of jobs where Sullo's published work, Nikto, is listed as required or preferred areas of expertise for many jobs. Similarly, Nikto is often a topic of instruction in computer security classes.
• Sullo's published work, the Nikto database, is in use by several commercially available security products.

• As pointed out earlier, Chris Sullo is not the primary subject of these multiple non-trivial published works. Nikto Web Scanner has already got an article of its own, and it mentions that Chris Sullo is the author. That's fair enough, in my opinion. Jyothisingh 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist As a matter of rhetoric, the fairness argument is woefully weak. It has already been conceded that Chris Sullo was not the primary subject of the above referenced works, however that is not the sole guideline wikipedia has established for deletion and the entry did meet other criteria. While deletion may be fair in the opinion of many, the argument lacks adherence to the deletion guidelines. For one, fairness, is not a guideline. If it were, then there would be several other biographies that are ripe for deletion --- you know, in the interest of fairness ---- for the subjects of those biographies do not have non-trivial works solely written about them. I don't even disagree that it is a fair consequence, I just don't see where fairness is of relevance. Alternatively, one could modify the guidelines to include because it seems fair as a valid reason for deletion... or perhaps, modify the guidelines to state that should there be no evidence of non-trivial published works written solely in reference to the subject of the biography, the biography should be deleted in favor of the page referencing the contribution itself (in this case the Nikto web scanner). At this time, that is not a guideline, so this biography does not meet the criteria for deletion. Another reasonable course of action would be to reach out to other leaders and innovators in the security industry whose biographies are noted in wikipedia and consider their opinion as to whether or not the subject of this article is indeed notable and worthy of his own biography. Their opinions should be considered a stronger litmus test than those l who have little if any knowledge in the field. (JaneEleanor 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

references available Requesting undeletion of the following articles
Mindstar Productions
Mindstar Aviation
Cinergy Motion Picture Production System
Cinergy MPPS
Cinergy Script Editor
Per the following note from an admin, sufficient references were provided, but weren't listed in the article at the time of deletion. The notice I received from the admin is listed below:

The references you gave are fine, and there are others. You may be able to get your article undeleted, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review. For now, I created a temporary page under your userspace: *****. This shows the proper way of referencing. --ElectricEye (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) IGuy 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a conflict of interest to me. Articles failed to assert notability (e.g. "The Cinergy Script Editor is a free Windows-based word processing software package that allows the user to write a screenplay in the most commonly accepted format."). Guy (Help!) 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict of interest?? It's a guideline, just like WP:AGF... --ElectricEye (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Guideline" doesn't mean "can be ignored whenever we feel like it". -- Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not ignoring anything. WP:AGF. There's no conflict of interest on my part. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin: This DRV is very premature. I deleted a few articles on a CSD run, and ask for sources when someone contests said deletions. I then leave my computer to make dinner, and on my return find that someone has recommended a DRV. The first port of call for contested speedies should not be DRV. -- Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If DRV is not the first port of call for contested speedies, then what is the first port of call. Please tell the new user here, User:IGuy, who wants help. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably the deleting admin's talk page. --W.marsh 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instruction creep. More important is a discussion about notability. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think anyone's suggesting requiring it... but it's just a more polite and often more productive way of going about it. I can file a formal complaint about a co-worker who bugs me, but a less confrontational and possibly better way of going about it is to just talk to them about the problem. --W.marsh 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Demonstrating the notability of Mindstar Productions is easy. Almost all of Cessna's aircraft are shipped with one of Mindstar's products: Garmin G1000.[2] --ElectricEye (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight clarification: Mindstar Productions is the publisher of Garmin G1000. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about the product does not indicate that the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. To warrant an article, rather than the simple mention as the manufacturer in Garmin G1000 that it has now, the company has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. Uncle G 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IGuy has some references on his talk page. --ElectricEye (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In the midst of this discussion, someone presumably involved in this discussion has gone into the article for Garmin G1000 and tried to edit it to assert that Mindstar is the publisher of THE Garmin G1000, when in fact, Mindstar is the publisher of a SIMULATION of the Garmin G1000 for Microsoft Flight Simulator. If my postings here about the stated products are not worthy of Wikipedia in some way, that's fine, but now it appears someone had, on my behalf, edited the wiki for Garmin and asserts information about Mindstar that isn't accurate. The problem is becoming compounded. I have corrected the Garmin wiki to remove the incorrect information, and I will refrain from any further postings until we hear a final resolution to the discussion about my deleted postings. IGuy 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Cinergy MPPS as a valid R1. Userfy the remainder. I think one article meeting WP:CORP might be creatable out of this lot. That article should be written in accordance with the guidance at the essay WP:FORGET. GRBerry 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• how can I discuss what I've never seen? since this came direct from a speedy, there wasn't even a AfD I could have followed. Unless the editors above have had the authority to undelete and used it for their private viewing, on what basis are they discussing it?DGG 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

INAPPROPRIATELY_DELETED Jaybregman 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I believe the administrator steel359 acted innapropriately in using a speedy delete on this article on the basis of "blatant advertising". This page provides factual information on our company, and although the company is the subject of the article I do not believe it could by any stretch be categorised as "blatant advertising" (and would challenge anyone who believes this to indicate the specific reasons with reference to the text of the article--available here Internet Archive Link. I was shocked to see that the article was summarily deleted some months ago without our knowledge. The article had been reviewed by other admins (I even requested page protection at one point), which begs the question why if there was consensus the article was innapropriate this was not raised earlier. The admin in question could and should--if he actually believed the article was "blatant advertising" have posted on the discussion page and informed us. This would have led to the discussion being held in the open, for all to see. It took me quite a while to see why the page had been deleted--it was just gone. This behaviour betrays the key principles of openess and the freedom of information exchange on which Wikipedia was founded and which continues to make it special. I have posted on steel359's talk page to this effect, also requesting an apology for his conduct. I believe it would be wise to review the criteria for speedy deletion and that steel359's judgement and conduct ought to be carefully reviewed in light of the above. Jaybregman 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is about ECourier, not Ecourier. ECourier redirects to Ecourier automatically, but admins can view the past history at Special:Undelete/ECourier. Metros232 02:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. What the heck? I see a test page, and a couple other things. Nothing about a company. And your tone does not help, Jay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just the point! I have made clearer the Internet Archive link but do you see how difficult it is (and frustrating) this is? The IA link is accurate as of March 2006. jaybregman
• Three things:

1. "Our company"
2. Excerpt from the article: "eCourier uses an intelligent dispatch and Fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate couriers through analySis of rEaL-time data including traFfic & demand patternS, weathER conditions and indiVidual courIer performaNce. A.I.B.A. is a promising example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks. In addition to dispatchinG deliveries within seconds eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocaTion to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed."
3. This is a contested speedy. Shouldn't be on DRV anyway.

• I am not going to entertain this any further. -- Steel 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I understand, but that in itself should NOT be used as a reason to categorise the *content* as advertising. To do that one should only look at the *content*
2. Excerpt from the article: "eCourier uses an intelligent dispatch and Fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate couriers through analySis of rEaL-time data including traFfic & demand patternS, weathER conditions and indiVidual courIer performaNce.

Fact. See references at Times Article, Silicon.com, etc. A.I.B.A. is a promising example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks. See reference at Michael Trick's Operational Research Blog, from an Academic at CMU, see the post from 23 June. eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocaTion to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed." Included in Times article but refers to factual descriptions of the product.

Yes it is a contested speedy--if it should not be here where should it go? The article says to leave a message on your talk page which was done and to appeal here if refused, which is how I take your response. Do you really think "I am not going to entertain this any further" is appropriate when the topic of discussion is summarily deleting information without discussion?

• Endorse speedy deletion The article was written as an advertisement. It was therefore completely appropriate to delete it under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Given the references found in the most recent post, it probably is possible to write an article with a chance of surviving AFD. Best bet is for someone who knows nothing about the company to do so, in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. The nominator here used the phrase "our company", so they need to read and take to heart Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is almost never a good idea for someone to write about their own company; Wikipedia is normally better off without any article on a company than with an article written by someone who has a conflict of interest. GRBerry 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and throw in my hat to say that the behavior of Jaybregman here is completely inappropriate. JuJube 07:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Conflict of Interest guidelines thoroughly and I think we all need to step back and remember a few points here. First, I don't believe I did write the original article, I just edited it (please could an admin check this and post). Second, the COI guidelines make very clear that although editing an article in which you have an interest should be avoided, it is not forbidden and if your interest is declared and the SUBSTANCE of your edits are fair, there is no problem. "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material. WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." Note my emphasis on the last sentence, these are from the guidelines themselves. What I don't think is right about this discussion is that people are inferring something about the content of an article (that it's not just advertisement, but blatant advertisement) SIMPLY from my declared status as an editor with some COI. That is not right and contrary to the COI policy. The two users who posted above have not indicated any specific content from the article which would characertise it as "blatant advertisement". If it is so blatant, could someone please indicate this with reference to the CONTENT of the article? I also note that the criteria for speedy deletion is not just advertisement (ANY article written on a company by anyone will by its very nature contain what can be seen as advertisements assuming it describes its products and services) but that it be "blatant". It's quite frustrating that no one will engage me in a substantive discussion here. Anyway, following on from GRBerry's comments, I suggest that the article be restored so references can be added carefully to each assertion. This is good practice anyway particularly in situations where COI is a declared issue. Comments on this can be recorded on the discussion page of the article and editors can modify as needed. Surely this is a better option than removing all discussion on this subject? I will post a version of this article Here Jaybregman 12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The article has been reconstructed, edited, and detailed references have been added which include highly reputable sources such as The Economist, The Times, The Financial Times, Published Academic works (e.g. Proceedings of the ITS World Congress 2006) as well as comments from Academics. I considered adding a disclaimer but I was not sure if this was appropriate. I would ask that the article be restored, and that if any admins still believe the article to qualify as "blatant advertising" that they respond here with reference to the content of the article as to why they believe to be so (hopefully if this does happen the article can be further edited to ensure it meets quality standards).Jaybregman 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has been deleted by someone (which I think was inappropriate as it is under discussion here) so I have reposted so that everyone has a chance to see the updated article. Could I again ask admins not to summarily delete the article but rather post any issues you have with the updated content here for discussion and consensus. Thank you. Jaybregman 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you do in this case is ask an admin to restore the history. You don't just recreate it. JuJube 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry JuJube, I'll admit not an expert here. Could you (or someone) please restore the page as of yesterday so that we might hold more informed discussion on the new content? I don't see why it was necessary to delete the page whilst this discussion was still ongoing?Jaybregman 09:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of spam, close this due to egregious WP:COI on the part of the nominator. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, would you mind indicating with reference to the text why you feel the article is "spam"? I cannot see how you can reasonably believe this given the references, and if it is so obvious it shouldn't be a problem for you to justify. Likewise, "egregious WP:COI" is not a valid reason for deletion in and of itself--the only reasons text can be deleted are because the text itself fails to meet quality standards, the identity of the author notwithstanding, correct?Jaybregman 08:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you read WP:COI yet? Guy (Help!) 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Every word! Guy, the essence of the guideline is that editing articles in which you have a COI should be avoided. It does NOT say it is expressly forbidden. Nor does it say that articles can be deleted *simply* because an editor declares COI. That's because the guideline is very well thought out, and state that although editors with a COI will be inclined to write biased or otherwise inappropriate content (which is why COI needs to be watched closely) the only way to judge whether content is appropriate or not is by looking at the CONTENT, not the CREATOR or EDITOR behind the content. I have posted the following salient quote direct from the policy above: ""All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material. WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." (my emphasis). So, the real question here is can anyone involved in this discussion point to content in the revised article which suggests it is "blatant advertising"? If so, they should post it here. That's the purpose of a deletion review--to review the *content* to be deleted--not simply to review the editors. The arguments of everyone who has endorsed deletion can be summed up simply: "Editor has declared COI, therefore article *must* be advertising / spam / bias, therefore should be deleted". That's logically corrupt. In order to make this argument work one would have to (and one should EASILY be able to if it is indeed the case) list one or more quotations from the article which put it into any of those categories. No one has done so--so the real question is--why not? Guy, please you have labelled it "spam"--can you justify this comment with reference to the content, which is the *only* reason a piece of text could be called "spam"? It's terrifying to think that under the standards which are implicit in the arguments of those who endorse deletion, any article in which an editor has a COI which is declared or discovered can be deleted without review, or the edits can be deleted without review, and this deletion can be justified. That seems highly contrary to the principles of truth through open discussion which pervade the site (indeed, it's contrary to the very guidelines you cite and ask if I have read).Jaybregman 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I'll fill this one. I'm looking at the deleted revision of Ecourier from 17:50, 14 January 2007 (that's the one you started writing in the middle of the DRV):
          • • Sincere thanks for referring to the text. It makes me think we could have settled this outside a DRV if I hadn't overreacted (I apologise for this, by the way).Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Differing from the traditional hub-and-spoke distribution systems pioneered by <competitors' names here>"
            • This is covered in the Release 1.0 article which can be found here [3]. "With its simple architecture, the FedEx model reduced errors to well below 5 percent and created an industry where none had existed before...The new model we discuss here is different. Rather than simplify operations to make exceptions rare, the new P2P models de facto make every transaction an exception...Each courier pickup is a dynamic, real-time, semi-optimized event" (p4).
              

However, I think we can modify the sentence to be more neutral: eCourier has taken a different approach to logistics than previous companies such as FedEx (cite to first sentence of this quote and include quote in reference), rather than attempting to "simplify operations to make exceptions rare", the Peer to Peer model practiced by eCourier "de facto make[s] every transaction an exception...Each courier pickup is a dynamic, real-time, semi-optimized event" (add other cite and link to full article).
This is more powerful as it uses the text of the reference to make the point. It makes clear the difference between editor assertion and ideas of veritable third party sources. Do you agree? Is this chance acceptable?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "eCourier [was] founded in 2003 by entrepreneurial Dartmouth College alumni Tom Allason and Jay Bregman to revolutionise the express delivery market."
            • I take it you are probably not disagreeing with the first part of the sentence (but please note in a later revision the word "entrepreneural" was removed). However, if you do, note cite here [4] from CNBC European Business magazine: "the two first met at Dartmouth University..." (please note the author erroneously calls Dartmouth a university, I'm sure there is more discussion on this at Dartmouth College.
              

Ok, so the second part of the sentence "to revolutionise the express delivery market". I see your point as to how this could be interpreted as non-neutral. I think it is more powerful to change it to
eCourier [was] founded in 2003 by Dartmouth College alumni Tom Allason and Jay Bregman. The company states it is "determined to revolutionsise the way a courier comapny looks after both its couriers and clients" (include cite to [5] which is already there). This way, it is clear what the company is asserting on its corporate site as its mission (c.f. "Google's mission statement is to 'organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" Google article, which includes link to corporate site). Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "eCourier uses an intelligent despatch and fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate bicycle, motorbike and van couriers through analysis of real-time data including traffic & demand patterns, weather conditions and individual courier performance."

I personally think the citations to this are sufficient. But again, it's more powerful to use the text of the citations in the decription, it has the added benefit of making the article more encyclopedic and eliminating the appearance of pushing unverified information. So, we can do this: eCourier developed and uses in its operations an intelligent despatch and fleet management system it calls A.I.B.A. The system "uses a detailed geographical model of its London operations, including predicted and actual traffic patterns, weather, package demand, real-time courier availability, and other data" (Release 1.0 article, p11) to "[match] jobs and couriers in real time, using its knowledge of where they are" (ibid). How does it work? "AIBA knows where all th eCouriers are, and it knows what they are carrying and how fast they are moving. This information is combined with the latest traffic and weather reports. The computer also compares the journey with previous patterns, allowing it to calculate the impact of a traffic jam, a thunderstorm, or just a busy Friday afternoon. It then uses this information to predict a travel time for the collection and delivery and allocates each new delviery to the most appropriate courier. The whole process takes milliseconds."(See Despatch Manager article [6]. Note I also could have used Release 1.0 for a more technical discussion of the inner-workings, but I wanted to keep it simple and vary the sources used).
Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "A.I.B.A. is an example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks."
            • I don't see the problem with the citation, but it's again stronger to change to:

A.I.B.A is a "great example of how an entreprenurial company can use Operations Research to gain tremendous competitive advantage". And add cite to Michael Trick's OR Blog (author is CMU academic. I also cited this above (have listed google cache here because main site is having issues, see 23 June post) [7]
See also [8] where The Economist notes "...an elaborate algorithm that is now at the heart of eCourier's business, in much the same way as a mathematical formula drives Google's search engine". Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "In addition, eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocation to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed."
            • Again, these are factual descriptions of the company's products and services. By its very nature any article on a company will include this (see again Google and c.f. "Google is well known for its web search service, which is a major factor of the company's success. It indexes billions of web pages so that users can search for the infomration they desire through the use of keywords and operators.") However, there is no real problem with a re-formulation:
              

eCourier's web site allows customers to "track their courier on a map in real-time, with [time] estimates for pickup and delivery." After the delivery is completed, "the client then receives an instant e-mail proof of delivery complete with digital signature of the signer." (cite to Despatch Manager article available here[9]) The company has set up a demo of its online tracking system here track deliveriesJaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • "By re-engineering the traditional business model the company has been able to capture market share very quickly and differentiate on both value-added offerings and service in an otherwise commoditised marketplace."
            • Ok, fair point, should be fleshed out individually. Suggested change
              

eCourier has grown substantially since it started operations in September 2004 with only four couriers: "After just 19 months of operations, eCourier is handling 15,000 deliveries per month, for some of London's largest investment banks, law firms, and retailers" FT ([10] with "85% of the company's bookings [made] over the internet". (The Economist, see cite above). Do you agree with this change?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • So yes, it was very spammy. WP:COI sounds like a brilliant reason to stop you writing any more of this corporate drivel. -- Steel 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure the histrionics are necessary, but in any case, looking forward to your comments on the revisions above.Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quick extra: that's not *all* the spammy material in the article. I stopped reading about half way through because I already had enough examples. -- Steel 15:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem, if you feel there is more, post it so we can discuss. I hope you agree your "examples" have been replaced by text which is beyond reproach (or if you don't you will let us know with reference to the text). I think the crucial point this exchange proves is that the article is by no means unsalvagable, but more importantly this discussion on the text will lead to a much stronger article.Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Jaybregman. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion under G11, and I see some rather serious WP:COI issues here, as is usually the case when somebody is fighting tooth-and-nail to get an article kept. Perhaps a sourced article without any advertising tone will be created in the future by an uninvolved party, until then it's probably better to put this to rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Airline Destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Vote was 10 of 16 to delete, should have been closed as no consensus especially knowing that this article from an obscure airline was going to be used to justify deleteing articles for major airlines. Votes for deletion did not consider the reasons why the articles exist. They were first created when this information became large relative to the size of the airline article. By splitting this data out, the parent article size becomes more manageable. The destinations are encyclopedic since they define the very nature of many airlines. The are easy to verify from any travel website, airport websites, government required notifications, government approvals and many other sources, so the votes citing WP:V should have been considered with less weight. It this vote is upheld, it may set a very interesting precedent. It would in effect support deletion of any type of destination list. That could lead to deletions in other areas. Vegaswikian 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I deleted and stand by it. Only five people wanted to keep; one gave a reason as precedent that other airlines have destination articles but s/he would endorse deleting if they all were; one basically gave WP:INTERESTING as a reason; one cited WP:ORG which doesn't even apply. A strong 10 vs. a weak 5 with the final person wanting to merge and redirect. (If folks want the deleted content to merge in, I'll supply it). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. "Slippery slope", while arguably a valid reason in an AfD, is most certainly not a valid reason in a DRV (since it isn't XfD round 2}, and AfD is not a vote, so vote counts are irrelevant. Especially with the aforementioned WP:ILIKEIT comments. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete, no satisfactory reason was given as to why such a list should be on Wikipedia in the first place. It seems more appropriate for Wikitravel, if nothing else. Axem Titanium 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - A satisfactory argument has to be made that the article should be deleted, and it wasn't really. Half of the nominator's statement was incorrect, as WP does have other such lists. Aside from that, it's interesting how wknight manipulates the numbers there. The counts were actually 10 delete, most of which made sense, a couple were weak; 5 keep, 4 of which were perfectly reasonable; and 1 merge, which is still a keep, since the content should remain. Moreschi has some interesting comments on his talk page indicating he supports deleting everything in sight, and an administrator went so far as threatening to block him over another deletion issue, so this diminishes the credibility of his comments. 10-6 (or, more like 9-5) is no consensus. DB (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be. Consensus is not determined by counting heads. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, consensus is not a vote. >Radiant< 10:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that have to do with anything? The argument is that there wasn't a real consensus. DB (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument is that there wasn't a consensus because the numerical count doesn't match the nominator's idea of what the numerical count should be. That's a red herring since consensus is not a vote. >Radiant< 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge. The fact that the mass listing of the airline destination lists seems headed for a "keep" indicates that this result is an anomoly. By deleting this article we lost valid and verifiable information about Livingston Airlines and that is a great pity. Information about where an airline carrier flies is present for just about all other airlines we have here and is highly relevant for coverage of the company. In regards to the arguments presented for deletion, all of them can be rebutted.

1. The list is not an indiscriminate collection of information because information on where an airline flies is relevant to the coverage and therefore encyclopedic.
2. Unless you are seriously claiming that the airline schedule is not a reliable way of determing where an airline flies (why on earth would an airline say they fly to a place if they don't?), I cannot see any way in which this article is unverifiable.
3. Newspapers frequently report about airlines coming and leaving their local airport, so notability should not be a major issue.
4. It is not a travel directory, but valid information about where an airline goes. The book I have on airlines (Modern :Commercial Aircraft) is paper and is therefore forced to say things like "Heavens Airlines flies to 43 destinations in North America, Europe and Africa", as an online reference we can do better and provide the full destination list.

At least two of the "delete"s presented no real argument for deletion, I will mention CyberAnth and Akihabara ("delete this along with some other articles" with no reasoning). Hence, I think AFD got this one badly wrong and this should be undeleted.

(The reason I am saying "merge" is that the airline in question here is small (a fleet of only six aircraft) and a destination list for an airline of that size can be reasonably put into the article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to WKnight's offer to undelete for merging purposes I have placed the list into the main Livingston Airlines article with some modifications due to updates. Can we call this discussion over now? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect As the content is now merged; we need a redirect for GFDL history. GRBerry 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore or delete based on the result of my mass AfD on destinations lists: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations, as per being covered by it. Consider that a relist if you wish, that is what it is in practice, I s'pose. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This motion is to unsalt only. As one of the key fictional elements of the television series Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, there is a high probability that this element can stand in it's own article so long as it is within WP:FICTIONs guidelines for article growth. Keeping this page salted would be much like salting Death Star or Starship Enterprise because previous versions of these articles did not meet Wikipedia guidelines. It the meantime, it can redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units with the other casualties of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 22 for the most recent deletion review of this page specifically. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6 for a deletion review of the mass AFD as a whole. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series for the AFD in which it was deleted. Review of the page log [11] shows that the page was salted because it was recreated three times in roughly 60 hours following the group deletion review and prior to the page specific deletion review. GRBerry 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse salt - There is no need to unsalt at present. The article should be created at User:TheFarix/ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam and then relisted at deletion review to see if it meets WP:FICTION RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What argument is there to keep it salted? --Farix (Talk) 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Unsalt - redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units and protect to stop recreation RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt per nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse salt Comparing this to Death Star or [[Starship Enterprise] is overstating the cultural importance of the subject. According to the logs, it's been deleted 5 times. It's got a high likelyhood of being re-created with the same type of article again. Ryan's solution is also acceptable to me. --Kunzite 00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep protected - no objections to a protected redirect --Doc^g 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep protected I have no objection to a protected redirect, which since this has incoming links (and redirects) is better than protected deleted pages. This nomination offers no new information not considered in the prior deletion review. Should it be possible to write a new article that demonstrates notability, at this point that should be done on a user subpage and brought for review after the new article is created. GRBerry 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect protected per Ryan, sounds reasonable to me. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect protected per Mailer Diablo. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt. At the very least it should contain a redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalted redirect per nom. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a protected redirect - suggest using the talk page of the redirect to try and build an article that is in line with policy (which thus far has not been achieved in 5 attempts). Proto::► 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep protected as a redirect if required, per above. Eusebeus 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has been deleted several times as a hoax, and now locked from being re-created. It's real, there are sources verifying its existence, and it's notable (why would David Beckham be a well-known follower of it??). Also, it should go through AFD again. I have reliable sources that prove its notability and existence. Apoplexic Manager 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Apoplexic Manager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Endorse deletion - are there any reliable, verifiable external sources of information about this ... umm ... philosophy? --BigDT 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - article's subject is noteworthy. --Highball15 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Again, still, no change. Fan-1967 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - links to other AFDs in case anyone is interested - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briefsism (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briefsism (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous men who wear briefs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cult of Briefsism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of the Briefs. Umm ... yeah. Please contribute by writing useful articles - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --BigDT 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Briefsism is notable: look at the amount of famous people who follow this parody religion: David Beckham, Hilary Duff to mention a few. It was not made up in school one day, and has existed since 1991 in Great Britain. This should really go through the deletion process again. I can assure you it's not a joke, briefsism does exist - there's enough sources on it on various websites, notably the London School of Economics website. OK, speech over. Please just put it back for deletion again, full history and whatnot. --Apoplexic Manager 21:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, unless someone provides me with an exact link to a reliable source that gives non-trivial coverage. I don't care about assertions that this site or another has it somewhere; I have spent more time than I should have researching this. And why would I believe that it's notable because all these people follow it without sources saying that they actually do? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

-I was not trying to use wikipedia as a free advertising vehicle in any way. I was just trying to explain my company to anyone that uses Wikipedia and happens to search for my company. I am sorry if this doesn't work with you, but I was just trying to be polite. If you won't let me edit the article, please at least make it unblocked so that any future article writers can contribute to the article. I will not add anymore contributions to Wikipedia if that helps and I will also not re-open the article. I am the owner of the company and I am trying to tell everyone about it. Please let me explain my company's information.

• Endorse deletion - please see WP:CORP for Wikipedia's notability standards for corporations. Please see also the deletion log for this page - [12] - where five different administrators have deleted it. Thank you. --BigDT 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - also see WP:COI for conflict of interest guidelines. In short, as a representative of the company, you are the last person who should create an article on it. -- Fan-1967 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. So, you admit that you're basically trying to use Wikipedia as a free advertising vehicle? ColourBurst 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse almost all deletions where the nomination for DRV says "I am the owner of X" or "We request". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per your own admitting that it's spam. JuJube 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM, articles shouldn't be created about your own company RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. A message to the person who sent this article to deletion review: there's a rule that we don't bite the newbies, so I feel duty-bound to explain to you how this works. The subjects of Wikipedia articles need to be notable, independently verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. Your company is not notable enough for our standards if you're the only person who wants to write about it. The significance of your company is not independently verifiable or written from a neutral point of view if you're the person writing about it. That's what we intend by "Conflict of Interest." I wish you success so that, one day, your company becomes notable and will then deserve inclusion here. Until then, feel free to edit articles elsewhere on the site. YechielMan 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa and Josephine O'Meara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

AFD was closed less than 24 hours before it was started, which is unfair as I believe there are people who would have voted to keep it. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You think? I don't. Endorse deletion. No substantive claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion As Calton has remarked on similar AFD's (tempted to add a Calton's law next to Geogre's): babies are not actors; they are remarkably realistic props. Fan-1967 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote, and acting in a bit role in one film does not notability make. ColourBurst 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It doesn't matter how many people would have voted to keep it, they are obviously non-notable. And I doubt you could dredge up sources, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. DRV is about process, and actors simply do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. It is not "obvious" they are non-"notable," I'd in fact say the obvious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist I'm in agreement with Jeff. WP:SNOW is not a valid reason to endorse quick closure of AfDs. JuJube 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources is shown. Among child actors, the ones on whom we can write useful encycloapedia articles are in the minority, due to the brevity of their current career and the lack of interesting things to say about them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There is nothing notable about these child actors apart from they played, at a very young age, the character of Courtney Mitchell, and this fact is already well-documented in that article. I think some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders (of which I occasionally look in on) can be a little, err, over-enthusiastic about adding and editing articles. Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Regardless of the merits of the article, closing an AFD debate in slightly more than 22 hours, and without citing a Speedy criterion, appears out of process.Eludium-q36 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. This won't survive an AfD, so there's no purpose to take it back to one. If the solution is forgone, there's no reason to waste time on the process. This isn't a legal procedure, it's guidelines for Wikipedia. -- Kesh 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Clearly fail guidelines. Relisting for a full AFD is a waste of time. Eusebeus 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete Balloon Fetishism. The lack of 'scholarly research' on a under researched subject should not be a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. The internet is full of commercial, public, and personal websites devoted to the topic of Balloon Fetishism. Here is several informative websites: http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/balloon.html http://www.answers.com/topic/balloon-fetishism

Here are numerous Balloon Fetish online communities (some straight and some gay):

http://balloonbuddies.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoysBalloonsandCondoms3/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddymenlooners/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalloonPlaytime/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balloonbangingboys/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenBustingBIGBalloons/?yguid=201617095 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/menwithballoons/?yguid=201617095 Sonicyouth1 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Yes it should be, because it's not enough for something to be true, it must be verifiable. And for verifiability, you need reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous AfD. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Afd was run correctly, no new information regarding veriability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD by the book. I can come up with a more reliable source than the above; for some reason or other which I can't remember, balloon fetishism was mentioned on (the last season of?) Room 101 (TV series), and a clip of a film shown. Doesn't change anything though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion No reliable sources cited: see my comments in the original AFD debate, and I'm not certain the above links count as reliable sources. --SunStar Net^talk 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I know two ballon fetishists, and know of a few who gained notable fame. This is a real fettish. There is alot of proof its a real fettish, Google it, ask around, look at the links someone above appears to have provided.

Sven Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This delete simply doesn't make sense Sven Co-op is one of the more popular mods for HL1, no more or less notable than any other. The AFD was a joke, "WP:SOFTWARE" is nothing more than a Proposed Guideline and the admin deleted without any kind of consensus. It was listed for a deletion review before, [[13]] where yet More good reasons for its survival were provided. Thedreamdied 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, if articles aren't allowed a second deletion review, I'm sorry, could you tell me what to do next? Thank you. Thedreamdied 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Contact User:MarphyBlack, I think he has a copy of the page in his userspace somewhere. The problem with the article was that no sources or references were cited. I'm pretty sure however, that they can be. - hahnchen 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What hahnchen said. Talk to Marphy and help get the sources integrated into the article, then open up the DRV (or just talk to an admin because I'm pretty sure with the sources they'll be happy to move it back). It's not that DRV isn't allowed multiple times, but you haven't really mentioned any new information since then. Notability is not popularity. ColourBurst 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article was unsourced, but that doesnt make any of the information invalid or incorrect - anyone who has played the game knows that its fine. Why didn't the relevant editors simply tag it with an 'unsourced statements' tag and wait for someone to sort it out? Deleting it was unneccessary. Thedreamdied 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one participating in the AFD could be bothered to find sources, or believed that none could be found. It's going to get deleted. If its a relatively fringe subject such as this, you're going to need some secondary sources for it to survive and AFD. - hahnchen 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion under G4 the new article is not substantialyl different because it didn't use any sources that are 1) independent, 2) reliable and 3) published. No new information here compared to the last Deletion review. GRBerry 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was amazed at the fact this page was removed, they are possibly the most prominent band currently on the grindie scene and the NME AND Guardian (newspaper) love them. Mike Skinner from the Streets played them on Radio 1! Theyve worked with Bloc Party, Plan B and Klaxons! Hardly worthy of deletion--Acertainromance 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, relist maybe, how someone decided that was a valid speedy I have no idea. People don't seem to understand that A7 is not asserting notability, instead of just not having it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral (leaning towards overturn and list on AfD), please tell us what the actual articles from NME and Guardian are so we can determine whether or not A7 was correct (A7 usually means nothing except that it didn't assert WP:MUSIC). ColourBurst 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, now that I've seen the Guardian and NME "articles". The Guardian article is on myspace, not the band, only one paragraph on what the guitarist thinks myspace is doing to bands, nothing that says anything substantial about the band. NME article is a short blurb, which coupled with the lack of other sources means that A7 is probably justified. Wait till the band's broken out of myspace first. ColourBurst 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article said that the band has not yet released their first single, from which I (as the deleting admin) inferred that the band does not meet WP:MUSIC. This is the Guardian article that mentions them in passing. This is what I get on NME. Anyway, I usually don't have problems with people overturning my admin actions, so go right ahead if you feel like it. Kusma (討論) 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, they probably don't meet WP:MUSIC. But they might, which is why non-notability is explicitly not a speedy criterion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their first single is out this month, there is a possibility that a lot of people will be discovering the band over the next few months and search it on wikipedia to find out info about them, isn't that what wikipedia is about? Finding information?--Acertainromance 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, information which is already sourced. Not information that you think will be sourced at some point in the future when reliable sources discover it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would also like to add that the NME article was in the magazine, if I got a scan of that article would that be sourced as 'reliable'?--Acertainromance 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I trust that the article exists. I also trust that it follows the lines ColourBurst said it did, which makes it useless for sourcing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So I should wait until other publications (such as Pitchfork) do reviews of their single then?--Acertainromance 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so. It's possible there are reliable sources somewhere, but nobody seems to have them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try and get in contact with the band or check their forum or something to see if I come accross anything else--Acertainromance 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, found sources on burnburn.com, leedsmusicscene.org.uk, THIS IS FAKE DIY (which is pretty respected) and not one but TWO scans of TWO different NME articles both praising the band.

Edit: Also found out that they supported Metric (band) and as a result found a number of reviews on them including ones on BBC music.--Acertainromance 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion without prejudice. If they hit it big, then there will be no reason not to have an article, but right now the opposite is true. JuJube 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• But the animated band Dethklok does not have a single or album out yet either, yet they are a big hit. If Hadouken is deleted, delete any mention of Dethklok to —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HaruharaChroni (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Job for a Cowboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

now almost mainstream Death band

This article has been deleted one year ago, because the band did not meet at the time the notability requirements of WP:BAND. It is not the case anymore now, and here are the reasons why I think it should be undeleted :

• over 200,000 views on their myspace and over 100,000 friends [14]
• they are now on a big independent record label : Metal Blade Records
• they will do a very big tour in Europe in March / April 2007 (Job for a Cowboy is a Death Metal band) (see [15] here), and in big venues in Europe (Trabendo in Paris, Laiterie in Strasbourg, etc...) Hervegirod 12:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Web hits <> notability. Will tour <> have toured. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, myspace <> reliable source. You must have had reviews in magazines if you're as good as you claim to be. ColourBurst 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, until someone comes up with reliable sources for something that meets WP:MUSIC. It's been through afd 3 times (here and here in addition to the one linked above), and deleted each time, and it's also been deleted a total of 27 times with different capitalizations. There's nothing said in the statement above that wasn't known in the latest afd. Please take the time to write a real article in your userspace before requesting undeletion, and preferably wait to see if their future tour will generate some press. Thanks. - Bobet 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist They need putting on, if you haven't heard of them by now, and are in to Death metal, then you don't really like death metal! Bobet, you want reliable sources... Official Website, their EP available on one of the biggest web stores, [http: //www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=10778 online album review] just search google, there is there lyrics & everything. Here's there page with their record company [16] and look at who else is/was signed to them, many great bands including Cradle of Filth, As I Lay Dying, Lamb of God, Manowar amongst many more. Think about it, should a band signed to a considerably large record label be classed as 'not famous enough' just because a couple of people who think they know metal don't know who they are, I think not. THEY ARE BIG, AND IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS NOT TO HAVE THEM ON WIKIPEDIA!!! Asics^Talk 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Big? As in about to tour? That's big? May the good lord preserve us, then, from small bands. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have more than 60 dates on their current tour, from 13 January to April !! Hervegirod 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

] If they get put back on, there needs to be a "Criticism" section, as they are the butt of many a scenester's jokes, and wecamewithbrokenteeth has a song called "Job for a Brokeback"

• Endorse deletion, official websites are not independent, Amazon is not a source, and blogs and forums are not reliable. You must provide reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist : myspace not reliable ? the band Arctic Monkeys became what they are now because of myspace for example. And about what is considered as a reliable source, the only important thing is to know if the band has enough notability. But OK. Here's a list of reviews of their last album Doom : sputnik music, metal coven, the music edge, [http: //www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=10778 metal-observer], Encyclopaedia Metallum, into-obscurity.com, absolute punk, decoy music, metal storm, the metal forge, blood chamber... and this is only some of the reviews, there are more of them, and also there are other sites for band biography, forums, and so on... So, I think there is enough reasons to undelete Hervegirod 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. It doesn't matter how notable something is if we have no good sources with which to write the article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Myspace not reliable. JuJube 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of views or friends is a fact, so this part must be reliable. Hervegirod 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Criterias for WP:BAND : has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works... (This criterion includes published works in all forms..) : a lot of reviews by independent well-known web-sites about metal seems to fall in this category (they are even mentioned on mtv; Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country : it is the case, see above (tour has begun now, and you can check at various independent websites, apart from their myspace site (for example here, or here). It is clear that they meet at least the central criteria + one additional criteria for listing. As for what to put in the article, the amount of reviews about the band proves that it is easy to write a good and lenghty article about them. If you don't think so, I regret to say that I think it is POV. Hervegirod 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, it's been in afd 3 times, and been repeatedly recreated with no indication of notability. While it might be possible to write a good article about it, that's never been done, so there really is nothing to undelete. Start an article in your userspace (eg. User:Hervegirod/Job for a Cowboy) and if it's good, it can be moved to the main namespace. Thanks. - Bobet 13:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first draft is finished Hervegirod 15:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One person mentioned they needed to have reviews in magazines to be "famous" well when the page was removed not long back, an IP user left a comment saying they had been in 2 big magazines see here Asics^Talk 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• actually it was a registered user Davard Asics^Talk 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The page was moved improperly. Instead of waiting for a sysop to delete to redirect, someone cut and pasted the page contents to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/November 2006, destroying the page history -- Selmo ^(talk) 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the history (at the target article), don't think there's much else to see here. - Bobet 09:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page had nothign wrong with it The Demented Cartoon Movie (2005, Brian Kendall) is a highly popular flash movie. The Wikipedia Article was full of information on the 30 minute flash based movie, incuding info from Brian Kendall himself. I was really sad to learn that it was taken down (possibly deleted), and that is why I am here. If an Admin can't undelete it completeley, I can understand tha,t but can one of you guys please give me a link to it? THANKS!

Avatarfan6666 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it was deleted for being a sentence about nothing (a valid A1), and later as a redirect to something that didn't exist, also valid. Nothing seems to be stopping you from making an actual article on it at this point, unless there's a separate deletion not listed here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main page seems to have been The Demented Cartoon Movie, I've fixed the links above accordingly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion unless new evidence or other reasoning is provided to overturn the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD was valid and delete arguments based on sound reasoning. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD was valid and nothing's really changed since the last deletion review. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion easily fails WP:WEB and would never in a million years pass an AfD under our current verifiability standards. I suggest not nominating this again until reliable sources can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted at AfD in November 2006, I accept that at the time, the band did not meet WP:MUSIC, but since then there have been several things which I feel now make the band notable. When their single was released, they were placed at number 17 in the independant music charts. They were also single of the week on BBC 6music and placed in circulation. The band have now signed with Domino Records which is a major record label (although I understand that this particular point may not matter for ascertaining notability) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. • Comment - a new proposed page can be viewed at User:Ryanpostlethwaite/Wild beasts, I have tried to show the band meet WP:MUSIC in it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist with new information. I suggest grabbing a source for the indie chart claim, that would more or less seal the deal if accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist additionally, direct citations for the "Critical acclaim" claims would give sufficient weight toward proving independent coverage. SkierRMH,08:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to relisting, but #17 on the Indie charts is not much of a claim to fame and BBC6 is hardly a major station. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've now sourced in the guardian review of the band, having a bit of trouble finding a site with the independant music chart archives on, it was on the BBC radio 1 website, however this particular page is not archived by them, I'll keep working on it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if sources can be found for these new claims of notability. Sounds like they might pass WP:MUSIC now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Guardian article and place on 6 Music playlist is sufficient to argue a claim per WP:MUSIC. Eludium-q36 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jizzle me this (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Swift and unfair deletion of well-written article Wheresmydanish 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse swift and perfectly reaonsable deletion of unsourced article on a game patently made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was well written. It was also original material, very creative, and not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Paul 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Useful, non-policy-violating fair use image. I can't find any record of its deletion--it seems just to have disappeared. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Robert K S 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment was moved to Commons and speedied under I8. However, along the way it changed from a JPEG to a GIF. Hence the understanble confusion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case closed, then. Thanks. Robert K S 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional police detectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Closing admin's comments were "The result was delete. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category." Actual votes cast were 6 keeps (one of them "strong"), 5 deletes, 1 keep which was withdrawn so maybe should be counted as a delete, one abstain (from procedural nominator) and two speedy closes which I think need to be disregarded (one of them from a user who also voted keep). On the face of it, therefore, an obvious no-consensus default-keep, leaving us only to deal with the closing admin's discount of the keep votes and his or her own opinion that the list is duplicated by the category. It's hard to rebut the "not rooted in policy" assertion, since I cannot see what the closing admin based it on, nor what policy he or she thinks the delete votes were based on. I expect Proto will come here and comment, and I will either agree, or rebut, when I see that explanation. For my own part, I would assert that my vote ("nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it") is precisely AS rooted-in-policy, no more no less, than the nomination which asserted that the article should be deleted because it was indescriminate and unmaintainable. That leaves the suggestion that the article was duplicated by the category. The relevant guideline on this, here says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes... These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." When looking for "official guidance" (so to speak) on whether a list and a category can be redundant with one another, therefore, the wikipedia guideline says that they are not. I see a keep voter saying "The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition". I do not know why that was considered "unconvincing", and I cannot now look at the page to check, since it has been deleted and I am not an admin. However if David Edgar is right on that point then Proto is wrong. I would argue (and our guideline seems to support the view) that a list is not redundant with a category even if it contains exactly the same information, since it has scope to expand in a way the category does not. AndyJones 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (my own) closure. If we have to go through them:

• • Keep as a common and notable character archetype. - OK, so we should have an article about the archetype. This wasn't it. Non sequitur.
  • Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. - see above.
  • Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion - Docu's first vote, ignored as clearly incorrect.
  • Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. - ditto.
  • Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it - fair enough.
  • Keep as per above two comments - ignored as above two comments were to delete, and was Docu's second "vote".
  • keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre - nothing but keep it as I like it and it's useful.
  • Keep. The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition - good argument, referring to WP:NOT issues and why the user doesn't believe them to be an issue.

So there were two decent "keep"s, three poor ones, and two ignored. Of the deletes:

• Comment just a response to the statment that we should have an article about the archetye, there are at least two Detective fiction and Police Procedural, and in fact, a version of this list (and several others) can be found at the bottom of the first page. I do not think that information should be removed, does anyone here? FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness - OK, so asserts indiscriminate (WP:NOT). This in contradiction to one of the keep votes, but I'm not judging whether or not you are right, I'm determining whether the votes are argued well and rooted in policy. So, referencing WP:NOT, good argument.
  • Delete. A stock character of a genre, of which the only thing they have in common is carrying a badge: not nationality, era, medium, personality, hair color, height, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful - again referencing WP:NOT ("indiscriminate list"), and also pointing out the belief that categories duplicate the content. Good argument. There are then three 'delete per this arguments', which are fine.

So that's five good deletes, rooted in policy. The nomination was also broken up, making it look purely like a procedural nomination despite being done in good faith, but even with discountint the nomination as an argument to delete, it's still five solid delets versus two solid keeps and three very weak ones. I am aware that viewing each argument is always going to be subjective, but I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed those to keep, particularly as most information is retained via the category. Proto::► 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Arguments which are wrong do not count towards the closure. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, Proto should have made more closings in that group since several of the others were closed incorrectly. >Radiant< 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - There is nothing better about the delete comments than the keep comments. Most of both were "it's useful" or "it's unuseful listcruft". As for the arguments: are you telling me that there's a huge difference between keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre and The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition? By your reasoning, the second invokes WP:NOT, while the first is WP:ILIKEIT. This is pretty shaky grounds, and I'm worried the admin is reading what he wishes into the comments. Just as bad, he completely ignored Docu's "vote", despite the fact it contained clear reasoning (i.e., look at the reasoning in the previous afd). Patstuart^talk|edits 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse closure. I think the actual result probably should have been "no consensus" (thus "keep"); however, this one was a judgment call and the closing admin displayed a reasonable exercise of judgment. Agent 86 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closer's reasoning was sound and no reason to overturn. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse policy-based closure well within admin discretion. Eluchil404 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. User:Iamunknown created this AfD page by error two days after the extensive discussion of various arguments for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors (a listing that included List of fictional police detectives; see the explanation User:Iamunknown later provided at User:Iamunknown/afd).

Looks like this was deleted mainly because the reasons for keeping provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors were ignored and probably because AndyJones omitted to cross-reference his rejection of Radiant's argument (it was provided on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_heroic_fictional_scientists_and_engineers and cross-referenced after many of Radiant's 11 re-post's on the January 3 deletion pages). -- User:Docu

• That is false. You are the one that tagged all those pages with those ludicrous "out of process" arguments. In this case I agreed with the good reasoning by Calton, which has nothing to do with what Andy said against me on a different page. WP:KETTLE, you know. >Radiant< 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Did get to read User:Iamunknown/afd?. -- User:Docu

• Endorse I agree with Proto's reasoning above. Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Photography Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It is my impression that dpreview.com is _the_ online ressource for cameras. The site was recommended to me, and when I got down to the camera store I found that they used it too. Seems to be an established site, with comprehensive coverage of current high-end camera models, ahve very active forums. Searching for "dpreview" gives me over 4 million hits.

Was speedy deleted after being tagged with {{db-web}}. Thue | talk 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Three sentence stub had no assertion of notability. That makes a valid WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. Post it at Wikipedia:Requested articles if you don't have time to to find independent, reliable sources and write an article yourself. GRBerry 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if we just insert a link to [18] which says that dpreview is a top 1000 website, thereby documenting notability, then you would be satisfied that the article should be restored? There doesn't seem to be any complete reviews of the site on the web, but nytimes and cnet regularly link to it. Why not simply undelete the stub and use it as a starting point? It is irrelevant that the speedy deletion was formally correct because the article did not cite notability. Thue | talk 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Yes, it is relevant that it was formally correct, because you can and should just start a new article with notability asserted. Understand, though, that since you imply there are no sources, I'll immediately AfD it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - again, appears to be an improper speedy. If it's even close, it goes to afd. If it appears notable (as 1 minute of research would show) and is unsourced, then tag it with {{unsourced}} or afd it. Otherwise, it's what one admin decides despite what community consensus may be: and that is definitely against what an WP:ADMIN is not - above the rest of the community. At least undelete it so the poor guy can give sources. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You are all missing the point!. I don't care if it was an improper delete (I myself think it was proper). What matters is that I have now (quite strongly IMO) asserted notability, which means that Wikipedia should have an article, and the deleted article should be restored and used as a starting point. What you are doing is meaningless Wikipedia:WikiLawyering about the properness of the original speedy delete, not thinking about improving Wikipedia. Thue | talk 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I meant by what I said. Overturn to let you source it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, sorry. I guess I focussed on your first "appears to be an improper speedy" sentense. Thue | talk 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, an after the fact assertion of notability does not mean that the old article should be returned. It means that you believe it is possible to write a decent article - so you should just go write that decent article. GRBerry 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If you actually did look at the deleted article then you would see that it is very decent, except for the point that it does not claim notability. I am trying to improve Wikipedia here, in a completely reasonable way, and you are working against me. Why? Thue | talk 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - Agree with GRBerry. As it stood, the article was an unsourced stub. Even just adding a single link for notability wouldn't have helped much. Rather than working to have it undeleted, a better option would be to rewrite the article, expanding it outside of being a stub and adding more WP:N references, then add it to Wikipedia. Even just a couple paragraphs with references would be good enough to stand as an article. -- Kesh 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While sources would be nice, we usually don't delete articles when the facts such as website owner can be verified in 30 seconds by actually going to the website. I think the people here voting delete are acting quite silly, caring more about WikiLawyering than improving Wikipedia, but it is getting easier to just rewrite the article that to convince you of (what I think is) the obvious. Thue | talk 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. -- Kesh 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]