Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November

Steve Pavlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV|AFD2)

Blog has tens of millions pageviews monthly Puredemo 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, speedy close due to lack of reasoning. We don't undelete things due to pageviews. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He runs the number one most visited personal development site on the web with a daily reach of millions of monthly pageviews. See http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/stevepavlina.com

The forum alone has more than 10,000 members. Steve Pavlina is the most prolific personal development writer online, with thousands of published articles available on his site. His nearest competitor in the field would Tony Robbins, who only has approximately 10% as much web presence (compare via alexa), yet Tony Robbins has a huge wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Tony_robbins

Steve Pavlina is also a 10k / hour keynote speaker, was the CEO of deterity software (which has a stub), the president of the Association of Shareware Professionals(ASP) in 2000, etc etc.

To say that a bio page for him is advertising is ridiculously obtuse. Someone generating tens of millions of monthly pageviews doesn't need an advertising page on Wikipedia. That kind of traffic puts his site in the league of powerhouse new media companies like boing boing and reddit, but with only one publisher, and if that isn't notable, what exactly is?

edit - Here is the cached page from google, with notable links to articles from USA Today, the Guardian, etc. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Ndo526_9PCgJ:en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Steve_Pavlina+%22steve+pavlina%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us Puredemo 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While an AfD discussion over a year ago resulted in a deletion of the article, and subsequent re-creations may not have been in line with Wikipedia with regards to neutrality, non-advertisement, etc., it does appear that he may now satisfy WP:BIO, as he's been mentioned in a number of news articles, here are a few examples: (Not all may be considered WP:RS per WP guidelines, however,) The New York Times, USA Today, Guardian Unlimited 1, Guardian Unlimited 2, MSNBC, CNET news, Web Worker Daily, California's Job Journal, and Evolving Times

Puredemo 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn and restore -- ^demon's deletion was directly contrary to the result of the 2nd AfD, which ended with a near-unanimous keep decision. The article may have spent a bit too much time talking about Dweep, but it certainly wasn't blatant spam, and if there's a need to delete it it should be nominated for deletion in the normal way. Mangojuice^talk 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, according to Mangoe's reasoning. We don;t get to substitute our own views forth community--at least not when it was as clear-cut as this. DGG (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore - it should be rare indeed for an article that has been kept at AfD to be speedy deleted and this is not such a case. The admin should have tested his concerns at a further AfD. BlueValour 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore per Mango and, as always, DGG, who once more properly reminds us that adminship is ministerial. Joe 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore per Mango, there is no justification for overturning a near-unanimous keep AfD and applying a "stylistic" speedy category such as G11. --Stormie 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The above section that begins with "While an AfD discussion over a year ago" was a comment I made when this issue was brought up to the Help Desk, and so I went searching for sources, and that is what is given above. It should be noted that I do not think any of those sources were given in the article at its deletion, so if restored, work would need to be done to ensure it was properly sourced, and neutrally written. Ariel♥Gold 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I made sure to source everything when I recreated the article prior to the 2nd DRV. If it was not properly sourced at the time of deletion, then later editors have removed the information. I retained a copy on my user page at [1]. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Is there a way to protect the article from vandalism / speedy deletion once it has been restored this time around? A couple admins on the helpdesk did not read the 2nd AfD when I first asked about this deletion, and instead went into tirades about advertising. I would like to avoid future vandalism / speedy deletions if possible. Puredemo 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Page protection is not done preventively, but as a last resort when an article is hit by excessive vandalism, or there is an ongoing content dispute that has not resolved with normal discussions. Wikipedia is freely editable by everyone, and as long as the article begins with no advertisement tone, cites reliable sources and is neutrally written there should be no problem. Ariel♥Gold 02:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore - Wow. Only person to actually argue validly was ignored in favor of lots of WP:VAGUEWAVE's. Clearly notable, as stated above. And a WP:TROUT for all contributors and MailerDiablo (sorry, man). The Evil Spartan 09:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I do so wish that the requester wasn't quite so obviously either the subject himself or his PR... Guy (Help!) 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore - WP:CSD states "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.". Enough said. BlueValour 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• When will the article be restored? Puredemo 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediately this discussion is closed. Normally these discussions are held open for five days. However WP:SNOW seems applicable so it might now be closed anytime. BlueValour 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by contact information (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CFD 1|CFD 2)

Also:

• Category:Wikipedians available through AIM
• Category:Wikipedians available through Jabber

These categories were deleted as being "recreated deleted content" (from this CfD) by User:After Midnight after User:Black Falcon left him a message on his talk page. [2] Process wankery. Not knowing about the first CfD, I created the two categories and a parent category. As I was editing another userbox, I saw the link to the old CfD, and I immediately stopped creating them and posted a message to the Village Pump.[3] This message was also posted to WT:CFD#Wikipedians by contact information. The original CFD discussion was commented on by a total of four users, and was likely unnoticed by most. My own rationale for having these categories was to promote additional contact information for collaboration. The categories were based on IM protocol, instead of client, and only included userboxes that actually indicated a user ID for these services.

Four users makes for a very weak consensus, and other arguments were not given a fair chance to be represented. I would have much rather tried to simulate the existing discussions to get better feedback from the community before taking any further action, but since they've now been deleted, I'd like for these categories to be undeleted and relisted in a new CfD. -- Ned Scott 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: Although I have complete faith that User:After Midnight and User:Black Falcon are acting in good faith, this is a problem in general with WP:UCFD. Specifically, most people don't add user categories to their watchlist so they don't realize when user categories they care about are being discussed. There's no doubt that it was the consensus in July, but as the Wikipedia mantra goes, consensus changes—especially when the consensus involves a relatively small group of editors. (Also, I think you make an excellent argument as to why this category can be useful for collaboration. Without this argument, I likely would have voted to delete the user category myself.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That excellent argument can be found at WT:CFD#Wikipedians by contact information, btw. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was reached in three separate discussions for user categories for instant messengers:

• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger
• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by instant messenger
• Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use Adium

With regard to the technical issues:

• The three CFD discussions involved a total of 9 unique participants and two closing admins.
• All categories were tagged for the appropriate period of time, so due notice was given.

Although there have been repeated assertions that the categories could be useful for collaboration, there has been no explanation of how this would take place. Being able to contact a specific user via IM may be useful, but that's completely diffferent from browsing through a category of everyone who uses a particular IM. I can understand wanting alternate means to contact particular users, but that function is filled by userpage notices and userboxes. A category is needed only if one specifically seeks out editors who use a particular IM. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here was the main gist of Ned's arugment for how they could be useful for collaboration:

"There are many times where I jump on #wikipedia to ask a quick silly question, like a naming convention, or to see if anyone remembered where a template was that could be used for format some external link. I've listed my own AIM screen name on my userpage and user talk page also as a method of collaboration."

To me this sounds like a novel argument that warrants a thoughtful discussion, instead of a speedy delete. (Note: Although I support overturning the speedy delete, I'm not criticizing the speedy delete itself, as User:After Midnight made a valid decision based on the knowledge available to him.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue is that you wouldn't want to contact just any random Wikipedian who uses AIM, as chances are that they do not have the answer to your question. You'd want to contact someone who knows about naming conventions or knows about the template you're seeking, and for that you'd go to the userpages of individual editors and not a category. (Another option is Wikipedia:Help desk, which is a good place for both general and specific inquiries.) I don't really think there's a novel argument that justifies another CFD, because that argument was considered in the prior discussions (after all: that is the most obvious argument one could offer in defense of the categories). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to stress that this is not a hypothetical "it could contribute to collaboration" argument that Ned is making, but an actual "this is how it would contribute to collaboration". That in itself makes it noteworthy. In order for the delete opinion to prevail it is not sufficient to produce a hypothetical "here's how it might harm the encyclopedia" argument, but an actual "here's how it did or will harm the encyclopedia" argument.

Note: I'm not saying that hypothetical arguments are no good. I'm just saying that one or more actual arguments on one side should be counter-balanced by at least one actual on the other side for the other side to prevail. Well, unless I agree with the other side, of course. ;) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't help but notice that one of the listed CfD was nothing more than a single cat that wasn't tagged by one of the other two. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it had been speedily closed, that'd be one thing... But the discussion was left open for more than 10 days, so it can be considered separate from (even if not unaffected by) the others. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm forced to say this: So what? No body cared at that time, and that's all. Don't put undue weight on a discussion simply because it was formalized. Even though I struck it out in my first comment, I might have been right that time, that's just process wankery, and not a reflection of community consensus. You nominated it because it was left out of the first CfD, and a single user commented on it other than you, and only to say that it should be speedied because of the other CfD. There's no value in that discussion at all. Silence is not consensus. "-- Ned Scott 06:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, silence often is a sign of consent. Every deletion discussion page is patrolled by editors, and if they object to a certain proposal, they will voice their objections (I was told something to this effect when I once relisted a fairly uncontroversial CFD nomination merely because it had failed to gather any comments). But, that's a broader issue best left out of this DRV ...
• I readily admit that the "Adium" discussion was, for all intents and purposes, a continuation of the "Wikipedians by instant messenger" discussion. I do not wish to place undue weight on it. However, you should not entirely dismiss it, as it was a separate nomination that was open for 10 days, and anyone who disagreed with the first result could have voiced their objections. It's not what might be called a precedent-setting discussion, but it's a weak precedent-confirming one. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have notified the two closing admins other closing admin affected by this deletion review. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php . Hopefully we'll have such a feature more embedded into MediaWiki, but it is a function that is available to us now. I can cross reference a contact category with a WikiProject Participants category, instead of making a specific category for that WikiProject (far more preferable to having such categories). -- Ned Scott 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as worth a re-arguement at CfD at the very least, after much more general notice.. i do not like making decisions that affect others without their actual knowledge. I know UCfD does this all the time, but that does not make it right. It is not actually prohibited by our guidelines, but politeness is recommended. I look forward to the time when it will be actually required. DGG (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "I know UCfD does this all the time, but that does not make it right." All CfDs do this when the authors of or contributors to articles in a category are not notified about the deletion, merging, or renaming of a category. What is the rationale behind overturning a closure merely due to the lack of such mass notification, especially since no new argument has been offered as to why a category (not a userbox or userpage notice) is necessary? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have given good reason, more than enough, to re-evaluate the situation. Multiple users in good standing see the benefits of such categories for collaboration, while you and After Midnight cling to a few flimsy discussions with some irrational fear of being a social network. I have to ask, why are you being such a stick in the mud about this? With no evidence, whatsoever, that not being a social network even applies to this situation, or that it was even being used that way, why do you care? Not being a social network does not mean we forbid categories that note how to contact other users off-wiki, plain and simple. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you really think that the participants in the discussion did not consider this possible collaborative value? Given the titles and nature of the categories, it would be the first pro-retention argument that comes to mind. Also, though I do not dispute that multiple users in good standing (three, to be precise) see the benefit of these categories, please do not ignore the fact that the users who supported deletion in the discussions listed above also were/are in good standing. It is not right to suggest that this situation is a disagreement between "users in good standing" and users "with some irrational fear" (and presumably not in good standing?). I do not believe that you actually intended to suggest that, but that's how the above paragraph reads. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Four users on-wiki, if you count Wikidemo's comments at the village pump, and at least two more off wiki via #wikipedia. I would try to gather more attention to this, but people like to scream "WP:CANVASS" when you do that. And I am not saying that the other users are not in good standing, but none of you are perfect. Had it been me I would have had no reason to object if a number of people wanted to rediscuss the issue, getting more attention from the community. You've made an assumption that this category can only be used for social networking, and deleted it on those grounds, but you only have vague speculation and fear to back that up. Meanwhile, I've provided several good reasons to have such a category, and you're forcing me to fight tooth and nail just to be able to discuss it with more people. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikidemo's comments at the village pump included an admission that he's not sure why or how the categories would be useful. In any case, please do not attempt to portray me as attempting to restrict discussion on the issue. Since the original CFD closures were procedurally correct, novel arguments should be presented and the level of their novelty evaluated in this deletion review. Rather than discuss whether we should have another discussion, let's just discuss the issue here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion. -- Ned Scott 20:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoted from WP:DRV: "This page exists to correct errors in the deletion process, but that may also involve reviewing content in some cases." Since there were no errors in process in the previous discussions, this review should involve discussion about issues of content (i.e. arguments about the merit of the categories). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My argument is that this has not received adequate community comment, and that not all arguments were represented (how many of the 8 users you talk about thought of using CatScan with these categories?). In other words, there were errors in the process of the previous discussions. Your response to that is to force discussion on an even more hidden page than CfD, here on DRV. Whatever happened to not being a jerk and saying "hey, here's a Wikipedian who has an idea and would like to get more feedback on it. Even though I don't completely agree with him, I'm just a user like he is and feel it is only fair to give this situation more exposure". But no, you have to act like some stick in the mud because you've got some irrational and laughable fear that these categories make Wikipedia a social networking site. You take a couple of poorly exposed discussions and have made them THE LAW, when they were nothing more than flimsy discussions that do not reflect community consensus. Had the same people who know about this discussion known about those CfDs when they happened, I have no doubt the CfDs would have, at the very least, ended in no-consensus to delete, and would have had a fair shot at having a consensus to keep.

• But hey, whatever, no hard feelings, right? Just make me waste a few hours jumping through hoops and I come up with a way to use CatScan without a second category, but still being able to filter out users who don't provide an ID. For example this. So hooray, you've won, you've saved us from becoming myspace, and managed to strong arm a deletion that should have never been an issue in the first place. -- Ned Scott 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't help but note the irony of the fact that not a week ago I was told that CFD is too obscure a place to make deletion decisions. By the way, as DRVs generally get more participants than UCFD discussions, your claim about a "more hidden page" is inaccurate.

• Perhaps if you'd stop spending so much effort trying to determine how much of a jerk or "stick in the mud" I and others are being, perhaps you'd notice that I've outright offered to engage in the community discussion which you apparently seek right here. Certainly that would have been more productive than trying to keep track of who won or lost, debating whether 4 or 5 or 7 or 9 users participated in the previous discussions, arguing whether it's 2 previous discussions or 3, or questioning the good standing of 2-10 editors (depends on how you count it). In the end, none of that matters. A single good argument made here, and on which people can agree, could, should, and would override the prior agreement of 50 users in 10 discussions. You seem to have focused only on the fact that I endorsed the CSD G4 deletion, ignoring the fact that this endorsement is conditional on a continued absence of a convincing argument for collaborative value. Now, granted, we might disagree on whether an argument is convincing, but it would be a disagreement as any other, and could be approached and resolved as appropriate.

• If you are interested in discussing the categories, then I am both ready and willing to do so (here, on a talk page, via e-mail, etc.). However, there is no point in continuing this particular thread of discourse. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that DRV requires a consensus to undelete, despite the lack of consensus to delete in the first place. Forcing this to DRV like you are places an unfair burden on the editors who do want these categories. There is a reason why we work with a consensus to delete, and not a consensus to create. Not to mention that most people come to DRV with the mentality that undoing actions is some kind of hassle, and would rather endorse previous actions not based on the merits of the discussion at hand, but because they are not personally interested what is being discussed.

• For example, both you and After Midnight assumed I created the categories knowing about the past CfDs, and neither of you even contacted me or left a message in the active discussions about the matter. Who the hell do you think you are? Get off your high horse, because you are no more qualified to judge these categories than the next user. Is it not possible for you to just stop and think about what is actually happening? A complete lack of any evidence whatsoever of these categories being problematic or that they somehow promote Wikipedia as a social network (which doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Really now, who the hell goes to a massive category to drum up some random discussion unrelated to Wikipedia?) being faced with plain and simple facts on how a category is useful, not just in theory, but in actual, practical, use.

• Not being a social networking site does not involve being paranoid and fighting your fellow editors tooth and nail when they wish to use something for legitimate reasons. The categories I created have far more collaborative usefulness than categories such as Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox. Even if only a minority uses these categories like this, that is not a valid reason to delete them. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is really unfair of me to blame the shortcomings of DRV on you, and I can't honestly believe that you are trying to force anything. You're doing what you think is right, and I'm yelling at the wrong person. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus to delete was already achieved in the previous discussions. As for the second part of your paragraph, suffice it to say that I do not share your view of DRV participants. I believe that most DRV regulars try, in good faith, to evaluate the merits of a review request and decide on that basis, and do not endorse simply for the sake of avoiding a hassle which they won't have to perform in any case (it's the closer that's hassled, not the participants).

• "For example, ..."? I don't know about AM, but I'm not a DRV regular, so please find another example. As for the fact that you weren't contacted, I explained that to you on my talk page: you had at least one of the templates watchlisted, so you'd know about any change to them, and I assumed you would contact the deleting admin, which is standard procedure in cases of contested deletions. (As a matter of fact, you should have done that once you found out that the categories had previously been deleted.) And what "active discussion" are you referring to? Surely it's not the thread at WT:CFD that consists of your comment, a neutral comment that admits to not knowing what the category could be useful for, and two comments suggesting that the issue be discussed elsewhere?

• Finally, while I do not dispute that I am "no more qualified to judge these categories than the next user", I wonder why you feel that the same statement doesn't apply to you... My offer to discuss the categories still stands; however, please note that I will no longer respond to any comments (irrespective of the subject) that continue to insult me and other editors. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do struck lines not render on your browser? (I'm actually going to unstrike some that were not meant to be personal, although they would have been better presented as a general comment) If it was not clear, I have already admitted to letting my frustration get the better of me, and directing comments to you that you did not deserve. While I do think you are off the mark on the categories being applied to WP:NOT social network, and that line of reasoning to not hold much water, the "high horse" comments were made in haste, and I don't believe that was your mentality. I believe that all of this is needless red tape, but I was wrong to blame you for following policy how you felt it should be followed. -- Ned Scott 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For some reason, I was not edit-conflicted when I clicked "save", and so did not notice your change. I have stricken those portions of my comment which were made in response to the paragraph you've stricken, and would like to extend my apologies for the various bits of sarcasm present in the text (all now stricken). Even though I do not agree with you about the categories, I think I see where you're coming from and can understand your frustration with the process and my persistent support for and/or insistence on it. :-) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - this is a simple case of recreation. Whether or not > 100 users were notified about it several months ago is not a valid reason for un-deleting it at this time. The prior deletion was valid and the category should not be restored unless it can be proven that consensus has changed in the interim. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not clearly a simple case of redirection as I noted I was not aware of the first CfD. Regardless, other valid points were not represented in the CfD, and you can't judge if consensus has changed by not allowing another CfD. Four users make for a very weak consensus, and it stands to very good reason to re-evaluate the situation. I've already shown how this category can be directly used to find specific users from a WikiProject who have a specific contact method using CategoryIntersect (a feature that en.wiki will hopefully have built in once they have the bugs worked out. IIRC, other Wikipedias already do have this feature.) and I doubt that was even considered in the CfD. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A few points: First, as I noted above, 9 editors (not four) and two administrators were involved in the related series of discussions. Second, when it comes to consensus, the quality and strength of arguments should matter more than raw numbers. Third, if you want to contact "specific users from a WikiProject", you'd want to go to their userpages, not to a user category, which doesn't even tell you if the user is still editing. I did a quick sample of the first 10 userpages listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User aim: 5 of 10 haven't edited in 3 weeks or more, and 2 have made only 1-2 edits in the past 3 weeks. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're including the editor who wanted to delete a category because someone was indicating brand preference, and had nothing to do with the social networking argument? Or the user who thought that another category that was left out of another CfD could just be speedied as no big deal?
• Just because you use other methods of contacting people doesn't mean these categories should be deleted, or at the very least, that we shouldn't be allowed to even rediscuss the issue. Out of no where I get IMs from people about quick wiki questions, and just today someone sent me an e-mail asking me about a citation question for an article I've never edited. We don't always know the method people will use to contact us, but that's no reason to limit how they can find us. I really don't understand why you have such a strong objection to this, nor can I understand why feel that you have anything near a strong consensus to keep these categories deleted. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences" is essentially a WP:MYSPACE argument, not a WP:SOAP argument. So, yes, I'm counting him. I'm also counting the user who thought that the Adium category could be speedied should also be included - it was a separate discussion and he could have objected to the deletion if he had so desired; instead, he chose to voice his support for it.

• Before suggesting that we rediscuss the issue, I'd need to be convinced that there is a need to rediscuss. The reason I object to these categories that I fail to find the reasons for restoration compelling: the usefulness argument for these categories requires one to make assumptions about the manner in which these types of categories are used that I consider to be unrealistic. The reason I feel that there is a consensus to keep them deleted is due to the fact that three separate discussion produced the same result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you bullshit me one more time about three discussions I swear I'm going to lose it. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Two, three ... who cares? It doesn't make a qualitative difference, and I never claimed that it did. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't care then why is it a main part of your argument to endorse deletion? -- Ned Scott 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not. There is no qualitiative difference between "Consensus was reached in two separate discussions" and "Consensus was reached in three separate discussions". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And when someone hasn't edited recently, that makes alternative contact methods even more valuable. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, a category is not needed when the goal is to contact a specific user. Deleting the category does not remove the alternate contact method(s) - the userbox - from their userpage. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "when the goal is to contact a specific user" That's not the goal. Again, this is a much preferred alternative to creating "by contact information" for individual WikiProjects and groupings of editors who have special interests. Right there, staring at you in the face, is a perfectly legitimate and extremely useful method. You not being able to understand how some editors, even if only a few, could use it that way, does not forbid such tools from being available. -- Ned Scott 20:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion - Do we want alternate ways to "get ahold of" another editor? IRC is already controversial enough. That aside, AOL was straight G4, and the other followed that precedent. The rest is just a question of whether consensus has changed, so whether a WP:BOLD action in recreating is fairly speedily deleted. To me it sounds like "speedy bold" was met with "speedy delete". WP:BRD , anyone? : ) - And I think that this recent nomination/discussion was a great idea. Though I would oppose requiring it, it's a nice proactive alternative to BRD. - jc37 10:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Methods of contacting other users is not up for discussion here. Personally, I do want users to have alternative ways to get ahold of each other, and see nothing wrong with that. This DRV is not the place to be making such arguments, CfD is. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And at least one of these has been deleted before based on CfD/UCfD. I think the best I can suggest is to please find consensus before recreation again. - jc37 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I created three categories without knowing about the previous discussions, and stopped as soon as I became aware of one (while looking at the edit history of a userbox for MSN messenger, which was going to be the fourth category). Specifically because I wanted to seek consensus before continuing, I attempted a discussion at the village pump that unfortunately never took off. So thank you for the advice, but I'm already ahead of you there. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And the ironic part of your WP:BRD mention is that discussion is specifically being suppressed in this situation. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking up over the long threads above, and also considering that categories can be discussed without them actually existing... Where exactly is discussion being "supressed"? - jc37 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppressed was probably the wrong word. Exposed discussion is more accurate. I do see your point about the categories not having to actually exist, and there is nothing stopping me from trying to further stimulate discussions elsewhere. However, it's not really necessary anymore, as a template back-link is able to work with CatScan as well. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheesh, do we need a WP:DRVU now? >Radiant< 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion these do not help build the project. Categories that are social in nature don't belong here. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They are just as valid as the project's own built-in e-mail support, or irc link formatting and interwiki link markup for Wikipedia IRC channels. ([[irc: and [[freenode:]]). As a collaborative tool they do help build the project, so you can't say that it doesn't. (You're welcome to say that the pros don't outweigh the cons, or that any help is not of sufficient value, but to say that it does not help the project at all is just absurd and proven false.) Nor would it make sense to use these categories for social networking, as people are not going to be looking for people to talk to at random via Wikipedia. (unless they're very stupid and have not learned about the concept of public chat rooms) I'm social in nature, do I not help the project? My talk page is social in nature, does it not help the project? The guy I helped with a citation tag over AIM the other day, did that not help the project? -- Ned Scott 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter: The Later Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Despite being a parody of the video game Street Fighter II, Street Fighter: The Later Years is a legitimate and ongoing internet show similar to that of Pure Pwonage and lonleygirl15. BackLash 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems a bit unusual to (re-)create an article page simply to put a deletion review template on it. Other deleted articles seem to be red links. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion you'll need to show us some claims of notability along with some reliable sources to back them up. The deleted version was a classic example of an A7/nn-web speedy deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This doesn't need a deletion review, it needs reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject. If you believe you can provide them, I'd be happy to userfy the deleted content, or email it to you. --Stormie 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion for lack of notability and sources. - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Internet shows have a mountain to climb to prove encyclopaedic merit, and this has not passed the foothills yet. Similarity of nature does not imply equivalence of notability. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7 deletion. If it can be demonstrated that there are reliable sources about the subject, then the article could be userfied or restored. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse - No justification for reinstatement. DRV is not a toy.--WaltCip 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion proper; no claim of notability. Carlossuarez46 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daft Punk Live Chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is a short documentation about a very significant even that took place marking the 10th anniversary of the group's rise to popularity. It is the only time the group has spoken to the public in such a way, and I wanted to tell everyone. Eriegz (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The bulk of the text was a transcript of the chat text, and thus completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Even if it were rewritten to be an article about the chat as opposed to a transcript, it would still be a valid speedy as non-notable web content. If you can find that this chat was covered by independent reliable sources, perhaps a case could be made for mentioning it in the Daft Punk article, but it's such a microscopic fragment of the band's long history that even that seems unnecessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD - unsourced, unencyclopaedic, it is all those. However, it is about a media event of a notable band. I don't see anyway it would survive an AfD. However, it is not an A7 and therefore the speedy should be overturned. BlueValour 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Not an A7? It was an "article about .. web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." I recommend adding a paragraph in the Daft Punk article and linking to the transcript of the chat somewhere off-wiki. --Stormie 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - oh dear, I am far from comfortable in arguing for the restoration of this article because I am not into Daft Punk, it is a wholly terrible article, and it will not survive an AfD in anything like its last form. However, I think a canter through the purpose of speedies is worthwhile to show from where I am coming. Speedies were introduced to deal efficiently with the hopeless - the attack pages, the copyvio lifts, the vanity pages by schoolboys, would be popstars and the rest, the corporate spam, and the personal blogs to name just a few. The underlying principle, however, is that because it involves deletion without consensus it should only be used in the narrowly specified circumstances determined by the Community. Where there is an element of doubt then the page should be listed instead. In this case you "recommend adding a paragraph in the Daft Punk article" which is, I think fairly, at least some acknowledgement of a degree of notability. The article stated that it was "a live internet-powered chat with the members of (notable band)" and I think that is also some indication of its importance. Independent reliable sources are needed to survive an AfD but not to avoid an A7 speedy that simply requires an assertion of importance. I still think that restoration and listing is the way to go with the likely outcome being your suggested solution, a small addition to the main article. BlueValour 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're suggesting another round of bureaucracy just to get the same result I'm proposing? Speedies were originally designed for the "truly hopeless" case, but it's my understanding that the A7 category was deliberately broadened to cover the increasing quantity of non-notable subjects having articles created about them. Anyway, it quite deliberately states "web content" as opposed to, for instance, "websites". The transcript of an online chat is "web content", in my book. --Stormie 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Countering BlueValour's opinion this is absolutely the type of article that WP:CSD was created for. ~ trialsanderrors 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgantown Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

significant new information has come to light. It ranked as the Worst in its class (thus satisfying notability) in a major industry survey and publication. Claim to notability was never refudiated or explained why ignored by closer. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). No, that one reference does not automatically meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. If you parse any list narrowly enough, eventually the population will be small enough that you can be best (or worst) at something. That doesn't make for a sustainable encyclopedia article. Even though that one source was found late in the discussion period, it alone would not be sufficient to give this article any chance of survival if the discussion were relisted. Rossami (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, that one cite demonstrates only that for US retail spaces of the sub-genre of "power center spaces" which happened to be evaluated by NAI], Morgantown, WV had the lowest occupancy rate as of Q4 2006.
    First, the best definition I've found so far for a "power center space" is a 250,000-to-600,000-square-foot property dominated by three or more generally freestanding, large anchors, such as discount department stores, off-price stores, warehouse clubs and category killers. By that definition, the Mall would not have been included - it would have been in the "mall space" category higher on the page.
    Second, even if malls were included in that statistic, it is a measure for a geographic area, not a single facility. (Note, for example that Philadephia is number 2 on the list. Philadelphia has many retail spaces - with an aggregate vacancy rate of 18%.)
    Third, That one statistic also tells us nothing about trends or reasons. Does the area, for example, have low occupancy that month because there were some newly built spaces which had not yet been occupied?
    That one citation holds a single statistic which isn't even specific to this mall. It alone can not support an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The link provided shows that the city of Morgantown has the highest retail vacancy rate. Not the mall. --Smashville^BONK! 18:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - the AfD was properly closed and, as the analysis above shows, the single source doesn't change anything. BlueValour 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as nominator, AfD was properly closed. Single source is insufficient and is not directly related to mall in question. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - Afd was closed properly and the source doesn't alter that. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaineer Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

significant new information has come to light. this mall has won an award for one of its programs and subsequently announced in a major industry publication. no simple feat when compeating with the rest of the malls in America. _{please note this article was accidentally recreated prior to this DR request.} Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Your new information appears to be that "In April 2005, ICSC and the EPA announced Mountaineer Mall had won an award entitled Best Community Partnership (Large Shopping Center) for its recycling program [4]" That award was one of 10 made in 2005 from that organization alone. ICSC's FAQ describes this award. You get it for donating your recycling proceeds to some humanitarian cause like helping a sick child or planting trees. While noble, getting a single award for a successful marketing tactic two years ago is not sufficient to overturn a unanimous deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So then you dont believe that any International Councils backing of an award would be significant? This can in no way be construed as a "marketing tactic", as was mentioned in the AfD "a search for sources online found nothing of note" which, as you imply, this surely would have created in (atleast) local news. I believe that an industry award of this nature is grounds for notability as was disputed in the AfD, and at least deserves a second look at the issue. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request - may I have this page 'userfied' as I believe the AfD nom's "search for sources online" was flawed. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as properly closed by the admin. Actually, I do think that the award was significant. However, this is an otherwise undistinguished, declining mall. I don't think that this single award is, by itself, quite enough to overturn. BlueValour 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as nominator. This was properly closed as a delete; the new source provided by the user is insufficient in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to allow Exit2DOS2000 to continue his search. The one award doesn't seem to be enough, but if they found that so fast, they might be able to find more stuff within a reasonable amount of time. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Afd was closed properly. Carlossuarez46 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim_Phillips (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article should be reconsidered as sufficiently notable for the US-CEO Stub Category. Compared to the current uncomprehensive collection of CEOs in this category this page lists an acceptable number of contributions to business, community, and politics (not only with a run for congress, but also current activity and political commentary). The reliable sources cited in the page confirm this. This would be a positive addition to a lacking category. Sturatt (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in this discussion. The article failed because no sources were provided demonstrating the subject's notability. The links on the deleted page were evaluated and considered by the community to be insufficient evidence. No new sources have been provided here. Until new sources are found, there are no grounds to overturn the prior decision. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. A very worthy businessman. Founding his own firm, being a failed congressional candidate and sitting on the boards of various organisation make a core case for inclusion. However, for notability secondary sources are needed on achievements and none were produced during the AfD and in this DRV. This was a tight decision but, on balance, correct. BlueValour (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure First off, nothing was procedurally wrong with the AFD closing. The original page was quite spammy as well. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Restore Strong restore per nom. 203.220.105.139 (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC) user blocked indef. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than vandalizing Xoloz's user page, this user has made few contributions except on this subject. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a chance to explain what was wrong with the deletion process, not to run to the other parent in the hope of a different decision. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: Comment Oh Dude! xoxo 203.220.105.139 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC) user blocked indef. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than vandalizing Xoloz's user page, this user has made few contributions except on this subject. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. If there are significant reliable sources on this person, as required by WP:N, I might reconsider. But we don't restore (or keep) articles just to fill up a category; see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Mangojuice^talk 15:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion just nn. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connections Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Calling this unimportant is clear discrimination. Pastor Rocky veach has a weekly tv show, is the chairperson of an international church organization with thousands of churches in his church network, and has one of the most active community churches in his region. He used to be under COC america which was well known, but is no changing thigns over to the Connections Name, this is why there is confusino as to his importance. How can you decide that just because something is not important to you it's not important. He has thousands of people checking every day to see how he is doing. He is running humanitarian efforts with missionaries in the Dominican Republic, Chile, Africa, and Argentina. Connections also has several church locations that have branched off of this one. In addition, I have searched and found over 100 singular church pages that have existed forever. What criteria does one use to determine he impact a church is having? Are you an expert on Church Relevancy and Church Ministries? When I read the person who flagged me's articles on Harry Potter Actors it didn't mean a thing to me, because I had never seen the movie. Does the fact that I wouldn't recognize them make them any less famous? Clearly not. The fact that you are not from any of the places they operate, doesn't make them less important. If they are important to 500 people does that make their information less credible than 500,00. Or is it jus that admin's like to discriminate against anything religous, while they let other insignifigant garbage like from the person who flagged me's site slip through. I Guess his cult following of one character from Harry Potter is ok, but Church isn't. This is not the first time I have had Admin's revert an edit made for something christian only to revert to somethign anti-christian. Somehow they don't get that a negative bias still makes you biased. I would just like you to know that I am a managing editor in for a newspaper outside of NYC and I know the difference between spam, and equal access. If we call this spam, then we'll have to be fair across the board, and any small following of anything or anyone has to go. If this site is so unimportant and irrelivant, please tell me why this is so important El Celler de Can Roca If I need to right awards that they've recieved I will, but as my note said, I was still editing and searchign for sources. They have recieved several community service awards that I could list, as well as international recognitionImpact2d (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article did not make any serious claim to notability (as defined in our Wikipedia guideline) for the church. The notability of Rocky Veach, dubious though it seems, is irrelevant to the notability of Connections Church. Perhaps you can provide one reliable independent source about Connections Church (this Connections Churhc, that is, as the name is in use by many unrelated churhces apparently)? Or make at least a clear claim of notability for it? It has been noted by reliable independent sources for...? Fram (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There is a clear claim made for notability: "has built a tight knit network with churches from Anchorage, Alaska to Colorado to New York." I think that is enough to avoid speedy for no assertiion of notability. It is not necessary to chow notability for this, just to claim something that could reasonably be so interpreted, and they've met that. Nor are sources needed. to pass speedy. Incidentally, I am not sure a church or association of churches is a "group" within the meaning of Speedy CSD A7. Possibly we need to specify "group" more precisely. (The article is a hybrid with a paragraph on an association of churches with claimed national reach, a specific church in Wappingers Falls, NY, and the pastor. ) I think the importance of churches is a matter that needs further thought. But this article will fairly clearly not pass AfD unreferenced--but it is started at the article that the article is in progress, and I think that should also have been respected. DGG (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia has some settled general precedents. We usually delete articles on individual churches, unless there is significant evidence of notability. We almost always keep articles on denominations, unless there are copyright or other similar problems. The grey zone is in the middle, where this article lies. In part it is an article on a single local church. In part it is an article on a new/proto-denomination. This did claim some significance, and thus should not have been deleted under WP:CSD#A7. It merits an AFD nomination, as there is no evidence of independent reliable source coverage used to write the article. So list. GRBerry 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read through the entire article as it existed at both points when it was speedy-deleted. I didn't see any credible evidence that this organization meets our generally-accepted inclusion criteria. But as a speedy-deletion being contested in good-faith, it can be restored and listed to AFD. Rossami (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per GRBerry and Rossami. Please note that the article will need to have some independent, reliable sources in order to be kept around, assuming that it is restored. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem, I'll undelete the article and list it AfD. Being a network of churches can probably be seen as a claim to notability. As the original deleter, I guess no one will complain that I haven't waited the full five days here. Fram (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Besides PCWorld, Wrike was covered by such trustworthy media as eWEEK and Entrepreneur. The Technology Magazine marked Wrike as one of the best Collaboration tools. Moreover, Wrike was reviewed by such competent blogs as fastForwardblog, WebWorkerdaily, SME blog and tens more.

I would emphasize that being recognized at LeWeb3 means a lot. Wrike won in the b2b category among hundreds of other start-ups. Obviously, some google hits aren't in English about the conference, since it’s worldwide and it was held in Europe Abdullais4u (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit re-creation Not all the sources were included in the original article, and the notability of the award seemed to be un-demonstrated. If it is notable, then the article can probably stand. DGG (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin.; If there are proper sources then the reasons for deletion are no lomnger valid and the article can either be undeleted or recreated. I'd have done this myself had the nominator bothered to ask me before raising the DRV. Since its here, I'll leave it to the community to0 decide. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit re-creation - the nominator has found further sources and should be allowed to recreate. However, I am still cautious about the future of this article. The LeWeb3 reference doesn't mention Wrike and the reference bullishly referred to as "The Technology Magazine marked Wrike as one of the best Collaboration tools." is simply a long list of such tools without any distinction being applied. BlueValour (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the LeWeb3 reference that mentions Wrike: The winners of the start-up presentations at leWeb3. In March, 2007 Wrike caught the attention of Folksonomy and was interviewed. I found a couple of other passionate references to Wrike: The Innovation Evangelist, along with Google’s news StartupSquad mentions launch of Wrike’s professional version, Dave Garrett, the leader of the online community for IT project managers, describes Wrike as “an interesting, very very simple tool” etc. Abdullais4u

Arab Student Organization (Kent State University Chapter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have explained to the creators of this page why it was deleted and have helped them understand the concept of notability. Could an administrator please restore the page to my userspace for… er… sentimental purposes? The page will not be recreated. Thanks! — atchius (msg) 08:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See User:Atchius/Arab Student Organization (Kent State University Chapter). Guy (Help!) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

jc37 (talk · contribs) recently closed to CFR discussion at Category:Politicians by religion as a delete, claiming the keep votes were the same. Noting the discussion, there was 9 votes to keep, and 7 to delete, which at least should have merited no consensus. Also the creators of categories like Category:Hindu politicians were not made aware their cats were up for deletions and much painstaking work has been undone by this deletion. Some of the queries brought were that politicians that describe themselves as Methodist , Hindu, etc may hold totally divergent views. Yet I see that WP:BLP#Categories supports categorization based on belief, especially because of the connection between Religion and politics and because even if they hold divergent views, politicians still self-identify and profess beliefs that affect their work in politics. I respect jc37's decision but must disagree, being one of the users that has painstakingly documented religious beliefs that do affect politics in the world. Bakaman 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - The crux of the issue is whether categories should exist for these, not whether the information may be relevant to to be inserted in each's article. Categorisation is more than just a note at the bottom of an article. And as I noted: "Several of the suggestions for "Keep"-ing apply more to whether such information is relevant/"notable" for inclusion in each politician's article, than whether such a grouping system should exist." - (I didn't claim that: "the keep votes were the same".) And of course the typical comment about consensus not being equivilent to counting "votes" applies here too. - jc37 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are used to mark people who share two things in common. Politicians that feel that their faith affects their politics, or which is relevant to their politics (minority legislators) should be categorized by their religion and occupation. The marriage between religion and politics is so deep that it is impossible to divorce the two in many places. Even if politicians hold divergent views while professing the same religion, the fact that they self-identify and the fact it is relevant to notability should allow for categorization as noted by WP:BLP. BLP incidentally is an official policy, unlike WP:OCAT, which is merely a phrase used to stymie discussion. When jc talks about consensus, there was definitely no consensus to delete, so it should have at least ended up as no consensus.Bakaman 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Categories are used to mark people who share two things in common." - No they're not. That's called intersection, and may be done in many ways, including noting in articles, in lists, in templates, and, of course, categories. But it's not only not a definition of categories, it's frowned upon in in many cases. (See WP:OCAT for some examples.) - jc37 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OCAT as noted is not a policy. The intersection of religion and politics is inherently notable and searching for politicians that share the same beliefs falls well within the spirit of WP:CAT. When we look at WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference, we can see it really does not apply. Articles like Political aspects of Islam, Christianity and politics, Hindu politics, Religion and politics are certainly head articles, since politics cannot be undertaken without politicians. Ergo this meets WP:BLP and does not fall under the purview of WP:OCAT.Bakaman 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I read the discussion as no-consensus. Maybe a wider discussion will demonstrate consensus--though I rather doubt it. The argument for deletion seemed to be that it would cause arguments over inclusion, which i do not consider is not a valid reason. DGG (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I'm concerned that this discussion may have improperly deemphasized issues of systemic bias. In the West, while religion is important in political life without question, it is one among many factors that influence elections. In India, for example, it may be the dominant factor, to the exclusion of anything else. I don't feel a group listing did justice to these differences. Xoloz (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and consider other alternatives. Xoloz's argument is persuasive. It may be appropriate to have sub-categories of national cats for some nations. For the U.S., a "christian right politician" category might be appropriate even if no other religion category is. Send it back for some thinking outside the box. GRBerry 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion (or, at least relist) - I don't find the closing interpretation following in-line with the consensus (or lack thereof) in the CFD discussion. True, the categories need to be better organized heirarchically, but they are both relevant and useful. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to those suggesting relisting - Not to be cliche (smile), but I'm not sure that this addresses the closure. Honestly your comments are similar to the ones at the CfD. Just because something may be "notable", doesn't mean that there need be a category for it. And that's not being addressed in the "relist" comments above. If this was an AfD discussion, it could have been No consensus, or possibly even Keep. But this is a CfD discussion, and we have to look at more than the question of "notability". We need to determine whether a category grouping is to be kept. And that wasn't addressed by those supporting keeping the category, but it was by those opposing. As noted above (and in WP:CLS), one of the failings of categories is the lack of ability for references. And Xoloz's comment above indicates a prime example of why references and clarification would be needed for these. And I would presume citing WP:BLP, would actually suggest deleting the category due to lack of references. There are several precedents on CfD for this as well. (I'll have to find some links) And I note that several of these are actually recreations (including the Hindu one). - jc37 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories are the Wikipedia equivalent to an index of related topics. I stand by my opinion that relisting is right, so that we can determine the proper way to categorize. My argument is that, in some cases, these are in fact appropriate groupings, and that one or more CFDs that actually try to figure out which ones are appropriate needs to be held. The mass listing very clearly didn't even try. GRBerry 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to get sidelined too much here, but just a queck clarification: "Categories are the Wikipedia equivalent to an index of related topics." - No, they're "categories", groups of things, which may be organised in many ways, but are not necessarily indices (per WP:CAT#Categories do not form a tree). Wikipedia:Quick index is our index, and Portal:Categorical index is our categorical index. - jc37 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  To restate my point in a different form, if religion in politics is the dominant factor that I believe it to be, it is reasonable to expect that readers might wish to navigate among related articles on that basis -- this is the purpose of categories. Xoloz (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but without references showing that these are truly "dominant", who's going to arbitrarily decide on the category's membership? No Wikipedian who's following WP:BLP or WP:V, I presume? - jc37 09:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether this assertion of mine is correct is one element that the relisting would investigate, and one reason a relisting is warranted. Xoloz (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. I don't think vote-counting is valueless, but here, the argument weight was definitely on the delete side. In places in the world where religion defines politics, those religions have built political parties to which these people can be assigned.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people espousing a religion in the public sphere choose to be part of a religiously based political party. The Indian Union Muslim League is there in India. However most "Muslim politicians" like Abdul Rehman Antulay, Hamid Ansari, Tariq Anwar, and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi (who belongs to a generally "Hindu" party, the Bharatiya Janata Party) do not associate with a "Muslim political party". And religion definitely defines politics in India.Bakaman 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as no consensus, or relist. The closer's rationale for dismissing the keep arguments is bad - in fact only a couple of the keep arguments didn't address issues they were supposed to address, and even there, there is a good reason behind those comments when we read between the lines; the only comment that is truly worthless is the "athiest propaganda" one. Plus, religion is a defining issue for politicians much more often than when there are religious political parties. It may not be especially important if an American politician is Anglican or Baptist, but it is certainly a defining characteristic that they are protestant. Certainly, religion is a defining characteristic for any American politician that isn't protestant; Mitt Romney's religion, for instance, gets a lot of mention in the news. Mangojuice^talk 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion The closing interpretation was not in-line with the consensus.These categories are useful and relevantShyamsunder 08:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - As per above.-Bharatveer (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion here's the damned that we did for a multiple nomination: I for one think that the stated religion of various politicos isn't defining: Giuliani is pro-gay rights, divorced, an admitted adulterer, and pro-choice so we categorize him "Roman Catholic" because he is, so it shows little of what someone lumped into this category really believes. So, the labels are simplistic and one-dimensional and people aren't. However, as some have said religion matters in some countries' politics. But that argument certainly doesn't apply to many of these categories, particularly where the population is virtually uniformly of a particular religion or has a state religion and the politician is in that religion: Category:Afghan Muslim politicians, Category:Indonesian Muslim politicians, Category:Iranian Muslim politicians, Category:Iraqi Muslim politicians, Category:Libyan Muslim politicians, Category:Pakistani Muslim politicians, and Category:Palestinian Muslim politicians, are totally non-defining. Can someone even find a non-Muslim politician in Afghanistan or Libya? So, any overturn should really reflect the reality of the arguments of the overturners (and no doubt they'll be the majority), and not overturn categories that really fail WP:CATGRS. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous non-Muslim politicians in Pakistan and Indonesia, and many of them have attained some fame, such as Krishan Bheel, Khatumal Jeevan and Dewa Made Beratha. In Afghanistan, Awtar Singh is there, a lone Sikh politician in Afghanistan. The label is there as a label. If Giuliani says he is Catholic in the political sphere, we mark him as a Catholic politician, its that simple. Religion is generally a uniter (among those who follow a certain one), not a divider.Bakaman

• Overturn deletion religion has a big part to play in politcs.--D-Boy 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Two quotes:
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
  • Wikipedia:Categorization of people - Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor that holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many different offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
• So (if, as it seems, we're replaying the CfD discussion here), are these politicians verifiably notable for being members of a religion? - jc37 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are really no issues with your first quote (covered by BLP) and your second quote would also validate the "overturn" idea. This would happen because the most famous politicians overtly specify their religious beliefs in the political sphere meaning that it is essential to their identity in both private and work-related spheres, ergo the Politicians by religion would be valid.Bakaman 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No actually, the latter quote invalidates your postulation. In other words, if they were not a politician, would being a member of <x> religion be notable for the person, so as to categorise them by it. In most cases, the answer is: no. And here's the fun part: even if it turns out that a certain politician is notable for being a member of a religion, next we'd have to determine if the intersection of the two is notable, or if the person should just be categorised separately under the two separate categories. And in this case, the intersection isn't any more notable that "Politicians who support the war in IRAQ", or "Politicians who are pro-choice". And we typically don't categorise politicians "by issue or belief", as is noted by at least a few editors above. I'm sure I can find innumerable precedents to support that. It's just simply not "clear-cut" enough for a generic category heading.(Again, see WP:CLS, which explains the weaknesses of categories.) - jc37 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases the answer is a resounding yes. Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Keith Ellison's Islam(ism?), Joe Lieberman's Judaism all make them notable. Obviously people are notable first for being a politician, but religion is something that (gasp?) trasncends issues like pro-choice, anti-gay, ten commandments in schools. The intersection of the two is sufficiently notable in America, and extremely notable outside it, especially in the Indian subcontinent, Africa and South America. Looking at notability, the phrase Islam and politics nets about 5x as many ghits as "Iraq War and politics". The term "christian politician" nets 10x as many ghits as"pro-life politician". It is much more notable and clear cut. Religion and politics are intertwined, and the fact is that religion is the most potent force of self-identification around the world. Please do look at the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or the recent Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case. It was due to the actions of two Muslim politicians from Britain that Pres. Bashir, another Muslim politician' decided to pardon the teacher, Gibbons.Bakaman 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I think some users might be overstating the importance of religion in politics, and need to adopt a more worldwide view. In the US, it is probably true that religion plays a part, but in most of Europe it is simply not relevant. (Except in extreme circumstances such as Northern Ireland, but even these issues are better described in political or sectarian, rather than religious terms). Religion is only a factor if it informs, and is seen to inform, the person's political views. Anything else is meaningless over-categorisation, and in any case serves little purpose as two people can be technically in the same category but still have vastly different beliefs (see previous comments). --carelesshx _talk 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we categorize by religion and not by belief. We dont categorize people as "Anti-War Gay-hating Democrats" because that would be meaningless. However categorization of people's religion is allowed on Wikipedia, and as such it is a useful means of seeing the influence of certain religions on certain political spheres, and viewing the diversity of viewpoints claimed religious brethren can espouse.Bakaman 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, good call by Jc37. It's not that we don't want the information (we do want it) but that categories are not such a good way of representing it. >Radiant< 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - if the religion is an important part of a political affiliation, that will be made obvious by the article and categorization of the political party. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings by artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Jc37 (talk · contribs) recently closed the CfR discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20#Paintings by artist as no consensus, defaulting in keep as is. I've had a discussion with him/her about this (see User talk:Aecis#Question about your CfR closure), and after some thoughts, I have decided to request a review of this closure. I had requested that ten daughter categories of Category:Paintings by artist be renamed to include the full name of the painter, based on the title of the corresponding article. This rename would conform the ten categories to the standard category naming within the daughters of Category:Works by artist. During the discussion, User:Johnbod expressed some doubt, in view of the fact that some of these full names were actually nicknames. The only oppose !voter was User:HeartofaDog, who stated that "I would only think this was justified if there were two or more artists of the same name - otherwise it seems superfluous." Basically, both editors appeared unhappy with the existing naming standard of including the full name of the artist. But as I said to Jc37, this might result in a discussion to change the convention, but I see no ground for suspending the application of the standard/convention altogether. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is where "deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed." -- Jreferee t/c 02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but this review is to assess the closure of one such CfR, as I indicated in the very first sentence of my request. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Rather than attempt to re-comment here, I ask that the closer (and those reviewing) to please take my comments at User talk:Aecis#Question about your CfR closure into consideration. - jc37 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like of six comments, one was oppose, and two were endorse (I took "rename" and "support" as "endorse the suggestion"). I would accrue significance to consistency too, but I'm surprised there is no apparent consensus to that effect among art editors? And a result of no action when there is no consensus seems reasonable. Pete St.John (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When looking strictly at the numbers, I agree with you: one person opposed the CfR (HeartofaDog), two supported it (Mike Selinker and SMcCandlish) and two provided some additional considerations (Johnbod and Peterkingiron). I'm obviously biased as the nom, but what they appeared to oppose, or what they were reluctant about, was imo the naming standard in general, not so much the application of the naming standard to these particular categories. In terms of the weight of the arguments, I see a consensus to rename the categories, with the option of a new naming standard being formed, resulting in a CfR the other way around. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Discuss at WikiProject_Visual_arts. The matter at issue was the renaming of the pages within the category to include the full names of the artist, and there seems no agreement on the question. Whether this should follow the convention for writers is not obvious one way or the other. DGG (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, but relist some individually. I wanted them all renamed, but some salient arguments about nicknaming should at least give the closer pause. The "No consensus" close allows us to tackle each independently, and I'm sure Jc is cool with that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I noted above, please consider User talk:Aecis#Question about your CfR closure, in which I said some similar things : ) - jc37 06:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - per nominator. Only opposer gave a pretty weak argument for a fairly common sense move. I see 3 supports for a move, and the one aforementioned oppose. No reason for this to be closed as no consensus. The Evil Spartan 09:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Divide up and relist. The problem is that these are not all equivalent. The Botticelli problem has already been brought up. Carpaccio is always Carpaccio; I believe he ended up at his full name to avoid conflict with the similarly named dish. Chagall and some others, on the other hand, should definitely be renamed. Chick Bowen 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moreschi/If (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Administrator Angr's claim that "consensus doesn't outweigh WP:CSD#G11" is, to put it delicately, insane. Speedy deletion policy is clear that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead [of speedy deletion]." The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If clearly demonstrates reasonable doubt. Overturn and keep. ➪HiDrNick! 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The page User:Moreschi/If is spread through out Wikipedia since it is linked to Moreschi' signature which appears as "Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}" -- Jreferee t/c 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• RelistOverturn and keep - Although WP:CSD#G11 applies to all namespaces, the MfD discussion indicates reasonable doubt regarding the promotional nature of the user subpage. One of the major arguments raised during the discussion was that Veropedia, although advertising-funded, is a sister related project that provides its content free of charge and adheres to GDFL licensing. Given that this page is a personal recommendation from a user (specifically, from an administrator) who does not stand to benefit commercially, it is hard to justify speedy deletion under promotional criteria. Relisting would enable the community as a whole to reach a consensus on what needs to be done with the page. After reading the arguments below and looking more carefully at the MfD, it seems that it was indeed heading for an early close as keep, and there is no need for further discussion to obtain consensus. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to object to any reference of Veropedia being a "sister project", since that implies it's a Wikimedia or Wikipedia-sanctioned project which it isn't. They're a commercial mirror of Wikipedia content - and as such as to comply with the GDFL anyhow. It particularly worries me that an administrator linking to it may also be seen as making it "official", when it's nothing of the sort. -Halo (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll concede my point above referring to Veropedia as a sister project, but it is certainly related to Wikipedia. And my point about the user in question being an administrator refers not to any official air they bestow upon it, but rather to the fact that the page does not belong to a spam artist or SAP but rather to an editor in good standing, which in turn allows them a certain degree of the latitude outlined in WP:UP. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and admonish closer Looks like consensus was achieved, and the admin just steamrolled right over it. Close was handled badly and was in the wrong outcome. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (aec) Overturn and close as keep I need not, I suppose, to undertake, as sometimes I do at DRV, to address at length the impropriety of one's speedying a page about the consistency with policy of which there is some dispute, especially where that dispute is codified in an XfD, and especially where those partaking of the XfD, having at least nominatively considered policy, support keeping; Nick makes the case quite well (much more cogently, to be sure, than might I). Were the MfD discussion inconsistent on its face with WP:USER and WP:CSD#G11, were the discussion visited by but a trivial number of editors, or were the outcome not plain, a relisting might be in order, but it seems clear to me that the MfD, having been perfectly valid, ought simply to be reclosed, to-wit, as "keep". Joe 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as keep It should be more than obvious that the participants in the MfD were aware of WP:CSD#G11 and thought it didn't apply. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007
  • Does lead me to ask why WP:CSD#G11 doesn't apply though. -Halo (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - as the original nominator, I agree that it seems to break WP:CSD#G11, but also that there does seem to be a keep consensus. It does lead me wonder where the line should be drawn as to what is spam and what isn't, though, because if someone promoting a commercial site in their signature to encourage contributions to that site isn't "spam", what is? If it's deemed acceptable by the community to link to sites in this way, then relevant policy pages should be updated, since it really shouldn't be an exception. -Halo (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Given the substantial expression of support for keeping the page speedy deletion was inappropriate. Redeletion was more so. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own closure – this was the single most blatant piece of advertising I've ever seen at Wikipedia, and no number of people voting WP:ILIKEIT can change that. The whole point of speedy deletion is that it applies without discussion first. It is simply unconscionable that anyone should ever have written the page to begin with, and I'm disgusted that anyone else would want to keep it. As for the nature of the content, Veropedia is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation and therefore by no stretch of the imagination a sister project of Wikipedia. Whether anyone stands to make money from it is irrelevant; advertising non-profit websites here is just as much a violation of WP:NOT#ADVERTISING as advertising for-profit ones. I quote from that policy: "those interested in promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." —Angr 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've conceded my point about Veropedia being a sister project; you are quite right there. However, I must point out that if the content you deleted was the "single most blatant piece of advertising" you've ever seen here, then you have been very fortunate indeed. As for your claim that a single user subpage linked to on the user's mainpage and in their signature constitutes spam in violation of WP:NOT, I would point out that WP:CSD, another official policy, specifies that only the most clearcut violations are deserving of speedy deletion. It goes on to say that pages where reasonable doubt might be raised should be taken to another venue for discussion--not only was this page well into discussion at one of these venues, but the consensus was clearly in favor of keep, which means there was more than reasonable doubt involved. As such, it is not difficult to argue that by unilaterally deleting it you were in violation of policy.

Although it is not uncommon to tag AfD or other items for speedy deletion based on arguments raised, given the advanced nature of the discussion at the time of your deletion I have to suggest that either bringing the issue up at the ongoing MfD or tagging the article for review by another administrator would have been preferable to unilaterally deleting and then redeleting it yourself. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:CSD specifies that only the most clearcut violations are deserving of speedy deletion, and as I said, this was an incredibly clearcut violation. This page is the reason WP:CSD#G11 was written. —Angr 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is common for pages pending at XfD to be speedy deleted. The speedy deletions then may be brought to DRV. Angr's speedy deletion should have been brought directly to DRV, not wheel restored. In addition, Moreschi should not have used his admin tools to restore a page that he created and Angr was correct to redelete it. -- Jreferee t/c 09:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that speedy deletions happen during XfDs--I've tagged a fair share myself, although to the best of my recollection this has been in response to the chorus of people asking why a given article hadn't been speedied already. But my point about the presence of reasonable doubt (incidentally, a random search through the WP:CSD history shows that this has been around at least since April, so it's not a recent policy change) has not been addressed, and as such I am not convinced that the deletion was appropriate under Wikipedia policy. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, this was fairly blatant advertising, even if for a sister project. It still doesn't belong here, and I think it's a valid G11. --Coredesat 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. MfD really needs to stop interfering with people's user spaces. WP:USER gives people pretty broad latitude here. I'm largely indifferent to the whole veropedia thing, but I read Moreschi's essay and, from what I recall, it's largely about improving content on Wikipedia. How exactly is that something that we need to urgently delete from his user space? It's no more advertising than thousands of user pages that link to real world interests. --JayHenry (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CSD#G11 claims it applies to all namespaces, and WP:USER includes advertising clauses in it. I also think you've remember Moreschi's essay wrongly - it largely said "Created something good on Wikipedia? Ensure it doesn't get ruined by posting it on Veropedia" (or something along those lines), and he prominently included it in his signature with a link "If you've written a quality article...". I wouldn't have cared or submitted it to MFD if it wasn't for the latter. -Halo (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:SPEEDY applies anytime, including before, during, and after XfD. This was the most blatant advertising I have seen. WP:CSD#G11 applied. User:Moreschi can try to get such information listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, but keeping blatant advertising is not the way to go. -- Jreferee t/c 09:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, no it doesn't. From WP:CSD "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements". While this had not technically survived its MfD as it hadn't been closed, it was clearly on ts way to a keep result, so speedily deleting the page went against the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pages whose AfD keep close are overturned at DRV are CSD G4 speedy deleted all the time, even if they survived a prior AfD deletion discussion. Whose been monkeying with the speedy delete policy? -- Jreferee t/c 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The blatant advertising was spread throughout Wikipedia by Moreschi because Moreschi's signature included a disruptive internal link to the blatant advertising and appears as "Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}" Speedily deleting the page clearly was with the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. -- Jreferee t/c 11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy has had that wording for as long as I can remember - certainly for months. [5] Obviously it's not meant to apply to recreations of material which was kept at one AfD and deleted at a second, but otherwise I think it's sound - speedy should not be used to override good faith objections to a deletion, such as those which resulted in it being kept. As for Moreschi's signature, several people have suggested that he change it, but that's a different matter from the deletion of the page itself. I also think that the bottom line is that if sixteen people at the MfD didn't see this page as blatent advertising, it can't be blatent. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Speedy is for uncontroversial, clear-cut cases; the discussion at the MfD should be more than ample evidence that this wasn't. Obviously the community didn't see this as blatent advertising, or if they did, they thought that the potential benefit to Wikipedia outweighed any annoyance it might have caused. Even the nominator described it as "a borderline case". If Angr disagreed with the emerging consensus he should have expressed his opinion in the debate and tried to persuade the keep voters of it, instead of simply trying to impose his own interpretation of a subjective clause over that of the rest of the community. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn What and what isn't blatant advertising is determined by the community. Admins who disagree can add their arguments at the bottom of the discussion in the hope to sway the community. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion, and close MfD as keep. The policy issues here do not justify going against clear consensus in the MfD debate, which was that this page does not constitute advertising. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and reprimand Angr for blatant abuse of admin tools to further an ideological goal. This is an example of why we need a much easier way to desysop people. Walton^One 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and consider sanctioning Angr for misuse of his tools and for ignoring consensus. The article was not a clear cut speedy deletion candidate, rather, it was something that required discussion and consensus was in favour of the article being legitimate, and that it should be kept. Nick (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar controller compatibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

contains useful information 206.169.113.251 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion "useful information" is not the same as "encyclopedic information"; closer's comments summarised the debate correctly. WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep or restore. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undue deletion: The admin clearly overstepped by going against consensus when there was a clear and overwhelming decision to keep the article MusiMax (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted admins aren't vote counters. Useful info isn't the same as encyclopedic. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I applaud the closing administrator for his close, which I support. I (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Blatant original research. Guy (Help!) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The table itself makes no comparision conclusions. However, the Yes/No conclusion that a particular Guitar controller has a certain features was original research. Certainly, it was not based on independent reliable sources material as only the manufacturer would likely detail such information and any reliable source would merely repeate what the manufacturer published (so that such repeating would not be "independent"). -- Jreferee t/c 08:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undo deletion: Comments:

1. How is it original research? Every entry in the table was sourced to IGN, 1UP, or the Harmonix press release. The information was well-sourced, notable, and in no way violating WP:NOR.
2. WP:USEFUL wasn't the only pro-inclusion argument. The alternative is to duplicate this info at Rock Band, Guitar Hero III, and Guitar Hero II, which unnecessarily clutters all three articles.
3. The only pro-deletion arguments I've ever heard were that it's "not an article or list" (since when is there a rule that a page has to be one of these, there are numerous articles that are primarily tables), that the page was a mess (true, but not a reason for deletion), and WP:GUIDE (it was never explained how this is remotely game guide information), and WP:USELESS.

I'm still yet to hear one policy this page violates or one reasonable reason why the page should no longer exist. My understanding of the AFD process is that there needs to be a consensus to delete something based on a reason, as opposed to requiring a consensus to keep something. The consensus in the original AfD was clear and the pro-deletion folks didn't even try to discuss it. So I ask again, is there a valid reason for deleting this article? Oren0 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely WP:IINFO. -Halo (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the information was indiscriminate. -- Jreferee t/c 08:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did try to discuss it. No one replied to any of my comments except for some bad faith assumptions and personal attacks on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Based on a bold assumption of what was there, can I suggest changing to a template for transclusion? It's probably not worth an article on its own, but it is relevant for the three games -Halo (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and closer's reasoning. Something possibly being useful isn't a reason to keep, as lots of things can be "useful", but not for an encyclopedia. --Coredesat 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:NOT seems the likely outcome. There are many, many of these product feature comparison table articles. While it seems that Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products, WP:NOT does not seem to specifically cover this situation. Wp:not#sales was written to keep prices out of these comparison table articles. Someone should write an essay as a first step of getting WP:NOT revised and to provide something that may be cited to that specifically addresses these feature comparison table articles. -- Jreferee t/c 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion pretty good example of why AfD is not a vote: The delete voters had valid concerns about WP:NOT and original research. The keep voters more or less just repeated "It's useful!" Well sure it is. I'd find a wiki page with the menus and phone numbers of all the restaurants that deliver to me useful too, but it isn't something that would be right for wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat again, why is this original research? It is all well-sourced, published info. As for WP:NOT, who decides what's indiscriminate? The menus and phone numbers of your favorite restaurants aren't likely to be published in multiple reliable sources. This info is. I don't see how this is less encyclopedic than any of the comparison articles that exist all over Wikipedia. Oren0 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. The closing admin used a pinpoint focus on a few of the keep comments (Useful information not available anywhere else) as rationale for deletion. I think this was read out of context. IIRC, the comment refers to the fact that a comprehensive table did not exist, not that the information was not referenced. If the information wasn't referenced, I believe it could be by reliable sources. This table contained very notable information, due to the games' chart-topping sales, and the over $50 price of controllers, purchasing an incompatible one is a big deal. -- Norvy (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - I'll Wikify this article in Encyclopedia Gamia, or at least put it somewhere where it can go to use. Obviously consumer advocacy is not in Wikipedia's best interests.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse But then, I would, wouldn't I? More seriously, Starblind articulates my reason better then I can. Also, 15 people saying its useful and the information isn't available elsewhere don't significantly overcome policy based discussions and this is a classic example of why consensus measures arguments not numbers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion (as original nominator). "Useful" is the reason for almost every comment in support of keeping. Most of the table was blank space due to controllers for one system obviously not working for any other system. Most of the actual prose was just a summary of the occasional unexpected compatibility issues. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - as per closing editor's rationale. Maybe also as original research. Useful informatinon ≠ Encyclopedia (and therefore better) information. — Rudget _{contributions} 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). As several have already said, this is an excellent example of why deletion discussions are decided based on weight of argument, not by vote. No objection to a temporary undeletion if someone wants to move the content to some other GFDL-compliant site where this content might be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a Propose: Not Features Guide at WP:NOT that links to this DRV. Please consider adding your comments there as well. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - an outstanding example of a closure based on policy consensus, which trumps local ILIKEIT !voting. Eusebeus 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee go home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As frustrated as I am about a page I created being deleted without anyone popping a note on my talk page, and at that after someone had removed the prod for it, and with very little discussion, I decided I could take it. Except that page, being transwikied, will almost certainly not appear in its current form on wiktionary: see wikt:Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. Not only that, but the text itself will never actually be placed on the page to which it has been redirected, as the deletion discussion was saying it should. The phrase is one of the most notable ones of the 20th century (as can be seen from the sources given at wikt:Transwiki:Yankee go home, which were just a few among thousands that I found, and in that fact that someone else created a page on the English term in the Turkish language: tr:Yankee go home). If Wikipedia has decided that some terms are worth their own articles (e.g., truthiness, which isn't half as notable in that it's only a fad for the past couple years), then the standard should be applied across the board and equally. As such, this discussion did not have enough participation (only 3 participants, not including nominator, 2 of whom fell under WP:JUSTAVOTE), especially given that a prod was removed, and the deletion proposer didn't even notify me, the creator. As such, we should overturn the redirect. User:Part Deux (on extended Wikibreak) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep as redirect, though I do not have a firm opinion on which target is better). I see no process problems with the discussion. Deletion discussions do not have a quorum requirement and it is explicitly not a requirement to notify the page's creator. (In a wiki, you can't really say who the creator is anyway.) The AFD tag was on the page for the required 5 days. There was ample time for anyone watchlisting the page to see the tag and comment.
  As to the content of the page, it was a mere dictionary definition - meaning and usage of a word or phrase. It had 7 months to be expanded and could not. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The deletion discussion got this right. The nominator is correct that the layout of the definition will probably be changed when it is moved to Wiktionary. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. The nominator also notes that we have articles on other terms. The solution is to move them to Wiktionary as well, not to propagate the problem here. I see no grounds to reverse the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect close - There was no other way to interpret that AfD. AfD does not require notification to validate the process. Removal of the prod without improvement of the article is a reason to delete the article, not to void the AfD discussion. Also, one AfD participant is enough if the AfD is listed for five days. The text itself was unsourced so it wouldn't improve Wikipedia by placing that unsourced text on the page to which it had been redirected. -- Jreferee t/c 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & relist failure to notify is already considered impoliteness by the policy, and its unfairness here with the editor on a wikibreak is clear. Unfair AfDs should be sent back and redone. Removal of the prod, with or without improvement is not a reason for deletion until brought to AfD and consensus obtained. It is not assumed the original prod was correct. It would be appropriate to hold a fuller debate--the inadequate discussion should have been continued, not closed. DGG (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Failure to notify is not, and has never been, a requirement, and to suggest that a unanimous AfD be overturned because the originator of the article was not notified is absurd. And then on top of it, the person who wants to be nominated was on wikibreak? So some crappy article (and I'm not saying this article was crappy) has to stick around forever just because the original editor is on wikibreak? That's not policy and hopefully will never be policy. Corvus cornix_talk 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - Article looked alright, didn't really qualify for deletion in my book, and didn't see any process problems the closure. I even remember editing this page when it was created, thought it was in August though, not April! — Rudget _{contributions} 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep and redirect closure Since the edit history was kept the redirect consensus only holds for the article as it stood during the AfD. Anyone can access the edit history and use it to replace the redirect with an improved article. Looking at the dicdef that was there I agree that the redirect was better, but that doesn't mean it's impossibe to write a viable article on the term. And nothing in the closure prevents that. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure seems appropriate and within admin discretion surely. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. No arguments based on policy or guidelines were provided for keeping or deletion, so there was no basis on which this could be closed either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I realize a lot of people are currently commenting on the fact that the review was done according to process. But what about the fact that this appears to be an extremely notable saying? As said above, this statement is known worldwide, and goes way beyond other Wikipedia favorites such as truthiness. I would be glad to create a true article, not just a dictionary definition of it, given the chance. A lot really could be said about this notable subject. It will be a real shame if the administrator simply closes this debate based on a head-count without allowing recreation of a very notable subject. 128.118.226.88 09:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Chill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please undelete the Berry Chill page. It is extremely significant to one of the hottest food crazes to hit the US -- froyo. What began with Pinkberry, ended with an investigation of the products real yogurt status. It was, in fact, NOT real yogurt. While the yogurt wars wage on in the US's East and West coasts, the fad has yet to hit the windy city (Chicago). Berry Chill will be the city's first yogurt restaurant, and one of the category's first to receive the National Yogurt Association seal, which proves that the product contains enough live and active cultures to be called real yogurt.It belongs on Wikipedia, along with its competitors that will surely find their way to Chicago soon. Berrychill 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has great significance Berrychill (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read our guidelines on handling a conflict of interest. The usual problems applied to this article: it wasn't written from independent and reliable sources; it didn't assert notability; too much of the content looked like advertising copy; and it smelled like a copyright violation (of advertising copy). Endorse deletion. Don't recreate unless there is independent coverage published in reliable sources. GRBerry 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck...too much of the DRV request looks like advertising copy... --Smashville^BONK! 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Lizz Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm voting to overturn the deletion of the page, there was no justification why this page was deleted. It is agreed that the page could use reformatting due to the fact that the author was new to wikipedia. I would like the opportunity to re-do this page in the correct format. The person is notable because of relation to a National distributed product as well as a cult following per the notabililty (bio-persons) page of Wikipedia. It contained enough importance and even a little more compared to the other models in the same catergory "Hip Hop Models".Knicksfan4ever (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD debate was small but correct, and correctly closed. This article barely rose above the level for a speedy-deletion per WP:CSD#A7, but is not on an encyclopedic topic. She's not professional in the area, and it's not even her day job to appear in such things, and there is no evidence that any of those routine activities have earned her particular third-party note. The Washington Post 'article' was just a mention that a local girl might win a competition and the only possible route to notability - the Maxim competition she failed to win. Endorse deletion. Splash - tk 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in the AFD discussion. The original contribution was pretty clearly autobiographical (with all the normal problems that entails). Subsequent edits still failed to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion. No new evidence was presented during the deletion discussion to rebut that point, nor has any new evidence been presented here. If there are other models with articles with equally low notability, the right answer is to nominate those for deletion, not to propagate the problem. Rossami (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contribution has been adjusted Knicksfan4ever (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per my reasoning on the AFD. Per this dif, the user who nominated this page for deletion review is Liz Robbins. Miranda 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep [6] You suggested someone having longterm, Lizz has been in the industry for over 12 years. Longer than quite a few people listed on Wikipedia. What evidence do you have that the deletion review is Lizz Robbins? (2 z's). It seems that hip hop models are being singled out on wikipedia, when you have other models with less significance. Knicksfan4ever (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the above dif. Miranda 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been invited along as the deleting admin, but I deleted the recreated page (East718 closed the AfD as "delete"). A substantial similar article was then created, after this deletion review had been opened; it was tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation, and (after checking it was, and seeing there was a DRV open anyway) I deleted it as such. Endorse my deletion of the recreation, which (it seems to me) does not address the points of the original deletion; endorse the original deletion by East718 as an insufficiently notable biographical article. Bencherlite^Talk 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still learning, I'm fairly new to this. Did you have the chance to review the updated page compared to the initial deleted page? How do you get invited as a deleting admin?Knicksfan4ever (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, admins can see deleted pages and I have compared the two. I was notified of this discussion by you in this edit - that's what I meant by "invited along" i.e. "notified of this discussion". Bencherlite^Talk 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorseOverturn and Keep User above has a very good point. Certain topics like hip-hop models and porn stars are being targeted by a certain group of wikipedians for deletion. The reasons given are usually notability when actually its the wikipedians proposing the deletion who are just not familiar with the particular genre or sub culture. Let's look at the facts Lizz Robbins was featured in a full spread in King Magazine one of the most popular black mens magazines in the US because she won their national contest. Lizz Robbins has twice been in Jet Magazine one of the most popular and most historic black magazines in the US. Lizz Robbins was in Maxim Magazine one of the most popular mainstream mens magazines in the US. Lizz Robbins was mentioned in the Washington Post one of the most important newspapers in the world. Lizz Robbins was a national spokesmodel for Remy Martin one of the largest and most prestigious liquor brands in the liquor industry. In fact there are lifesize cardboard cut outs of Lizz Robbins in liquor stores from coast to coast. Article needs cleanup to meet Wiki standards but the subject matter meets basic notability standardsTroyStewart (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletions after comparing both deleted versions, no difference = valid CSD G4, valid AfD deletion. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep still no justification of reason for it to be deleted or if it's not meeting the "wiki" standards, give the author a chance to make adjustments. There are so many other pages maybe should not be on here, but this page has a strong caseKnicksfan4ever (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By listing the page here your opinion is implicitly understood to be "overturn". (If you wish otherwise you can say so now and we can close this review and get on with our lives, which I have no objections to.) There is no need to repeat "overturn and keep" multiple times and a lot of people see it as plain rude. Thanks. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still learning the rules, I saw that it was crossed out which I see as plain rude so that's why I repeated it, I wasn't trying to be rude, just re-stating what I saw was crossed out. Don't meant to take time out of anyone's life, it's the internet, just debating something I feel strongly about. Thank you for the clear explaination. Knicksfan4ever (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted nothing procedurally wrong with the deletion. No reason to undelete has been given. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was removed without discussion and when I noticed it, I added it to the discussion. At the time only 1 person had an opinion about it which I clearly felt like it wasn't justifiable and after adherring to the policies and rewriting the page it was still deleted. I'm still trying to learn what can be included in wikipedia, however, I feel the initiator stumpled across the page while on another page and felt the need to remove it because they felt it wasn't relevant to the page it was included on which was a sorority page. This page was not given a chance to be edited see TroystewKnicksfan4ever (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Side note: Can someone please STOP this? I am really tired of this user stalking my edits and speculating. I don't want to pass it to ANI, but enough is enough. Miranda 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not stalking, just discussing and making a case about why you nominated a page for deletion [7][8]Knicksfan4ever (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But at a talk page of a user not involved at all with this issue? Let alone, that edit does not bring up the deletion case, but about another issue entirely. I suggest to not make edits like what Miranda pointed out again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD was not broadly commented on but there was a unanimous opinion of all but the article's subject/creator that notability was not sufficient. If TroyStewart thinks notability can be established, it would probably be best done in userspace and brought for consideration. --Stormie (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes please note that it was not unanimous I objected to the deletion. I think this is the inherent problem with Wikipedia that users who are not experts in a certain feild can exert undo influence like they are experts. I am an entertainment professional so I don't profess to know all the current chemistry scholars so I would not edit those pages and the same goes for people who are not in entertainment specifically urban entertainment. An example is Lacey DuValle a porn star who has been a top actresses for over 10 years, has done well over 300 movies, is considered the top black actress in the field and will soon be voted into the AVN Hall of Fame. Her entry was recently deleted for notability!!!! Yet as I look at the actresses still on Wikipedia there are about 75 much lesser known and new actresses who have pages. This was clearly the work of a rival actress or a vendetta against her somehow but it went under the radar. So on this subject that Wikipedia has a project ongoing by the way, the Wikipedia information is compromised and incomplete. This kind of thing is common on Wikipedia and needs to be cleaned up somehow. I just feel very uneasy with the ease that pages are dismissed and deleted no matter what the facts are. King, Jet, Maxim, Washington Post how can there be a question of notability?TroyStewart (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This comment was originally made by anon user:63.148.4.2 and subsequently signed by user:Troystew
    • Can you point to the article you're talking about? There doesn't appear to have ever been an article at Lacey DuValle. Corvus cornix_talk 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, it was at Lacey Duvalle. Did the article explain her notability? Corvus cornix_talk 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Troy I don't see any dispute from you at the AfD discussion, and that's what I was referring to when I said "unanimous". Again, the delete opinion was on the grounds of notability, if you feel that it was incorrectly judged, and that you can create an article on Lizz Robbins which establishes notability by citing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, please do so! Ditto for Lacey Duvalle - you have made more assertion of notability in one post here than the entire article on her did in two and a half years of editing. Again, if you can create an article on her which establishes notability I'm sure it will be looked on favourably. --Stormie (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Non-admins can see the dif here. The article can be notable if re-written in a certain manner for inclusion and sources added, but barely IMHO. Miranda 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Lizz Robbins that was highlighted above was not the edited version, the edited version was not given a chance before being deleted. I am not the originator of the article, but I was alerted when it was up for deletion so I came on here trying to receive some help, which I did not. Fellow Wikipedians, this is not a personal issue for me. Just trying to receive some help on how to get it corrected so the authors work was not done in vain. Thank you to those who have offered their assistance. I do plan to contribute to Wikipedia, especially on subjects like Alpha Kappa Alpha that I am a member of to ensure that is correct. Not trying to stalk or badger anyone, in a sense I am feeling that wayKnicksfan4ever (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't have to inquire about people editing certain articles, and diminishing their credibility about reading certain resources. That's stalking, which could have had you blocked from editing. I as well as others have been repeatedly trying to tell you that you are not notable for the encyclopedia, but you keep on repeating...the same point and beating the same dead horse, which is wasting my and others time. And, after we keep trying to tell you that you are not notable, you stalk me and personally attack me about my edits to sorority and fraternity related articles after I had hinted and told you to stop doing so, and didn't apologize for your actions. So, I and others highly suggest to you to NOT WRITE AN ARTICLE ABOUT YOURSELF, because that is a conflict of interest, fails notability and fails neutral point of view. I change my position. This article needs to be kept deleted and salted from re-creation. Miranda 03:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion which was proper. As for salting, I'm ambivalent, but given the COI which Miranda points out, I'm leaning toward that as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Miranda is turning it into a personal war. Stalking? Are you kidding me? Isn't there a such think on here as BITING THE NEWBIE, which you are clearly doing and have cleary done to make your point. You are using the fact that you have been on here longer. If you read your talk pageI CLEARLY ASKED FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. If you check the record I DID NOT create the article, the person who did obviously wasn't aware of the Wiki rules. Which is why I joined to help, which I did plan to edit. If you look at the other articles on Hip Hop Model, they were written the same way. Being including on that article justifies notability as well as other points that were made by User:Troystew. As far as editing the sorority pages, yes, I myself or anyone else can edit those pages for clarity and history, I am a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, so if I want to edit that page as well as any other related pages I can. You are not the expert just because you read the history book, for anyone that is a part of a sorority or fraternity, knows it's more than that. You are clearly someone who obviously has interest in the sorority and I wish you luck with that. Someone else is going to correct and format Lizz Robbins, I didn't know that I couldn't edit, but when I tried it got deleted, but now that I'm aware someone else can handle it ANY VOLUNTEERS OUT THERE???. I also want to thank User:kww for all of his assistance in helping me out. I have not insulted or badgered you, you personal attacked me and it's human nature to react, so I think I as the newbie deserve the apology. Users like you will drive people away. Unlike Alpha Kappa Alpha or any other society, you don't have to go through any type of process or ritual to join. This is an informational website.Knicksfan4ever (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:CIVIL. Keep your comments civil, discuss the situation and not the people involved. Corvus cornix_talk 18:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been civil and have discussed the situation, if you read back you will notice that I was called out initially by the another User. Again I think it's personal or something against models in the hip hop worldKnicksfan4ever (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• this whole thing is really disturbing. why delete it? apparently lizz has an audience that interested in reading information about her. i think he body of work speaks for itself. if there is info that needs to be updated/revised, that's one thing, but to summarily delete the page and not consider her worthy to referenced as a 'hip hop model' is utterly ridiculous! Thapossibilities (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Thapossibilities (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Bencherlite^Talk 20:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I read the comments about why Lizz Robbins should or should not be allowed to be in Wikipedia as well as searched for “hip hop model” and scrolled down to successful Hip Hop Models. What I can't understand is why someone mentioned that Lizz lacks notability when she is listed as one of the “Successful Hip Hop Models”. On top of that, Lizz is one of the few women who have their accomplishment next to their names in that section. However, Lizz is the only one under the “Successful Hip Hop Models” section who doesn't have a link to their own Wikipedia page. I read the discussions and I felt that Lizz communicated in a pleasant matter in order to absorb what the person was complaining about and ask for suggestions on how one should create her page so that it fits Wikipedia guidelines. There's no doubt to me that Lizz deserve her own Wikipedia page given her accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to concur with recent posts about Lizz Robbins. While I too am a newbie to Wikipedia, I have followed my soror's professional career and I feel as if she is being slighted and she should have her information posted on Wikipedia as she is a professional model/actress and a notable member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Incorporated.LaJuan LoveLaJuan Love 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• — LaJuan Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bencherlite^Talk 18:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to those of you who can see what this is really about, I do appreciate it. I also appreciate determination and a fair debate amongst non-biased adultsKnicksfan4ever 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - no procedural issues with the AfD. Eventually, someone will create an article on her written in a neutral and verifiable manner. In the meantime, I suggest those with a conflict of interest avoid the subject for now. -- Kesh 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Legend Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list - The article contained enough importance/significance to overcome WP:CSD#A7. -- Jreferee t/c 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deleted as A7 although there were clearly presented assertions of importance. -- DGG 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nope. Copyright violation of what appears to be their MySpace page. However, I would note that the deletion entry log was rather inaccurate - it omitted to mention that it had also been tagged as a PROD. Nevertheless, this cannot be restored. Splash - tk 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion; early DRV close - CSD G12 Blatant copyright infringement of nyskyliners.org. -- Jreferee t/c 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there any non copyvio content? There might be enough noncopyvio to stubbify DGG (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to Comment - I believe this can be easily rewritten to be factual without being a copy/paste of their history page. Just requires a little bit of time and effort.Werecowmoo (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is copyvio content in every revision. In even the first revision, every paragraph contains copyvio material. None of them can be restored. Splash - tk 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio is clearly present from this specific page in the earliest revision and all later, and also likely from their 60th anniversary yearbook advertised thereon. GRBerry 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grenadiers Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion; early DRV close - CSD G12 Blatant copyright infringement of corpsreps.com. -- Jreferee t/c 19:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at this point, all that is there is a short copyvio description. DGG (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion; early DRV close - CSD G12 Blatant copyright infringement of rochestercrusaders.org. -- Jreferee t/c 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly longer this time, but still copyvio.This is not the way to develop articles for a project. DGG (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I believe this can be easily rewritten to be factual without being a copy/paste of their history page. Just requires a little bit of time and effort.Werecowmoo (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can recreate the article at any time... the deletions were only of the copyright violations, it wasn't a permanent denial of an aritlce on this topic. --W.marsh 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta CorpsVets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list - The spamy article was not so blatant of an advertisement to be considered a CSD G11 advertisement masquerading as an article. Also, the article contained enough importance/significance to overcome WP:CSD#A7. WP:SPEEDY doesn't apply, but deletion per AfD seems likely. -- Jreferee t/c 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A very poor article, likely to be deleted by AfD. It does not meet the requirements for blatant advertising, since it requires nothing fundamental to remove it's over-enthusiastic tone and, quoting, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.". Do not endorse G11, but wonder if there's any point in sending it to AfD where it is sure to die. Splash - tk 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is reasonably well mirrored here, at a GFDL site. Suggest improving it there until it clearly meets notability standards. GRBerry 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I see on the notability page, CorpsVets has gone on a national tour, won a major award(DCA Championship), is the most prominent representative in the field of drum corps in Georgia, and has performed for a work of media that is notable. This can all be referenced easily within the article. Werecowmoo (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a fair enough, good-faith challenge to a questionable speedy. Such things belong in a full AfD. I have nominated it there so please, Werecowmoo, be quick to prove your claims. Splash - tk 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slon in Sadež (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article suited all veriability criteria with the source being the article at the slovenian Wikipedia. --Cptukbo (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except another Wikipedia article can't be a reliable source. At any rate, it was deleted for not asserting any importance... and really, it didn't. It just described what kind of music the band made, but didn't explain if it was at all popular, important, etc. --W.marsh 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, the duo got the allnational Viktor award for being promissing young musicians. Would that, a list of less important achievements and a short description of their importance be enough for the restauration of the article? --Cptukbo (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts as the deleting admin are on my talk page which in part brought this here. I can't really find much on the "Victor award" as a notable source for this band. ^Khukri 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't find any official record about the 2004 Viktor-s (out of date; otherwise,here's the official Viktor site with the list of this year's awards), but I got the 2004 list at a forum (please, take my word for it being true). You can read: V kategoriji strokovnih viktorjev: Igor Bračič in Jure Karas (the Slon in Sadež duo) za obetavno medijsko osebnost.
  If the lack of importance would remain the only problem of the article (notability was also questioned - here is their short description at a popular music site and three articles about them in the weekly politics magazine Mladina (here, first three)), then I would ask to get back the article so I could add information about their Viktor and their overall popularity.

  --Cptukbo (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion - CSD A7 No reasonable assertion of importance/significance applies. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I just mentioned that if the article would be restored, I would add the information about their Viktor award and about their importance for the Slovenian musical scene. Let me repete that the article was made following a red link at the List of Slovenian musicians and that other pages from that list (Pudding fields, Racija) have even less information about their importance. I would like to know why those pages are better than this one.

  --Cptukbo (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at those, an editor if so inclined, wouldn't have alot of problems having them deleted via AfD either. ^Khukri 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, my question didn't get an answer. If I
  *add information about their Viktor award, the ranks of their songs on the charts and describe their importance for the Slovenian musical scene, perhaps describe their popularity and
  *add the forementioned sources, perhaps cutting down on the information that could be considered original research,
  then, can I get the article back? One good explanation for a "No" and I'm off. --Cptukbo (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hard to give you an answer without WP:BEANS coming into play. You need to overcome the reason for deletion to recreate the article. It is not a matter of Slon in Sadež being important enough for an English Wikipedia article, there needs to be enough reliable source material that is independent of Slon in Sadež to create a Wikipedia article. If you recreated the Slon in Sadež article without referencing reliable source material, the article likely would be deleted at WP:AfD five days from the recreation. You can always create a draft article in your user space and get an admin to move it to Wikipedia space if it uses enough reliable source material. -- Jreferee t/c 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So if we agree that the band is important enough for its own article and if I use material from the forementioned sources (notable enough, I hope), giving a broader description of the band's activities and achievements, am I granted permission to recreate the artice? --Cptukbo (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Bring the completed article back here for discussion before you recreate it. You can write a draft in your userspace.Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as proper A7, Startaz has a good recommendation although not strictly required as speedy deletions have no preclusive effect. However, repeated recreations that keep failing just make more work for everybody, so best to do this in user space. If this group is notable, there should be lots of press coverage of them in the lively Slovenian press. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the Slovenian music scene seems a valid encyclopedic topic. Any red link from this list should not be speedily deleted. Sources can be added from discussion above. Catchpole (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King George II Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contested Prod. Would like a chance to expand the article. --evrik ^(talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, this was an A7 speedy. However, the article had been rather unfortunately edited in a rather zealous application of WP:V. I'll restore, revert and leave it to you to source the claims quickly enough that it doesn't suffer a repetition of the same fate. Splash - tk 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well if this really is "the oldest Inn in the United States" and "the oldest continuously operated business in the United States" then obviously we should have an article on it. But I find those claims both to be a bit dubious and would like to see a good source. --W.marsh 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Caldwell(programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Still working on it adding references, reasons it should be there. This article is used by other articles (Multiplayer, Net Daemons Associates) ChristopherCaldwell (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christopher Caldwell(programmer). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ChristopherCaldwell (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Screen Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was recently an AfD debate on this article and if you count the votes, there are more in favour to keep the article then to delete it. This is a clear issue, more wanted to keep the article then delete it, but it was still deleted. The article needs to be restored. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc. as this article was deleted as a result of that on 20 November and then recreated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Background - The page was deleted 11:23, 13 November 2007 per Channel Zero Inc. AfD. That deletion was improper because Silver Screen Classics was listed too late in Channel Zero Inc. AfD. Silver Screen Classics then was recreated by Musimax 20:08, 13 November 2007. The recreation was a proper recreation. The Silver Screen Classics page was nominated for deletion seven days later, on 20 November 2007. The AfD nomination was a proper nomination. The Silver Screen Classics AfD closed 26 November 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own Deletion AFD is not a vote - its a discussion against consensus. I stand by my reasoning on the AFD. Note that the page was recreated shortly after I deleted for the second time. I have salted the page and deleted it under G4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore: There were more votes to keep and it was found to be notable by the users in the debate. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Musimax is the same individual as the ip editor as confirmed on my talk page Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just because channel Zero Inc. was deleted, that should have no effect on Silver Screen Classics. MusiMax (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The phrase "silver screen classic" goes back to at least 1982[9], writing "Novelizations have been a staple of the book world ever since the 1920's, when Publishers Row first joined hands with Hollywood in hiring freelance writers to transform the plots of silver-screen classics into pleasantly readable fiction." The phrase is widely used by a variety of media outlets. That makes it difficult to sort out what info belongs to Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) and what silver screen classic info is not relevant. Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) launched on September 2, 2003. However, there doesn't seem to be enough info to support an article. There might be some info here (search Silver Screen Classics). Despite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc., there is more than enough reliable source material for a Channel Zero Inc. article and info on Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) should go there (if consensus permits recreation of Channel Zero Inc.). -- Jreferee t/c 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure there is more than enough reliable info for an article on Channel Zero, as gets clear in the AfD. And I'm doubtful its channels (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_22#Maleflixxx_Television) can help a lot with that. Basically, I would like to see some "real world" connection - that channelcanada.com mentions a Canadian channel doesn't really tell a lot. (And I might be mistaken, but when I tried your search above, the articles in the search results would not be about this channel - it seems it simply searched for "silver OR screen OR classics"). --Minimaki (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. The closure here was against consensus and went significantly out on a limb in interpreting policy, and in dismissing reasonable arguments. I don't see why TV channel that is included in lineups non-trivial numbers of people receive should be treated so skeptically. There were sources: just because they weren't online doesn't mean they don't exist. I see no reason our coverage of TV channels in real lineups shouldn't be comprehensive, but the closer felt this was a principle that shouldn't be up to the community, and in doing so, was overstepping. Mangojuice^talk 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse close Endorse close - The keep arguments centered around the topic being important. However, being important is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's article standards. There needs to be enough independent reliable source material to support a stand-alone article. The delete arguments focused on the lack of independent reliable source material and that argument was not sufficiently challenged. Since the delete arguments were the stronger arguments, the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I revised my position in view of the bad deletion rationale. Close reasonings are important because they allow the losers to accept the outcome. The closer needs to present an impartiality and a reasoning based on the consensus discussion. Presenting a close reasoning that implies that the close reasoning was based on a personal decision and not consensus doesn't help in maintaining acceptance of process. Please choose your closing words more carefully. Instead of "I don't buy that every channel is notable", a statement such as "Consensus doesn't buy that every channel is notable" may have made a difference. -- Jreferee t/c 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be just as bad a closing rationale in this case since first of all consensus does not have to be 'obtained' to keep an article, which is what your suggestion would imply and second one of the deleters was meaningfully challenged on their point and failed to respond to that in any way. Splash - tk 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would have been a better closing rationale, but agree that it might not have been a good closing rationale. I'm thinking WP:BEANS could have been invoked as well. -- Jreferee t/c 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for bad deletion rationale There were sources, but the closing admin said "I couldn't verify either source listed without logging in" that is not a reason for deletion. Paid sources are acceptable, as are ones requiring login. They arent for external links, but they are for references. DGG (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If you can't evaluate a situation because you can't or won't login to something, then do not close the debate. Simple as that. Given the impermissible closure rationale, and the clear lack of consensus, overturn and close as no consensus. Splash - tk 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, keep arguments were exceedingly weak and based only on WP:OUTCOMES and the existence of articles on other, more notable television channels; one such argument was to keep only because it is a TV channel at all - no guideline states that they are inherently notable. No one bothered to indicate how the subject was notable with reliable sources. AFD is not a vote. --Coredesat 07:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion arguments were based solely on the fact that it was deemed "not notable" by the fact of no reliable and independent notable sources to confirm its notability, which there are! How can you not say that there were no sources, there are two there and still you say there were none. MusiMax (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of the sources are trivial. All we can gather from them is that the channel started broadcasting. --Coredesat 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There needs to be enough independent reliable source material and the two cited sources don't seem to provide enough independent reliable source material for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Since Silver Screen Classics sends signals out over the public air waves, they probably have government licenses up the wazoo. If this is real important to you, you might want to hoof it to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and see what documents they have produced on Silver Screen Classics. You also might want to check court filings and publications at a local library likely not available on the Internet. -- Jreferee t/c 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote count, the DRVer's basis is purely vote count results which is insufficient reason to overturn anything. Even if we thought that it merited consideration, the closer got it right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain why? The closer wasn't arguing from policy, they were simply setting their own opinion above everyone else's. "AFD is not a vote count" doesn't give carte blanche to ignore the majority opinion. Mangojuice^talk 14:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the closer thinks certain arguments are weak, he or she can say so. --Coredesat 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Carte blanche, no; discretion, yes. Majority opinion is embodied first in our policies and guidelines, and only secondarily in the rough concensus of who shows up during the XFD discussion to weigh in. But you know that. I think that the discloser got it right, and sometimes when things aren't a vote, the majority who show up on election day(s) doesn't prevail. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit- I'd like the source copied to my userspace so I can address the problems that led to deletion. Thanks. LiamUK (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable, though it may not have been asserted. Certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. Along with Black Refuge EP, I'd be glad to try and fix them up if someone put the articles back up. LiamUK (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and expand/cleanup/source. The group was formed by José González and a Google search churns up plenty of hits, including reviews and profiles. Chubbles (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, involvement of José González meets criterion #6 of WP:BAND, that's assertion of notability sufficient for this not to be a CSD A7 speedy. --Stormie (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy - The assertion of importance/significance needs to be in the article to overcome CSD A7. There was nothing in the article to indicate that José González was otherwise notable and the article contained no assertion of importance/significance. -- Jreferee t/c 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore- If it was restored, I would fix it up. The problem here is not that the band and their EP are not notable, it's that this fact was not asserted in the article. This would be easily fixed, and if a prod or cleanup/improvement tag had been used instead then I'm sure it would've been. A speedy was unnecessary. LiamUK (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per A7. If someone wants it in their user space there's a place to ask above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, I didn't know that, thanks. LiamUK (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese citrus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Deleted against consensus, which was clearly "Keep." Add censure (one-week block) against the admin who performed this deletion against well-reasoned consensus. We do have rules at Wikipedia, and flagrant violations of our own rules, again and again, lead the general population of editors to believe that admins are above our community's own rules. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn — besides being a tit-for-tat nomination contrary to Category:Korean fruits, the reasons given for deletion (indeed, which were the only argument made for deletion) were addressed in the negative by the reasons for deletion — namely, the argument was that said citruses were native to Japan, and were properly judged "Japanese citruses", and that the category was underpopulated. However, all of the arguments for keeping argued that three was enough, and there was no compelling reason offered from why it was insufficient; the purpose of categories being to group like objects, and this being a valid and encyclopedic grouping. I don't see a proper interpretation of the debate here — instead, it seems the closing admin substituted their own reasoning, or interpretation of how many is "sufficient" for discussion. --Haemo (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse/speedy close - The closer interpreted the debate correctly; bad faith DRV nomination reasoning. Using "Japanese" citrus, "Korean" citrus, "China" citrus as categories apparently gets into POV contests. There is plenty of reliable source information to improve the Japanese citrus article. Once that is done, I don't see any problem with using Japanese citrus in articles such as Yuzu, which is listed by many sources as being a Japanese citrus fruit. However, country citrus categories seem to give too much POV ownership to a citrus. Using Japanese citrus in prose permits reliable source citation and proper, NPOV characterization of the citrus. -- Jreferee t/c 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. I don't see any inherent problem in classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of origin, and the discussion was not related to this consideration. Instead, it focused on the population of the category under consideration. The nominator here is a bit histrionic, but his argument is valid. --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of origin seems like it would be fine since there likely is an ultimate authority that can be cited. If you know of that book, please list it in this discussion. Classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of use is not acceptable, obviously. It does appear that the delete reasoning focused on personal opinions more than what reliable source material says about the categorization. The CfD does not seem to apply to a category such as Category:Citrus originating in Japan. -- Jreferee t/c 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Subcategorizing by country of origin is simply one method; however, if you would take a moment to familiarize yourself with how Asian ingredients are subcategorized, you will see that this category is valid and valuable for our users editing and researching such topics. "Japanese citrus" or "Korean fruits" are both highly important subcategories allowing one to easily find the information one needs, when editing or searching about ingredients used in these East Asian culinary traditions. This has nothing to do with "ownership" of these fruits, but the fact that they are integral to the nation's culture, cuisine, and culinary traditions. Badagnani (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That was the point of the discussion; everyone agreed to remove citruses used in Japan, and include only citrus which are Japanese in origin. That was not being discussed here, as it was settled. The outstanding issue was whether or not the three remaining fruits were sufficient for a category. --Haemo (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have made Category:Fruits originating in Asia and Category:Japanese fruit. They have a bigger scope and could list many more articles than just citruses. There are various dog breeds, cattle breeds, etc. that could be categorized by national/regional origin also. So it should be ok. --Mfugue (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any need for it; the parent Category:Citrus is far from being overpopulated, and dividing it up is merely over-categorisation. - MPF (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That was not the consensus of the discussion on the page. There was no consensus that the category was overpopulated, which was the reason for deletion. Substituting your personal opinion as closer is not appropriate. --Haemo (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was NOT the closer; I knew nothing about this until I was asked to take a look in here a few minutes ago - MPF (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Haemo almost certainly simply used "your" to mean "one's". Joe 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Editor MPF has great expertise in botany, but clearly hasn't thought out his/her support for this cuisine subcategory's deletion. The category does not regard fruit trees but instead fruits, as used as ingredients in the cuisine of Japan. There is a difference. Badagnani (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - grammatically, 'Japanese citrus' isn't a category (both are adjectives I believe), but more importantly, Mfugue's categories appear to capture any entities that may fall into this category. WLU (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You need to take a wider view. It may be "over-categorization" for your purposes, but for the purposes of properly subcategorizing Japanese ingredients, it is a logical and appropriate subcategorization. Further, the intent of this deletion review is the highly improper close of the discussion by the closing admin, showing flagrant disregard of WP's own rules. Thus, your opinions regarding supposed "over-categorization" are rather immaterial in light of this more important issue. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is it so critical that this be done with a category instead of an article on Japanese citrus? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - I see no reason to have this category; none of the arguments given above are compelling. Inappropriate action by an administrator is not a reason to have a category. Perhaps an administrator acted incorrectly, but this is not the forum for that discussion. This forum is for the discussion of categories, not administrators. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from CfD closer. CfD is not a vote, it is a discussion: the job of the closer is to weigh consensus, and (per WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus) "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)".
  My first step towards closing was to check the nominator's assertions and to see if they were "based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious" (per WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus, again):

1. "except three species in the category such as Natsumikan, Iyokan, Amanatsu, the rest of the fruits are all from China or other foreign countries and are found throughout East Asia". I read every single of the articles listed, and it did indeed seem to be the case that these fruit were nearly all described as being either indigenous to China or indigenous to East Asia
2. "Wiki has only a few country names tagged onto fruit category like 'Category:Wine grapes of Italy, Category:Wine grapes of Greece." I checked the categories, and that was correct

To check the background to the second point, I compared it with Category:Vegetables: no by-nationality subcats there.

Then to the "keep" arguments:

• Badagnani: "Citrus is a huge category and splitting off citrus fruits that are endemic to Japan is a very logical and valuable subcategory". Maybe, but the nominator was correct: only 3 of the fruit are exclusive to Japan. If the "endemic" was to be read as "native to Japan, but not necessarily exclusive", that might be more appropriate, but the proposal did not suggest categorising the fruit by all the countries to which they are endemic, only Japan. That sounded like a recipe for who-owns-which-fruit category wars.
• Hermeneus: "per Badagnani"
• Haemo: "I don't see any reason why "only" three native plants are not sufficient for a category". (WP:OCAT#SMALL cites several precedents)

So there was no plausible rebuttal of the nominators assertions, and the only other issue introduced (by Haemo) clashed with a guideline. The most pertinent comment was probably the non-voting suggestion by Peterkingiron: "would the solution not be to have a category something like "East Asian Fruits".

Given all that, it seemed to me that the arguments for deletion were by far the strongest, and that Peterkingiron's suggestion seemed to provide an alternative approach which would probably prove workable.

If Badagnani believes that there are grounds for blocking me, that proposal should be made at WP:ANI, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, I do feel there are grounds for a one-week block, for your violation of community norms. Further, your comment shows that, again, you have not read the comments that have stated that the categories do not show "ownership" of fruits but instead are subcategories of "Japanese ingredients." This is how Asian cuisine categories are subcategorized, allowing our users to more easily find specific types of ingredients. Thus, these are citrus fruits that are not necessarily "owned" by, or first grown in these nations, but intimately associated with the cuisine of that nation. Again, the closing failed to take this reasoning into account. The fact that you show you apparently haven't even read this reasoning nor taken it into account is disturbing, nearly as much as you closing a delete proposal clearly against consensus. The fact that the categories were actually removed from all the articles without replacing them with a "Japanese ingredients" category (even leaving some of them without any category at all!) shows even further bad faith. Please explain in greater detail how I may go about proposing censure of your behavior. thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One thing I certainly agree with Badagnani here is that when the tag was taken off for Japanese citrus, the category tag for "Japanese ingredients" should have bee added back and this was a poor over site that does happen occasionally and should be properly addressed with the bot that removed the "Japanese citrus" category tags.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Request posted to the deleting bot's discussion page but no action has been taken. Badagnani (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the above clarification. --Haemo (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - And I appreciated the clarification between country of origin and country of usage by those above (and of course, BHG's clarifications). - jc37 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse decision to delete - This is a nomination not only to over turn the decision, but as well punish an admin. whom used proper deduction to delete the category. Addressing the decision to delete, the admin. BrownHairedGirl gives proper reasoning for deleting the category. CFD is not a "hand vote count" it is based upon proper arguments on each side. As consensus is built over proper arguments, I believe the admin. made a proper decision, and even if it is deemed she did not, we are all human, and in making a non-malicious mistake, she should not be punished by being blocked the request for such seems extreme and unwarranted, especially with the fact I believe she made the proper decision. To address the actual category, there is no need to have so many finite categories as they end up confusing users of Wikipedia. Especially when it comes to this topic, if we were to categorize every citrus item into countries, we would find ten+ tags for some citrus, as they exist in so many countires. Origins of citrus are dubious as well, as much of the origins of produce items are argued by scientists and anthropologists, let alone those who do not study those topics. It is better to place the citrus items under an article labeled List of Japanese ingredients and let people see them there.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - One would think that a long-time and skilled editor specializing in cuisine articles would see the value of subcategorizing ingredients by type. This is a long-standing procedure and citrus fruits (or fruits in general) are not different in any regard from other forms of ingredients. Such subcategorization does not "confuse" any editors; in fct, it has the opposite effect of subcategorizing a profusion of ingredients of all types, in subcategories by type. It would be greatly helpful if editors would visit the various national cusisine categories and take some time to familiarize themselves with how they work before voting "delete." Maybe, however, this is a bad idea, as the "delete page regulars" will show up and begin nominating all ingredients subcategories for deletion, under the justification that nations don't "own" ingredients--without taking the necessary time and thought to see that these ingredients only include ones that are integral to the cuisine being categorized. Badagnani (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your intention is Badagnani, but I really wouldn't even think that a category called French citrus, Italian citrus, Greek citrus etc., labeling them under one cuisine would give the connotation that the fruit is relegated to that one cuisine. So let's say in Italian cuisine, the Blood orange which is originally from Italy was labeled as such, does that mean that it is from Italy, or that it is only found in Italian cuisine or that one can only get it from Italy. None of which are true actually, because much citrus found around the world originates from the Middle East, which is how the blood orange got to Sicily. In turn, as some of us know the origins of the blood orange, do we label it with Italian citrus, Middle Eastern citrus, and even American citrus because it is popular in America or even to Sicilian citrus because they are grown in Sicily. So hopefully, you see from this example how one can get confused by that sort of labeling. I think the list page which I'm sure you just saw a comment from me on suffices as well as a link from the List of Japanese ingredients page which in turn is linked from the Japanese cuisine article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As we've discussed before, the same criteria don't apply to all categories. Thus, "Finnish citrus" would not be a useful category but "Japanese citrus" (or Korean fruits) quite useful as a subcategory, assisting our users in breaking down the very long and varied list of ingredients in the "ingredients" subcategory. Badagnani (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, interpretation well explained by closing admin, and DRV nominator has no counter arguments, just querulous demands that User:BrownHairedGirl be blocked for coming to a conclusion that he disagrees with. --Stormie (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BHG at the time gave no reasoning whatsoever--an explanation might have made the bad feeling expressed in this review unnecessary. DGG (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I'm not even sure Category:Japanese fruit is all that useful, and this certainly isn't. I don't have enough information to comment on the censure, but in my experience, admins are often lax in explaining their reasoning, and that ordinarily leads to controversies such as this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - On the contrary, the review is necessary because the closing admin did so clearly against consensus, and, from his/her comments above, failing to show understanding or take into consideration of the reasoning of the majority of editors commenting in the discussion. Further, the closing admin shows, from his/her actions and comments little or no understanding of the practice of subcategorizing Japanese ingredients (or even the entire idea of subcategorizing cuisine categories). Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The nomination on Korean fruits two days earlier was clearly a delete, and this was a logical outgrowth of that. BHG's rationale stated there was good enough, and didn't need to be stated twice (though she may wish she had). Finally, Badagnani, suggesting a discussion closer should be blocked in the DRV nomination is a guarantee that I (and likely some others) won't agree with the nominator.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We all experience bad feelings. However, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. The lack of a closing statement by BrownHairedGirl (BHG) does not justify assuming bad faith and making Ill-considered accusations of impropriety in this DRV. It was not necessary to act on those bad feelings and continuously act on those bad feelings in this DRV. It is clear by the growing consensus in this DRV that BHG's actions were within a closer's discretion and certainly were not so out of bounds to warrant the disparaging remarks about BHG in this DRV. I think that apologizes to BHG are in order. -- Jreferee t/c 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Deletion so far against consensus must be countered, lest our general population of editors come to the belief that admins are not bound by any of WP's own rules whatsoever. This is the issue, not one (the only, here?) editor's assertive pursuit of this crucially important ideal. Don't ignore the root necessity of this DR, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am the person who physically deleted the category. But please, before anyone is blocked, allow me to explain. I was working on cleaning up WP:CFD/Working. Someone else had listed this category under "Empty then delete". I'm not sure who physically depopulated the category (most likely a bot) but this category was at the stage where it was ready to be deleted because it was empty and the deletion discussion was "delete", so I processed the request and deleted the category. I had nothing to do with the CfD discussion, nor was I the one who closed the discussion as delete. I was simply clearing an admin backlog. And if I am at fault for not being more careful, I apologize and I would not consider it wheel warring if someone overturned my deletion. I'll forgo commenting on the merits of the closure or reasons behind the deletion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for the long explanation; however, simply taking care and replacing/substituting the proper upper-level categories for the deleted ones (and certainly not leaving any article with no category, as you did) is imperative, in this case and in all future cases. Thanks for your attention to this. Badagnani (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm crazy, and I just checked my contribs to be sure, but I clearly did not leave an article with no categories. If I am mistaken about this, please show the diff for where I removed all the categories from an article. People make mistakes, and I apologize if I am mistaken now, but I believe your accusation against me is mistaken. It was someone else who depopulated the category. All I did was delete a category that was empty which was on an admin-only list called "Empty then delete".-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. This is only one part of the problem; the essence is that you tried to save time by having a robot make the edits instead of an actual human brain. For example, Shekwasha and several of the others remain in no citrus category at all, days after the category deletion. This sort of unthinking mode of editing should never be allowed to happen, then, now, or in the future. Your attention to this is greatly appreciated; a number of bot-operators do not even bother to answer when they are alerted to such errors. Badagnani (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. Please consider this a warning: If you (User:Badagnani) uncivilly accuse another Wikipedian in this discussion (here or on some talk page elsewhere) once more, you'll be blocked for at least 24 hours. (please note the accent on "incivilly". This is in no way to suggest that you can't positively contribute to the discussion.) But as it stands now, your remarks have been repeatedly uncivil, and are just becoming rather disruptive to this discussion. - jc37 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Would you now take a moment to kindly inform me of the status of fixing the problem that was outlined above? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very kind of you if you would let me know the status of fixing this problem (outlined above), which has as yet not been addressed. Again, many thanks. Badagnani 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion closer properly interpreted debate. A word to the wise (who don't need it) and the rest who (won't heed it) - when someone comes to DRV wanting to punish someone for closing an XFD not to his or her liking it is an WP:AGF violation on the DRV nom as well as an WP:AAGF violation. It is a prelude to wikidrama, and just not fair. Admins are people too, if you want to pontificate on who is above the rules, DRV is not the forum. If you want punishment, this ain't the complaints department. And were I anywhere near the borderline on whether this was closed correctly, I would have tipped toward defending the actions of a good admin working in good faith against a punishment-seeking DRV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted out of process. Was speedied as an A7 when the group scored a major hit in the 1970s and the article cited sources (All Music Guide and/or Joel Whitburn's books). The group (or perhaps one of the redirects, which were also deleted) was even listed on one of the Missing Encyclopedic Articles list as having a song that deserves its own page. Requesting that the article be restored. Chubbles (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore I was inclined to speedily restore this, but I can't find any evidence for the #10 claim, although it seems to have charted. In any case, a clear assertion of notability that needs to be investigated. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Chart data is available here. (Contingent upon restoration, I will add full US chart data.) Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list - Speedy wasn't so out of process. However it is a group from the 1970s and thirty+ years makes it likely that someone wrote about them and that such information probably is on dead trees not published on the Internet. AfD might help bring out reliable sources. The topic probably could be covered in a Tony Camillo[10] article (and there might be room for both Tony Camillo and Bazuka to have their own article. Comment - The info I found on the topic is (1) The Star-Ledger (May 1, 2004) Retro Legend: Tony Camillo . He put Gladys Knight on that midnight train to Georgia.; Page 31. (2) Management Team at VMG Poised for Industry Shift. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pros from Dover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No quorum, should have been relisted or closed as no consensus; deleted with zero Delete comments made. Closing admin has retired hence cannot request undeletion that way. (FWIW I would argue that this is an extant albeit minor American idiom, I wrote the article because I heard the idiom used on a current TV show.) Apparently the article was improperly changed to be about some non-notable magazine or something, and was deleted in that state; but the solution should have been to restore the proper state rather than delete. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Articles with zero reliable sources can't be restored. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But (1) DRv is supposed to be about the AfD, not the article, and anyway (2) the article says the the source of the idiom is the book M*A*S*H, which anyone can confirm by reading the book. Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be original research. Corvus cornix_talk 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. We don't need a secondary source to confirm that "Pros from Dover" was used in M*A*S*H. The other points have been rebutted below, so I don't need to repeat the arguments. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). We have considered and rejected the requirement to have a quorum for deletion discussions. Others are presumed to have read the debate and consented to the then-current opinion by not expressing a contrary opinion.
  Note: My opinion is influenced by the content of the deleted page which was clearly not encyclopedic in that it was a mere definition and origin of a phrase. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That content belongs at our sister project, Wiktionary. I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwiking. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no quorum at AFD so the deletion seems okay. I would suggest a redirect to the M*A*S*H novel... the idiom might not be notable enough for an article, but that a book coined a popular phrase is a notable thing to mention in the article on that book. --W.marsh 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/permit redirect to MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors. - The nominator's position was delete and that was not rebutted. The AfD lasted at least five days, so everyone who wanted to comment did so. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Comment: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has a nice write up on the topic. "Pros from Dover" has made its way into being used by a variety of sources. Also, it is the name of a business and an acting troupe. Add new "Pros from Dover" material to the MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors and spinout with consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — incorrect; the original nomination was an argument for deletion. No one contested it, or rebutted it during the discussion, so the closure was proper. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but hopefully the closing admin will relist next time there is no discussion. —ScouterSig 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that - hopefully the closing admin will relist next time there is little discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with 150+ articles on AFD daily, we can expect many of these - someone made an argument for deletion, the article was neither improved nor defended in the afd debate - deletion seems proper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donor Offspring Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe this page should not have been deleted. It parallels the page Donor Sibling Registry which is currently listed in wikipedia. Could you please tell me how the two are portrayed differently? I am happy to make modifications DCHealth (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted this article... it seemed to be copied from various pages on their official site (see Google cache [11]). I consider copies of official material to be blatant advertising. If this describes another page that hasn't been deleted yet, I'd probably support deletion of that page too. --W.marsh 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While there is plenty of independent reliable source material for Donor Sibling Registry, I didn't find any for either Donor Offspring Health or Donoroffspringhealth.com. It is inappropriate to copy postings outside of Wikipedia and post them within Wikipedia since such actions likely violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. -- Jreferee t/c 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, so if I recreated it without copying the verbiage from the original site, that would be okay? It seems that the donor sibling registry did the same? or even wait until the company is more established so there are more independent citings? --DCHealth (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The way to do it is to summarize in the Wikipedia article in your own words the information presented by independent reliable source material and provide a footnote at the end of each sentence to that reliable source. The Donor Sibling Registry article is not a copyright violation of any website that I could find. -- Jreferee t/c 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, a recreation which addresses the problems that led to the speedy deletion of the original article would certainly be OK. You might wish to create it in userspace, e.g. at User:DCHealth/Donor Offspring Health and invite comment before moving it to article space. --Stormie (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion the admin's action was proper. If another version shows up that doesn't suffer from what ailed the deleted version, G4 doesn't apply, and whether this organization meets WP:CORP or WP:N is for another day and another forum. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to the creation of a clean version. However, the creator needs to find some WP:RSs to establish notability. BlueValour (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted as the talk page of a deleted "fair use" image. However, it contained the debate as to whether the image was fair use or not, and is the continuation of the discussion at Talk:CrossCountry#Photographs, effectively the deletion discussion. May also be needed for a sockpuppetry investigation. RFBailey (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per CSD G8. The image itself was deleted by Carnildo (talk · contribs) because a replacement image (freely-licensed) was found. Note that the talk page contained claims that a replacement image could not be reasonably obtained. Of course, if the page is needed for a sockpuppetry investigation, I would support undeleting it. I am unaware of any sockpuppetry investigation; had I known, I would not have deleted it. --Yamla (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I was only requesting the talk page to be restored, not the image. The trouble with the replacement image is that it turns out to be a copyvio. I suspect the uploader of the replacement to be a sock of the uploader of the original, but wanted to wait for a response from him before listing the case at WP:SSP. --RFBailey (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]