Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March

< February 2008	Deletion review archives	April 2008 >

31 March 2008

Ahmed_Huber – Deletion endorsed; user may request deleting admin to userfy so an improved article can be created for consideration. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedily deleted for reason "WP:BLP negative bio, unreferenced". Unfortunately, I only became interested in the existence of a Wikipedia article on this individual a week after the article had already been deleted, but the version of the article I can see in the Google cache seems fairly well sourced and easily-fixable -- and anyway, a biographical article about someone who describes himself as a provocateur, and who told the Washington Post that his two great heroes are Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden[1] is bound to contain some facts which might be considered "negative" by some. If this article is not undeleted, I intend to create a new stub about this person, probably based almost entirely on http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64385-2002Apr28, since someone who was the main subject of a Washington Post article is almost certainly notable... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pity you didn't come to me before coming here. The article contained serious claims without any direct references, thus falls to be deleted. (There was no BLP compliant earlier version.) See User:Doc glasgow/BLP deletion for my full rationale in such cases. I have no view on the notability, and have no objection to you creating a properly sourced article. I am even content undelete this to use userspace and you can move it back to article space when properly sourced. Just ask me.--Doc^g 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, allow sourced, neutral re-creation. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fictional characters by religion – Deletion endorsed for all listed categories. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the sub-category

I think it was totally unnecessary to delete this category as well as its sub-category, where a fictional character receives a religion by its creator, it's for a good reason and this category may be relevant. In addition, the category comprising of TRUE person exists, then why not fictional characters?

Restore --SamuelM555 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore I think that is a commodity like any other information, especially in the field of fiction, to restore. --Meryl-H (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above user (Meryl-H) has been blocked as a sock of the nominator. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. The strongest argument either way came from the last sentence of the nomination itself: It's pretty unlikely that someone looking for the Rocky, Michael Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara or Eric Cartman will look it up through fictional catholics. While true, these characters are fictional catholics, that is not what they are known for. And for those characters who religion is the main defining trait, as discussed, there are better categories that can be used. --Kbdank71 21:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The discussion was properly closed. I've also noticed that SamuelM555 has ignored this process and already recreated all the categories. I can't see how this nomination is in good faith, if the user cannot wait for the outcome before recreating the categories. I endorse the closure, and suggest speedy deleting the categories as recreation of deleted content. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that Meryl-H has edited SamuelM555's user page, and that the former account become active after a block on the latter's account. If not sockpuppets, this may be a case of meat puppetry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Having read the CfD, none of the keep !votes addressed all of the nom's reasoning. Consensus was read correctly. Disagreeing with the closure isn't a good reason to overturn it. I'm not sure that the accusation of sockpuppetry is constructive unless it can be proven. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Lifebaka: DRV is not "CFD, round 2". As for the fact that we categorise people by religion ... fictional characters should not be treated as real people. The factors that are important for an encyclopedic treatment of fictional characters (creator, genre, appearances, etc.) are not the same as those factors that are important for an encyclopedic treatment of real people. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I deleted the categories as recreation of deleted content and depopulated the "Fictional Jews" category. I've also run a comparison on the contribs of SamuelM555 and Meryl-H. There is no doubt in my mind they are the same person; I'm compiling the diffs now. - auburnpilot talk 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the evidence I collected at User:AuburnPilot/SamuelM555 sockuppetry, I have blocked Meryl-H indefinitely and SamuelM555 for one week. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question How then do we do Cfd round 2? With an article that has been deleted, we can write a better one, and either put it in boldly if weknow its better, or askfor reinstatement here. But how does one do this with a category? DGG (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing the answer to that depends on why the category was deleted. Were it a simply a matter of it not being populated, and articles get written for it, I don't see the problem with that. But in this case, where there appears to be a fundamental problem with the category itself, it probably can't be "rewritten". Not every single aspect of an article needs to be or should be categorized, and these seem to have been created for that purpose. --Kbdank71 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, unuseful categories. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore, there was no consensus in that CFD, which defaults to keep. The statement "It's pretty unlikely that someone looking for the Rocky, Michael Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara or Eric Cartman will look it up through fictional catholics." is not a strong argument at all. People would use the category Fictional Catholics to find other articles about fictional Catholics, or see what changes have recently been made to articles about fictional Catholics. The nominator seemed to be complaining that certain articles shouldn't be in the category, but the solution to that problem is removing the category from those articles. The closer basically said that Tevye is not known for being a fictional Jew and that's obviously false. What's a better category than Fictional Jews for Tevye, Fictional Christians for Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, or Fictional Hindus for Apu Nahasapeemapetilon? --Pixelface (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, when I think of Lovejoy or Apu, I don't think "fictional christian" or "fictional hindu", I think "The Simpsons", and they are already categorized as such. To repeat, not every aspect of an article need to be or should be categorized. Are they fictional religious characters? Yes. Are they better known for other reasons? Yes. --Kbdank71 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So Shylock is not known for being a fictional Jew? --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Joseph S. Johnston (judge) – No consensus closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as no-consensus, but I believe consensus was achieved. If we look at the keep votes they appear to be empty of content:

"Handful of news story references" might be enough for notability, depending of what they say about him" Then read them and decide
I will see if I can find some more information on him that make him notable Ok where is it ?
I feel that judges are inherently notable, and I imagine most have received the media coverage required to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I admit though, this is more based on my personal view, not so much on any policy or guideline. Self-explanatory, result must be based on policy, see WP:ILIKEIT
notable, enough coverage in article to support the topic and well written. An article can't establish the notability of it's own topic, or everything could be notable! Also the article is almost entirely unsourced, none of the external links do more than mention him in passing, the books are unrelated to him, it's painfully obvious it's almost entirely original research by someone who knows him personally. (or it might be actually him writing), also no other articles link to this one. It used sock puppet accounts to support it during the AfD.

I can't believe these nonsensical keep votes can be taken seriously. Nobody gave a single link to an article proving his notability, it's always the same, saying "he is notable" doesn't prove anything. I think the closing admin counted 4 keeps and 4 deletes so he just closed as no consensus. Jackaranga (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse close Frankly it seems a little unnecessary to appeal a no-consensus in either direction. Wait a month and try AfD2. Maybe the article will be improved by then and there will be consensus. He was the judge in a very much watched very controversial sentencing decision, among other things, & every sports section probably had a story. DGG (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse...the delete votes were also rather weak. --Smashville^BONK! 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Asking us to overturn no consensus closures is almost never useful. It's basically always easier to wait a month or so and renom, as DGG suggests. As a side note, the issues raised above seem more like editorial ones than deletion ones. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - I also think that the sources are on the thin side but that is not the point; the AFD participants assessed them and it is not our role here to substitute our judgement for theirs. We only determine if the AFD close was reasonable in all the circumstances and my view is that it was. As suggested here the way to go is to re-AFD in due course. BlueValour (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. There are some sources, making the keep side of the argument reasonable, and the "no consensus" call a correct one. I am not sure if circuit court judges are notable for being circuit court judges, but on DRV, that is beside the point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Lifebaka. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Patricia_Gras – Article restored; automatic approval of contested prod, no discussion required. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Patricia Gras is the producer and host of Living Smart here is a link with all the markets the show airs in making her notable outside of the Houston area http://research.backchannelmedia.com/programs/Living_Smart
*Restore. Uncontested PROD. Mlreynol (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Splinters_Theatre_of_Spectacle – Article restored; automatic approval of contested prod, no discussion required. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Theatre company was a major part of the arts scene in canberra and indeed through out australia, received substantial recognition through the National Funding Bodies, and peers, toured extensively and produced a huge body of work and influence. 131.170.90.4 (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Uncontested PROD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Penis game – Keep closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is one of the clearest examples I have seen of "something made up in school one day". In closing, Krimpet concludes "reliable sources have been found over the course of this AfD... that seem to satisfy notability guidelines". Looking through those "sources" I cannot agree. The BBC story referenced [2] is from its children's "newsround" section and does not strike me as greatly relevant- it seems to be about childish behaviour and encouraging children to wear pants on their heads. Another is a chat transcript. The google news archive hits are largely for student papers and some of the hits are clearly talking about something else. For example, the fifth hit refers to "the morale-boosting "Penis Game," where you score points by flashing another employee" - clearly another game altogether... As is the one concerning "a television game in which a contestant was asked to identify her fiancee by his penis". In arguing that the article should be kept, Edison asks the question: "Do campus papers count for satisfying "multiple reliable and independent sources?" I think the closer's unambiguous response to that question should have been no. A clear majority of participants identified that the subject was unencyclopedic and unsupported by reliable sources. Given their views and the weaknesses of the material found which even mentions this game, this article should have been deleted in line with WP:NOT. WjBscribe 03:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was initially going to vote to uphold the AfD decision, but, after a Google News and LexisNexis search, it appears there truly aren't many (if any) reliable sources for this article. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little if anything in the way of reliable sources and certainly not the significant coverage required to establish notability - several of the sources given in the AfD discussion appear to have nothing to do with the topic of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Remember when notable was just another word in the English language, not a complicated legal doctrine? The game really is quite notable; I don't think I know a single person who never played this growing up. Anyways, Kizor and Edison made arguments that were grounded in policy. Wikipedia is not censored; the game is childish and immature (indeed!) but that doesn't mean that it's somehow childish and immature of us to document it. As many of the delete votes were arguably IDONTLIKEIT's, Krimpet made a reasonable close based upon the discussion. --JayHenry (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as per JayHenry. I've always been one to suggest that en-WP has been straying too far from any useful -- or coherent -- understanding of notability. This is a good example. We know that the penis game is essentially unambiguously notable; scrutinizing the integrity and applicability of these sources as we would in the context of, say, Holocaust denial, is just a bad idea. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Several sources icited in AfD. cirrect reading of consensus DGG (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Edison's discovery of many sources came late in the discussion so the closer might reasonably have discounted earlier comments. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Of the sources provided, these two are non-trivial coverage of the topic, and the second looks reliable to me. Granted that consensus hasn't been implemented by adding those sources to the article, but we can fix that right now. Jay also makes some great points above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep - I have integrated sources into the article, if anyone knows of any more please let me know. Fosnez (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, two blogs? That surely qualifies as multiple independent sources. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Overturn, delete, WP:NFT even if school has a column in its student paper that notes it being made up. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources in the DRV, we have: a short paragraph in an 83 page academic paper that cites our article as a source, a minor mention in a chat transcript, a 38 second youtube video, a 42 second video on collegehumor, an xkcd cartoon, Google search results that seem to be about an unrelated film, 3 college newspaper articles, only 1 of which is actually about the penis game, and a few articles that tangentially mention a related game in the context of television shows and other events. Multiple — yes, independent — generally, reliable — not so much, non-trivial coverage — no. Delete. Mr.Z-man 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse,~~duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry but the article probably needs more generalization and a better title, its not a specific game but a range of play behavior. That would clarify the sourcing needs, and make i it clearer that there is sufficient.DGG (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC) sorry about that; DGG (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep per the South Yorkshire Star source - I was going to bring up the fact that a derivative had been played regularly on Dick and Dom in da Bungalow, and the fact the hosts were criticised in Parliament... the game's notable, but should be under a different title. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse keep~~ we need more articles just like this. This is a perfect example of what will propel this project toward its ultimate goals. While we are at it, lets mark it as featured, and put it at the top priority spot for the print version. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Overturn, delete this is pure shite. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jerry was mostly correct the first time. We do need more articles like this if we are going to embrace all human knowledge and provide what our readers are looking for. — Becksguy (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not "embrac(ing) all human knowledge" anymore. While that was a laudable ideal, WP:N shows that as a whole, the community doesn't find that realistic. If you wish to repeal WP:N, feel free to discuss that on its Talk page, but DRV isn't the place to overturn policy. -- Kesh (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we still are. Only a minority of the larger community feels otherwise. I have seen plenty of comments like this to know that we really do not have a consensus on our larger purpose. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering consensus agrees that WP:N is policy, you'll forgive me if I doubt that. "Consensus" does not mean "unanimous." If you wish to continue trying to include everything under the sun, please try to get WP:N repealed, instead of making a WP:POINT in every DRV on the page. -- Kesh (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus requires agreement. Admins and other established editors in this discussion (on both sides) remain in disagreement, which means that we do not have an agreement and therefore do not have consensus. A guideline that you need to read is Wikipedia:Assume good faith and maybe even the article on Honesty. You wrote "every DRV on the page"? Huh? I think the only DRV for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 31 that I have participated in thus far is this one (Penis game). I do not recall yet commenting on Ahmed_Huber, Category:Fictional characters by religion, Joseph S. Johnston (judge), Patricia_Gras (closed), or Splinters_Theatre_of_Spectacle (closed). Plus, I do not argue in support of every article. Consider these two discussions. I am more than willing to argue delete and have done so more than these two times, but if I see any good faith editors arguing for keep then I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, because any good faith keeps are proof to me that the article has value and relevance to somone, i.e. someone who may be a contributor or donor to our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you torture it, that does not fit the definition of WP:Consensus: "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.". I'm done debating semantics with you. -- Kesh (talk)

Delete what Jerry said. Rubbish & Nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete - A campus editorial and a blog do not constitute multiple reliable sources. As User:Mr.Z-man pointed out, none of the other "sources" brought up in the AfD would stand scrutiny in any Wikipedia article. A quick Google search shows that this isn't even a single "game," just a name used for any number of purile pranks and in-jokes. If we had an article, it would need solid sources and to talk about the different "versions" of how folks play, because there is no single Penis Game from what I can determine. I don't think the closer acted badly, per se, but that they were taken in by the volume of supposed sources cited in the AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we shouldn't trust Google searches to establish notability. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we should trust a blog and a student newspaper as the sole sources for notability? Please. -- Kesh (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn and delete~~. I concur with Z-man on this one. The sources are minor, and not so academic and authoritative that they lead to a "must keep" passing of notability. I can understand the people who voted "keep", but the rough consensus was to delete. With the article looking fully like original (or at least juvenile) research (rules, strategy, etc.), I think this needs to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my vote to relist. A fair number of people,above and below, have said that the sources might affect their opinion on the article, so an outright overturn and delete is probably not appropriate. The rest of my comment stands though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep The references, while not overwhelming, constitute multiple third party and reliable sources with significant coverage for this article. The subject is unlikely to be covered in the mainstream press and the college press is acceptable as sources. This is not brain surgery or some complex controversial subject that requires voluminous sourcing. This is encyclopedic, part of our culture, and adds to WP. Keep per all the keep arguments, especially JayHenry, xDanielx, DGG, Colonel Warden, Septre, and the sources from lifebaka. The article is clearly notable and I see no reason to overturn as the closer was correct in reading consensus as keep. — Becksguy (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep Not the best of sourcing (and I'd never heard of it before even though I read xkcd), but dude, there are a lot of references, often in passing or on blogs. The referencing that exists is just enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In passing" is what kills those references (and blogs are not considered reliable sources anyway. If the source is not substantially about the topic itself, it does not satisfy WP:V. And none of the given sources satisfy WP:V. -- Kesh (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The school paper is, IMO, a RS for this type of article. Hobit (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What, because of the high reputation for fact-checking of school papers, you mean, or just because of the kudos accorded to its Pulitzer Prize winning journalists? Guy (Help!) 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because the school paper's coverage isn't of something local. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wait, because it's not local to the school that makes it reliable? I think I missed something here. -- Kesh (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. There might be sourcing issues that would call for deletion, but I'm not sure if WP:NFT really applies (which is extremely ironic, I know). It's one thing to make an article for the silly little game you made up with your friends, but the Penis game is has lived on far longer than the vast majority of such things. Fart humor for sure, but I think it's a part of our culture, in a way. DRV isn't really the place for me to say this, but I wouldn't oppose some form of merge. It doesn't take much to explain the penis game, and I could see it as a possible solution (maybe). -- Ned Scott 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my real problem with these arguments: which "penis game" are you talking about? We've already seen that there are many variations mentioned on Google, none of which even resemble one another. This is really a collection of things made up in school one day that happen to use the same name, with no real way to verify any of it. -- Kesh (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guideline (not a policy) talks about things made up by a bunch of bored sophomores, literally in school one day. Or while drinking (when older). A full reading of WP:MADEUP clearly shows that that it should not, and does not, apply to cultural games, phenomenas, and memes that have grown past that immediate neologism stage. The Penis game clearly has, to the point of having been documented in sufficiently reliable sources. An article in The New York Times would clinch it's notability, but there are sufficient, if not overly so, reliable sources taken together. Heavy or academic sources are not required here, as this is not a jury debating the death penalty for a person accused of murder, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's just an article about a cultural game, or family of games, that clearly exist, and should be in an encyclopedia. So yes, campus sources count, especially as this is where the game mostly lives, among young males in the junior HS, high school and college age groups. In addition, there are different versions of the game of pool, or billiards, which belong to a family of games called pool. Same with the Penis game, so that is not a reason to delete. Becksguy (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is a random cluster of "games" that happen to all get called "The Penis Game" a cultural phenomenon? Again, we have two sources: a blog (not reliable) and a student newspaper. The article makes no attempt to document the variations, it just assumes one of them is "the" game. And we have no sources to back up any of it. Your example of pool is rather silly, as there are books and books about the game. If you can name a single book about The Penis Game (any of them), I'd be more inclined to take this argument seriously. As it stands, we're talking about a bunch of WP:MADEUP stuff whose only similarity is in the name. -- Kesh (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Google search isn't a science. The penis game is the one where you say/yell penis in a public place with another person. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And how is this game a cultural phenomenon? What sources do we have to back up that claim? One student newspaper article. That's it. That's not a phenomenon, it's barely a blip on the social radar. Again, there's really no sourcing here to show notability, much less verify that this is what people in general mean when they talk about "The Penis Game." Google searches aren't a science, but they do show that this isn't a single phenomenon, it's a bunch of disparate pranks people play under a similar name. -- Kesh (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "but they do show that this isn't a single phenomenon" Haha, oh wow. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ...either you misread my statement, or I missed the joke. -- Kesh (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep per sufficient sourcing. It does seem to get google hits, so it seems legitimate. If there are multiple different kinds of penis games, then the article can be re-written to take that into account with a lead like "Penis game refers to a variety of..." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the first page of the search results none of them seem to refer to the game in question except for the Wikipedia article and an urban dictionary page. The rest refer to different games or are just pages which have both of the words in the search term in the title. Putting quoatation marks around the words cuts the results down to less than a tenth of the original number [3] and looking at the first few pages most of the results are blogs, youtube videos and other user generated content as well as other pages which again do not refer to the game described in the article. Despite the results I do not see anything that could be described as a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again with Google results "penis game" ~26,000 results[4] "face game" ~169,000 results[5] "leg game" ~27,000 results[6] "arm game" ~12,000 results[7] "shoe game" ~67,000 results[8] "ear game" ~29,000 results[9]. Personally I do not feel that these are articles waiting to be written. Guest9999 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:GOOGLE for a reason. -- Ned Scott 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which states: Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. Which is what we've been doing. -- Kesh (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete like the majority of people at the AFD asked for. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 March 2008

29 March 2008

Megalithic geometry – Keep close reversed by closing admin in response to new information regarding wider context. – Guy (Help!) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin reversed decision based on new information of wider context. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate was closed as keep, but I believe the delete rationales were stronger, as well as being more numerous. This is a theory which is proposed by very few people and discussed in only a small number of books, all of which are connected with the same individual, Alan Butler. The major contributor to the current article, and the person largely resposnibel for its existence, as far as I can tell, has no significant edits outside this subject, so may well not really understand why his opinion that the numbers all add up is not actually relevant in deciding whether this is a notable theory. It was previously deleted and then redirected to a section in another article, and I think we should restore that, because the delete rationales correctly (IMO) identified that this is a fringe pseudohistory theory. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural objection (as closing administrator); requester failed to follow instructions and comply with the requirement to have a discussion with the closing administrator prior to filing a deletion review. This request should be closed without any further action or discussion until such requirement is met. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you, I am not required to discuss it first, and if it's a requirement then it's one that's routinely ignored when people request reviews of my deletions. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wikilinked the instructions above, go read them, and to help you, they are here, too:

“

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

”

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is...? —Cryptic 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete Jerry followed the notability guidelines by the letter and closed this as keep, because sources were found talking about it. However when dealing with a fringe theory - that is, purposeful mis-information - some care should be taken when including it in an encyclopedia. All of the sources mentioned do not look at the theory as a fringe theory, instead they are all completely uncritical of it. So closing this because sources for notability have been found does not hold. Now add to that a discussion with a 10:3 majority arguing for deletion and really only one single purpose account vehemently "defending" his/her article. Common sense tells me: delete. --Minimaki (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: As a student of archaeology, I must say that the subject of this article is truly something that Wikipedia does not require. Both AFDs were in favor of deletion for similar reasons. "Notability" is not something that Wikipedia considers for theories, particularly those that are being pursued by a single author who is not notable for inclusion, and the theory should go with it, as both AFDs clearly state. If JzG hadn't already listed this here, I would have brought this up for DRV myself. "Keep" was not the right decision.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, consensus in the second AFD was clearly in favor of deletion. True, AFD isn't a vote, but AFD not being a vote is not an excuse to ignore strong, valid arguments. --Core desat 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. While I believe that the closing rationale was thoughtful and well-written, and indeed within policy as currently written, this is an occasion where our notability policy is flawed. In issues related to fringe theories being pushed by their non-notable promoters, (as well as, for example, issues where advocacy sources are involved) we need to be extra vigilant and set a bar that keeps unencyclopaedic material out. This should go, regardless of the fact that the closing rationale would indeed have been justifiable for most articles. Relata refero (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. A good-faith closure, but the rationale was flawed. The arguments for deletion were compelling; personally, if I had been the closer I would have closed it as a deletion. In Jerry's defence, the nexus between notability and sourcing is a complex one and is not at all easy to work out. But as Jimmy Wales has said, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" (cf. WP:UNDUE). -- ChrisO (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete which was clearly the consensus. The closer gave an elaborate argument why his interpretation was right, but he had no business doing that. His job is to decide on the consensus. For the record, I myself said "keep" at the AfD, but it was clear that consensus was against me, in good arguments from reliable wikipedians. The closing admin has the responsibility of deciding which arguments are not based on policy at al, but when policies conflict, he does not get to decide which is the more important. His opinions for keep are reasonable, but he should have given them in the debate as I did. Then maybe he could have affected the argument. DGG (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete as out of process close, without proper grounds asserted for discounting the articulated consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per above. Hut 8.5 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep closure (as closing administrator) - The administrator's guide to deletion (link) specifically says to ignore !votes to delete which cite as reason a lack of sources, if sources are subsequently provided to negate the intent of the !votes. There are clearly sources which show this fringe nutbag theory as having received significant coverage and/or multiple non-trivial mentions, and if any of the above respected wikipedians would please review the actual article as it is currently written, you will see that it clearly describes the theory as a pseudo archaeology and it provides a critical source. This was the expected result when I kept the article... that editors would in good faith find sources to back up the otherwise own research that they put forth in their discussions where they discredit this theory. The fact that the theory is flawed and zany does not mean that we don't cover it. We don't decide which religion is right and only print articles about one religion. We don't decide if evolution or creation is right and purge the encyclopedia of all that is contrary to our choice. We neutrally and blindly choose articles that are sourced and verifiable and otherwise meet our notability standards, which are really quite simple and elegant. The subject of this article meets our notability criteria, the article meets our neutrality policy, it does not contain own research, it is not a coat rack, it is sourced and verifiable to reliable sources independent of the subject. I can't think of a single valid reason to delete it. I can think of a reason why people would WANT to delete it. We don't like the theory, and we wish it did not exist. We don't like fringe theorists, and we wish that they did not receive press coverage. In short, we don't like it. And that is a quintessential argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep per Jerry's extremely reasonable arguments. And while we're at it, that article has serious NPOV problems. I may think that the Flat Earth Society is full of wackjobs, but the article on that topic is (fairly) NPOV. This one is horrible and needs to be fixed. Finally, the delete arguments seemed to me to be arguments that it isn't science and variations on I don't like it and largely should have been ignored (as the closer did). Hobit (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep per Jerry's cool-headed summary of the situation. There is no pushing here, only people who 'don't like' certains ideas. The article might need some editing, that's true, but I have spent enough time earlier sourcing everything that has been written in it. --Little sawyer (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are given latitude to disregard local consensus where it directly conflicts with policy. Here, the closer allowed his own opinion on notability—a guideline describing common practice of editors in deletion discussions—to override a local consensus based primarily on NPOV—not just official policy, but our first foundation issue. An ideal close would have required deletion even in the face of unanimous keeps, given the complete lack of critical sources on this pseudoscientific fringe theory. Even the attempt to salvage the article through extreme stubbification constitutes original research—again, official policy, and one that was created specifically to counteract fringe articles presented as fact, as the article was during the afd and will no doubt quickly become again, judging from the article's history and edits such as this. What we got instead cannot be described any more charitably than "grossly negligent", and the primary defense put forward is wikilawyering over drv listing procedure, ~~including a self-serving overemphasis of the point~~ (misread date, grngh). Overturn and delete. —Cryptic 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an unkind and excessively heavy-handed accusation against a wikipedian with a good contribution record. This is a sad day for wikipedia. Self-serving overemphasis? That is uncalled-for and beyond bad faith. I would like it if you would strikethrough that. On February 28th, I added the ambox to the pre-existing instructions, because new users would often miss it, as the remainder of the instructions were in a bright orange box. This was the result of discussions in the DRV talk page, which resulted from a period of excessive frivolous DRV's. It is my observation that since the ambox was added, and since people like NewYorkBrad left comments supporting the contents of the instructions on several occasions, that this has become much less of a problem lately. If that's your idea of self-serving..... are you saying that a month ago I premeditated the mention of that instruction, so I could support an out=of-process close? What exactly are you saying? How about strikethrough that, huh? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still thinking. I'm bothered that the administrator calls it a neutral article, and I wonder if he knew the Times article by the authors was in Arts & Entertainment.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be accused of over-contributing to this DRV, but since I was edit conflicted just now, and I see you left a question regarding me... I'll answer it. I did not know what section of the Times the article was in. I do not believe that that has any bearing on whether or not the article is in a reliable source. As long as it is not a paid advertisement, I can't see any reason to not consider it as a valid source. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Along with the good arguments in the AfD that the article is not sufficiently neutral and reports uncritically of a real-world walled garden, there are severe ownership issues going on that can be seen in its recent edit history. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the article now, per comments by DGG, Eusebeus, Hut 8.5, and Cryptic that I had no business closing this as I did, I closed this out of process, without proper grounds, and that I am just grossly negligent, wikilawyering and "self-serving. I did not realize I was such a bad wikipedian. My apologies to the community. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there is some self-serving, but of course as the creator of this article I am disppointed. Jerry has been maintaining all along that the article met Wiki terms and that it should be kept. Why don't we put it back and edit it properly as a pseudo-archaeology article as it should be?--Little sawyer (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Confederacy of Independent Systems – Request withdrawn in light of article redirection. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was deleted earlier this year on the grounds that it was entirely plot summary. I could be wrong here, but it seems most of the Star Wars articles are written in the same manner. We ought to consider restoring this article. Blueboy 96 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid AFD, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to overturn it. If anything, those other articles should be tagged with {{plot}} or sent to AFD. --Core desat 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I concur with Coredesat. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've created a redirect on this page to Clone Wars (Star Wars). Sceptre ^(talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This subject seems unlikely to become notable outside the fandom, so a plot summary it is likely to remain. Since Blueboy96 doesn't mention what other articles are written in the same manner, I cannot comment on those. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, correct per process and per policy. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted as above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it's now redirected to the relevant article, I'm withdrawing this request. Blueboy 96 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 March 2008

Canadian Royal Family – Redirection endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms have raised the issue of reinstating this article which was techically not deleted, but has been locked as a redirect (and the locking admin has not responded to requests to reverse this decision), effectively making the page impossible to restore, as though it were deleted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please take the time to look at the sandbox version!! --Cameron (t/c) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation based on the sandbox version the wikiproject has created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms/Sandbox which seems like a good basis for an article. Davewild (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per the above. --Haemo (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That… actually looks really good. Nice job! Based on the sandbox version, I say Allow recreation. It still needs a little copyediting in spots, but it's a well-written and well-sourced article, from what I see. -- Kesh (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given further comments, I have to retract my previous opinion. Monarchy of Canada already exists and has far more detail than this article, so I support Redirect and Merge any relevant data from this article to Monarchy of Canada. -- Kesh (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "article" is a well-written POV essay, full of utterly unencyclopaedic nonsense. "her family is considered Canada's Royal Family" Really? By whom? "Though it would be possible for other members of the Royal Family to be granted distinctly Canadian titles" - would it? Says who?. I could go on. Perhaps an article on Royalty in Canada could outline the theory that there is a concept of a Canadian Royal family - but to have an article that assumes it factually exists in inherently POV. This is royal-cruftiness of the first degree. Keep deleted and redirected--Doc^g 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting this to Monarchy of Canada and merging anything remotely encyclopaedic there is precisely the right move.--Doc^g 01:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is useful in that sandbox to the article on the Monarchy in Canada. When I read it, it felt like a rehash of the article of the British Royal Family (which is the Royal family in Canada to the most part). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect and merge anything useful to the target (Monarchy of Canada). The sandbox article still has POV problems , unfortunately, so recreating based on that is not a good idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not recreate. Monarchy in Canada contains the material already, there is no need for a separate article to duplicate it. Canadians do not see the Windsor-Mountbattens as a "Canadian Royal Family". Indeed, many Canadians chafe at the fact that the Queen is our Head of State. The existing redirect is the right way to handle this, in fact it should be modified to point directly to Monarchy in Canada#Canadian Royal Family. PKT (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. I agree wholly with the concerns of Dog^g. There's no reason to have Monarchy of Canada and Canadian Royal Family. They are at best redundant and at worst POV forks. --JayHenry (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation What more could one want? The article has a good size and plenty of reliable sources (department of Canadian heritage!). --Cameron (t/c) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. Basically exactly the same as British Royal Family (all the same members for one!). An article on it shows POV, and a section on Monarchy in Canada in enough.--UpDown (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect Since what is purported to be the Canadian Royal Family is the British Royal Family there is no need for a separate article. In a Canadian context there are a few names and events which are appropriate to mention. But these are mentioned in a section in Monarchy of Canada. An article on the Canadian Royal Family would be a replication of British Royal Family with these few references added. One of the arguments for reinstating the article is that Monarchy of Canada is too long. If it is felt it is too long (and Wiki advice in the matter is a guideline, not a mandate), the logical thing to do would be to make it more concise, not divide it into multiple articles. But a Canadian Royal Family would in fact defeat the purpose of making treatment of the Canadian Monarchy more concise. For Canadian Royal Family would end up another long article:to place it in context material from MoC would have to be replicated there. And the section on the CRR in MoC would not, I suspect, be deleted, and only marginally truncated. So Monarchy in Canada would not be substantially shorter.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect - the request does not address the fundamental problem that the article was essentially a POV-fork. In fact, it seems to argue the same POV. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect - if the sandbox version is not identical to the Canadian Royal Family section of Monarchy in Canada then it is jolly close. No argument has been adduced why we should want a further article that duplicates a section of an existing article. Also, the redirect implements the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family. TerriersFan (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirect I gotta agree with Doc, JzG, Gazzster & others on this one. The British Royal Family article covers all the necessary details. Eusebeus (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect, with a 60/40 preference for British Royal Family over Monarchy of Canada#Canadian Royal Family. For this to be a standalone article makes about as much sense as having 16 parallel Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Royal Family since there is just one family and it is this one. Monarchy is a different topic since, by definition, that is just one person, not a family. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect per Guy. No reason for two separate articles on the same topic with different titles. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main article version would be shortened and a "see main article" bit added...--Cameron (t/c) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I feared, the same old baseless points are being brought up as in the last AfD for this article: this information is covered in the article British Royal Family; this information belongs in Monarchy of Canada; this article is POV. Those who are saying this, it seems, haven't done their homework well before expressing their opinion. For those who are about to make their call after only a cursory glance at the matter in question: take a little more time to look at the facts: this information is not covered in British Royal Family; it is desired that this information be moved (again) out of Monarchy of Canada because that article is already too long at 91KB; this information is well supported by a number of valid citations. --G2bambino (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is too long, make it more concise. In effect what you want to do is lengthen it, not shorten it (see my comment above).--Gazzster (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand what you mean. An article can only be truncated so far before it regresses to a state of poor quality. I'm all for removing excess and repetition, but not at the sake of clarity or accuracy, and it is WP policy to break larger articles into smaller ones. --G2bambino (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think the section in Monarchy of Canada is in danger of being unclear or inaccurate. It communicates what it intends to: ie., there is Canadian Royal Family (abstracting from contrary contentions). What you really want to do is retain the present section (even possibly expand it) in MoC and create a separate expanded article.But you have another option. You can extend Canadian Royal Family within Monarchy of Canada; the guidelines about length of articles are precisely that. There are any number of longer articles. You are at liberty to expand. Personally I believe less is more by the KISS principle. But then there is also the POV fork issue which I think you need to address again.--Gazzster (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the section is in danger of being unclear either; I was speaking generally. The guideline (pardon my miscommunication) advises us to split articles over a certain size into smaller ones; thus, there is supported argument for shifting the information out to a sister article. Whether or not there remains a reduced (as the guideline says "summarized") section in Monarchy of Canada is another matter all-together; personally I don't see a need for it, but, that opinion isn't concrete. Thus, one would have to give a convincing argument why a sister article should not be created. None, really, have been offered; ~~you talk of a POV fork, but I don't know what that means~~. --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (A little research does wonders.) This isn't even a case of POV forking as the subject matter, obviously, is not the same. The situation is similar to the articles Monarchy of New Zealand and Monarchy of Canada: the institutions are two separate and different parts of one whole. --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you have linked as "WP Policy" (Wikipedia:Summary style) is in fact an "editing guideline" - i.e. not a policy. Guest9999 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't violentally oppose the recreation. I just don't feel there's any need for it. I don't see how it reduces MoC or makes it more concise (which was one of your stated objectives). As I've said before, it seems to make the treatment of the Canadian monarchy even wordier. For what is the difference between expanding one article and splitting it up into different articles which repeat much of the same material and go into quite unecessary minutiae?--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly hope you wouldn't be violent about it! You could only take it out on your poor computer... Anyway, moving the section(s) to a sister article reduces Monarchy of Canada by simple mass: with Canadian Royal Family there, the article is 91KB long; without Canadian Royal Family there, the article is 78KB long. That's the difference between an automatic suggestion to split the article and no suggestion to split the article. Your claims of repetition are simply red herrings; moving information out does not mean making a double of it. It means deleting it at Monarchy of Canada and placing it in Canadian Royal Family instead. --G2bambino (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But would you delete it at MoC? At best, wouldn't you truncate it and add a link to the new article? By repetition, I mean repeating material from MoC to place Canadian Royal Family in context.--Gazzster (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just said I didn't see a need for any condensed version to remain at Monarchy of Canada, Gazzster. The section was originally a separate article; it was built to stand as such, and still does. I see only a direct transfer of the text as it presently is from Monarchy of Canada to Canadian Royal Family. --G2bambino (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But given that MoC isn't overly long (and if it were, it could be trimmed in other ways) you could just leave it where it is.--Gazzster (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --G2bambino (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, that's a question for you to answer. I'm done discussing it, I think.--Gazzster (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation: The Monarchy of Canada article has become too long. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps an article on "Royalty in Canada" could be created as a split. But the notion that there exists a concept of a "Canadian Royal Family" is inherently POV.--Doc^g 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That claim might be considerable if it wasn't contradicted by valid sources. --G2bambino (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure 'Royalty in Canada' is acceptable - I just want a daughter-article created. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Monarchy of Canada and Royalty in Canada? --G2bambino (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No differance to me, I'll accept either title. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? --G2bambino (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the chances of getting the article re-created is better, with the title 'Royalty in Canada'? I'll accept it. It's better then not having the required daughter-article at all. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an odd title to me. It's a neologism, whereas Canadian Royal Family is not. --G2bambino (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping there'd be a consensus for 'Canadian Royal Family'; but the title doesn't seem to be catching on. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect. There's really not much reason for a separate article since this can never be anything more than a duplicate of other, better articles about the same topic whose only real difference is its title. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? --G2bambino (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect. As many have pointed out already, the "Canadian Royal Family" is nought but the British Royal Family, and we don't need fork articles. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Allegations of a Canadian Royal Family. -- Naerii 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no denying a Canadian Royal Family. Regardless...that is not the question here. The question here is whether it merits its own article or whether if will have to remain in its current existance as a miserable redirect...--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An awful lot of Canadians would disagree with "There is no denying a Canadian Royal Family." Rather, there is a British Royal Family whose head is also the nominal Head of State of Canada. PKT (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Government state otherwise. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen herself says otherwise too. But, never mind; it seems we don't let facts get in the way of our opinions around here. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no one argued with Emperor Norton, so I guess his claim was legitimate too? :) -- Kesh (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paddy Lawlor – Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. Possible improvements might come from the articles creator, but he hasn't been warned or informed about the deletion and not edited since. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deleted as a CSD A7, but there was a clear assertion of notability on the article, namely, that Lawlor was the captain of GAA club Emo. As the admin who speedied it noted, Emo is hardly a glamour club, but an assertion of notability is an assertion of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's distinctly marginal as an A7 deletion but would suggest just redirecting to Emo GAA unless you have some reliable sources for more than what was in the deleted article. There was little in the article that would not be out of place on the Emo GAA article but without some coverage in reliable sources a bio could not be written. Davewild (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this, which implies the guy has a trophy/competition named after him, also the Carlow Nationalist lists him as the captain of Emo in 1972 for their first and only premiership. His career pre-dates the Internet, which makes Googling him difficult, but certainly there appears to be sources available to conclude this is not just a hoax. But it's not the sources that matter, it's the fact that the deletion was done out of process, as User:Hobit notes below, the speedy criteria are there for a reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse own deletion. I'll agree it's not a brightline A7 but with respect to Paddy, there's no point in restoring it and sending it to AFD where it is highly likely to be redeleted. Support a redirect. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
list in AfD The speedy criteria are there for a reason and it wasn't followed. That's all deletion review should be worried about. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
list in afd we basically have 3 choices:

we can list everything in AfD, and discuss 10 times as many articles a day
we can speedy delete whenever an admin thinks its non notable
we can have rules, and follow them. Those who want to tweak the rules can propose tweaks at WT:CSD. in the meantime, admins are obliged to follow them as they exist.

True, I would just love to start deleting on my own accord any article suggested to be non notable--I could cut the encyclopedia to half its size very quickly. DGG (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy deletion, list at AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD but something more than the previous substub is really needed; are there some biographical details available? Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list per policy, but I don't see anything that is going to survive AfD. A four sentence article about a team captain, when the team itself has only ten lines of text? Hard to justify an article, especially with very weak sources. The other articles on individual players in the GAA league look very tenuous also. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Nowheristan – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Before reposting, the article was re-written and reformatted to meet the criteria. Many things were amended in it to make it suitable. It was no longer presented as a country with a countrybox; instead I put it in the Micronations and Utopias categories. I changed its introduction which was previously written in a non-encyclopedic style. I added to its external links a recent press article published in one of the most serious European weekly magazines. Still, the article was deleted in no time: just minutes! It is extremely frustrating for an editor to see their work deleted so quickly, without warning or debating. I suppose this would only be acceptable for vandalism. What if I had given my article another title like "The Great Empire of Nowheristan" instead of just "Nowheristan". Would the adminsitrator who deleted it have taken more time to read it before deleting it? It would not have appeared to him/her as a repost in the frist place right? I believe this article does belong in Wikipedia after the modifications I brought to it. Please tell me if it requires additional modifications and I will apply them in the best way I can or even ask for help. But please don't treat it as vandalism. Thank you Ttiinnaabauer (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Article that was speedied now has some reliable sources (only ~~though a couple~~one of the links does not work) to establish notability. The article which was deleted at AFD had no reliable secondary sources and none were brought forward at the AFD. It therefore does not meet the G4 speedy criteria as the main reason for deletion is being addressed. Davewild (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see a userfied version before making further comment. These micro nations are often hoaxes, but properly sourced it could survive as an article. I'd like to see what changes Ttiinnaabauer made. -- Kesh (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources quoted in the article were 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Davewild (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly show the changes to Kesh, but how can I do that technically? What is the way so long as I have no green light to repost the article? As for the external sources, two of them have indeed expired, namely 3 and 5. I found a new link for 3, but am still unable to fix 5. Will work on it. Any other hints that can help me save the article are warmly welcome. Cheers. Ttiinnaabauer (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a working link for source 5 from Google's cache. Better than nothing. Ttiinnaabauer (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#1 is the site of the "country" itself, which is not going to work for notability or verfiability, so discounted. I'm afraid my German is ill-equipped for #2, so i had to rely on Google translation, but most of the article is about the founder and not Nowhereistan itself. In fact, it explicitly names it as a "fictional nation." #3 is, again, primarily about the founder; Nowhereistan gets the barest mention. #4 and #5 are much the same. It sounds to me like the founder himself is notable enough for an article, but Nowhereistan is barely a blip on the radar. It's not even a notable Internet fad. Based on this, I Endorse Deletion. Instead, a redirect to Michel Elefteriades#Nowheristan would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 21:18, March 29, 2008

overturn and relist if needed. Doesn't meet speedy criteria IMO....Hobit (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate but only as #redirect Michel Elefteriades#Nowheristan. Presumably Ttiinnaabauer is yet another sock puppet of Bahaab who is Michel Elefteriades or one of his "courtiers". The changes to the text are irrelevant, the question is: what changes have happened in the real world in the five months since the AfD closed to make Nowheristan more notable? I submit that there have been none and so the subject remains of limited notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid G4. Per RHaworth. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, if it has the same problems, it's a valid G4. That appears to be the case here. No objection to a redirect. --Core desat 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No reason why an AfD could not take place instead. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An AFD has taken place, and it had a consensus to delete. --Core desat 00:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The recently recreated version of this article appears even more promotional than the one deleted by AfD last fall. The AfD appeared valid, and the lack of reliable sources to confirm notability remains. The press articles that do exist would be better used as references for the article on Elefteriades. No objection to a redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the proper steps were followed, and apparently the new version continues to fail WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Biruitorul (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Knights Templar and popular culture – While the AfD pointed at some serious problems of the deleted article, the participation and disruption by sock puppets of banned users cannot be simply brushed off. Nevertheless, there is sufficient concern on both sides, that simply reopening the debate isn't the best way to move forward. So restore the article to the nominators user space, who can rewrite it and move it to main space once they see fit, and then relist at AfD unless the new version dissolves the original doubts. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following “popular culture” article was deleted following an AfD in which now banned editors Burntsauce, Golfcam, and Eyrian as determined by two arbitration cases and check users disruptively participated and therefore unduly clouded the results. They cooperated with each other and multiple other sock accounts in this and other AfDs (Burntsauce and Golfcam, Burntsauce and Eyrian, Golfcam and Eyrian, and again that's not even accounting all the other accounts they had as confirmed by multiple checkusers). To clarify the situation further for those unfamiliar with it, Burntsauce, Golfcam, and Eyrian are part of a large sockfarm that deliberately targetted "popular culture" articles. This article is number 136 on this list that a different banned account associated with these three compiled. Regardless of whether we like or dislike "popular culture" articles, the ends do not justify the means. An extensive sockfarm (some of these accounts are linked to this user; so, given these numbers, who knows just how extensive the problem actually was) went after over two hundred articles and used sockpuppetry, assumptions of bad faith, and incivility to accomplish its goals. This particular article appeared on one of the banned account's list of articles that the sock farm targetted and three members of that farm particiapted in this particular AfD. You'll also notice that the banned account that started the list was even blocked before the checkuser for assumptions of bad faith and incivility. Those of us who dared to support these articles were met with sockpuppet attacks both on and off Wikipedia as they engaged in email activity and posts on banned sites (which explains my frustration in responding to some posts below). Even if you do not like these types of articles and believe in good faith that they do not benefit our project and are happy that they were deleted, you still have to agree that we cannot reward results that were achieved by undeniable (two arbcoms and multiple checkusers determined the connections linking the now banned accounts) and deliberate disruption by one or two sockpuppeteers who operated untold alternate accounts to support deletion in over two hundred AfDs, while launching vicious attacks against any and all who challenged this effort. What you see is deliberate use of their accounts to target specifically lists and "in popular culture" articles. Without their vote fixing and violations of Point, the AfDs might have closed as keep or no consensus, especially as evidenced by the more recent trend of “in popular culture” articles closing as keep since the aforementioned accounts were blocked. As pertains to this particular topic, the Knights Templar's appearances in popular culture have actually increased as they play a notable role in a major game series. Therefore, I respectfully request that the AfD's closure be overturned and the article restored. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'~~endorse deletion'~~ While I likely would have !voted to keep, I think the discussion was clear. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least two of those advocating delete are accounts that were banned for in part disuprtive AfDs pertaining specifically to "in popular culture" articles. Moreover, the subject of the Knights Templar and their portrayal in popular culture has been covered in academic sources. The article should at least be restored so that we have a real chance to update, reference it, and then if it is nominated again have a discussion not impaired by those banned accounts. Actually, make that three of those who argued to delete the article have been blocked as sockpuppeters. I do not believe we had a fair discussion with three disruptive sock accounts participating in the discussion. Now that those individuals have seem to have given Wikipedia some rest (I hope), why not restore the article and have a more fair discussion? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll ~~abstain~~ given the above and comments made by others. I think the AfD would likely have gone the same way, but given it was tainted, I don't see the harm in relisting. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for keeping an open-mind. :) As I look over the "endorse" comments below that seem to focus on the article's merits rather than the fact that the process was tainted by THREE banned editor's disruption, maybe in addition to deletion review, which is supposed to focuses on the process of an AfD closure, we should create an Wikipedia:Articles for resurrection or something to that effect that can serve a similar purpose to how AfD is used for multiple renominations to delete articles that are already kept in AfD that focuses on the article in question rather than the process of a closed AfD. The rules, format, would be similar but instead focus on restoring deleted articles. This way, Deletion review would remain and be more clearly about the process of an AfD closure, whereas this new project would focus on whether or not consensu has changed on any given article. If new AfDs can continuously reoccur for articles kept in previously closed AfDs, I see no reason not to also have an Articles for resurrection project. The idea just came to me know, so I'll give it some more thought later. Again, sorry to ramble (I'm getting over the flu and am still a bit light headed) and thanks again for being fair. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now relist or even keep per Relata refero. Solid arguments about notability tossed in with problems in AfD... That conference cited threw it way over the top. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I won't argue now for keep (though I will at the forthcoming Afd), just that the manner of participation of the banned editors and their known use of sockpuppets for editwarring in general, as confirmed for Burntsauce and Eyrian by Arbcom decisions, & Golfcam by a straightforward CheckUser, contaminated the Afd beyond possible validity. Article nominated by Otto4771, who voted with them frequently. Closed without closing summary. But I wouldn't however blame anyone for being misled by the group of eds. who--with considerable skill--joined to attack this article. It's time to start undoing the damage Burntsauce & Eyrian did before the community caught on and ejected them. I hope Sr13 will choose to revert the close himself (GRC has invited him here, of course.) DGG (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion at this time, but I'd just like to go on record that I consider the comment above an unjustifiable slur against Otto4711 (note the correct user name). Deor (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, the AfD show she made the nomination. I am just saying that they often have the same views on these articles. It's a fact, not an accusation. I think he'd agree that he does, and in good faith thinks the views justified. If I misrepresented him and he now thinks they're acceptable articles, I apologize. 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)

If I misread the intent of your comment, I apologize. It seemed to me at the time that there was no reason to mention who nominated the article (since it makes no difference in the context of this review) except in an attempt to tar him with the same brush as the banned users. Deor (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote. Whether banned users made points during the discussion or not, the conclusion came down to which arguments the closing admin felt were better. If the !vote had been 100 keeps and one delete, and the delete reason was the only tenable one, then that's the way the close should go. Corvus cornix_talk 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it does matter who made them. We wouldnt count their opinions now if they showed up by sockpuppet. After a Arbcom ban on a sysop like Eyrian, it's usual to revisit what they've been engaged in. DGG (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, myself, and other participants in that discussion had to contend with a good deal of elsewhere harassment by the banned users in question and their alternate accounts elsewhere. There is a reason why in the original AfD, once Eyrian participated, I let the discussion drop and moved on even though I would have greatly liked to participate further and expand on the reasons for keeping, but increasingly my mentor (Chaser) advised me on and off-wiki to disengage from Eyrian as much as possible as he became increasingly hostile against me. Notice Eyrian's vote followed my argument. It would be nice to have a fair discussion this time. Moreover, I agree and have learned over time that AfD is indeed note a vote; however, the banned participants of that discussion and their allies approached all "in popular culture" AfDs as copy and paste votes, as I indicated in my evidence in the one ArbCom. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relist per DGG and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's observation that this is a pop culture topic that has been covered in academic sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, consensus to delete was clear, regardless of the banned user's involvement. --Coredesat 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus has changed though and we should be given an actually chance to evaluate the article without THREE banned editor's disrupting and fixing the discussion. Let us have a discussion not marred by multiple single-purpose anti-in popular culture bad faith accounts. Such a discussion cannot possibly reflect actual consensus. There is no disadvantage in giving the article another look, maybe a real chance to be improved, and a fair discussion. Why not even in a worst case scenario restore the article so editors' contributions are available to the public and redirect the article to here? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The AfD was contaminated beyond all usability as described and consensus to delete was not clear. Rather than re-argue here, relist per DGG and LGRdC and argue there. That seems the fairest course since a DRV is about process, and process integrity was breached beyond repair in the AfD unless relisted or overturned. LGRdC's comments describe what amounts to jury tampering and should be very troubling to those that believe in fair process. Corvus cornix's endorse argument makes no sense in that context, and Hobit even admits to a keep vote. Relist and discuss the article merits there, or overturn and keep the article. — Becksguy (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Even discounting the opinions of the banned or blocked users named in the nomination above, by my count the !vote was 8 for delete and 2 for keep (with one user advocating a different solution, which involved removing the article to a Talk page). With regard to the assertion that those "illegitimate" opinions somehow influenced the AfD, I demur, noting that the only opinions that specifically referred to the opinion of another participant were two that questioned the "keep" rationale of DGG, neither of which was offered by one of the questionable participants. To assert that the opinions of the eight Wikipedians who thought that the article was worthy of deletion were somehow invalid seems to me disingenuous at best and insulting at worst. There is no evidence that the close of the AfD was faulty in any procedural aspect, so why are we here? Deor (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep arguments, however, were much stronger than the delete votes. The evidence is overwhelmingly that the AfD process was disrupted and therefore we must have a do over as it is entirely possible that the banned participants' opinions unduly influenced other participants in the discussion. If you are not here to add anything constructive to this discussion, than I am not sure why you are here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - DRV is not AFD round 2, and nothing has been offered in this DRV to indicate that the consensus reached at this eight-month-old AFD was in error. Otto4711 (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three "votes" from banned editors, other posts from those editors in the discussion does NOT reflect consensus. If we eliminate their participation, we would have ended up with a no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The closer did not provide a detailed rationale. Since the presence of multiple socks introduces an element of doubt, we should take another look at this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Not AfD round 2, and consensus was fairly clear even without the couple of since-banned editors. Having said that, there might be an article which could usefully look at the cultural aspects of the Knights Templar. But this wasn't it. Those voting to restore would be better off rebuilding the article from scratch, using those tiresome things that we don't see in pop culture articles a lot, like "quality control" and "sources". Black Kite 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason not to allow us a chance to discuss the article without having to contend with three banned editors marring the discussion. Plus, consensus has clearly changed to keep the article. Considering how many renominations we have for articles that are kept, there is no actual reason why we should not have a new discussion over an article in an instance in which we are certain three of the participants did so disruptively. Plus, as I have already stated, myself and others did NOT participate to our full extent BECAUSE of an effort to avoid further confrontation with Eyrian in particular. Had the banned editors NOT voted in the discussion, it indeed would have gone differently. Also, if you check the edits of even some of the non-banned editors who participated in that AfD on that day, notice the rapidity of their edits and all delete votes in AfDs that occurred so fast in such a copy and paste manner that they are indeed votes and that in no realistic way could have adequately covered the articles in question: example a, example b, and example c. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not comfortable enough with my opinions on the closing to !vote to either endorse or overturn it. However, I do believe that an article can exist on the topic. That is, it isn't inherently bad. Might be easier to recreate it first and ask for a history merge. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I don't see why it can't be relisted to solve this this dispute. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion in popular culture. Valid deletion, no reason to overturn, the way to deal with bloated trivia sections is to prune them, not split them out into whole articles comprised of nothing but cruft. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion was invalid however and plenty of good reasons have been given to overturn. "Cruft" is not a serious argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Nothing out of process here, nor were the reasons given for deletion invalid. This IPC stuff is more often than not glorified trivia and should be expunged. Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- THREE sock accounts are out of process. Their non-reasons were totally invalid. A personal disdain for IPC "stuff" is not a good reason for deletion, especially when the topic is verfiable and has real world notability. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I have not seen the original article, but reading the AfD, consensus was clear to delete, even when ignoring arguments by the mentioned users. So if the topic is notable enough, I think it's much better to start from scratch than base it off an article of such bad quality that it has been deleted previously. --Minimaki (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unable to see the original article makes it difficult to adequately assess whether consensus was valid or not. Three who argued deletion were disruptive sock accounts. Three others were deletion only vote accounts. We should be given a chance to have a real discussion this time based on the article's merits. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite That some of the participants were later banned is not relevant. That some of them were sockpuppets of users already banned is relevant. Factoring out the pair that are now known to have been sockpuppets, and looking at the remaining arguments, things get close, and no consensus could have been a reasonable close. Looking at the actual deleted article, it was just a list of lots of statements that "the knights templar appear in X" for lots of different X. It may or may not be possible to write an encyclopedia article on how they have been used in popular culture, but the content that was there was not an encyclopedia article. Thus I conclude that an article should be written, as opposed to a bulleted list of appearances. GRBerry 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — even without the banned users the consensus was clear. --Haemo (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus was not clear and it certainly is not clear not. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - for reasons given by nominator. It'll be the usual suspects I am sure but maybe some new ideas for article improvement will emerge (funny, I missed this one first time 'round..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it right. I do not know what will come of a relisting, but it has promise to improve the encyclopedia. Keeping it deleted does not. alternatively, we don't even need to relist if we write a new and better article with additional sources. Substantially improved articles are not subject to G4. DGG (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite In the deleted article, none of the pop culture blurbs are referenced. Had the article been kept, it would have probably stayed that way. More of these blurbs would have been added, and sooner or later, all you would have is a bunch of uncontrollable, unrefed cruft. The best course to take is to just rewrite it from scratch and make sure it doesn't become the dilapidated article it was. Singu larity 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly Sr13)[reply]
- Could the article perhaps be at least temporarily restored and moved to my userspace so I can see if anything can be salvageable? As Phirazo noted, I have recently (i.e. once the three banned editors were banned) been able to find references for a large number of these sorts of articles and many of their AfDs closed in nearly unanimous keeps. This way, we will be able to preserve the editors' who contributed to the original version of the article public contributions while be able to make a "bold" rewrite at the same time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess that's a good compromise. Singu larity 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Just because they were banned doesn't mean they didn't have good opinions. I am very much against popular culture sections in articles, much less spin-off articles about popular culture. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they did have bad opinions. The only arguments in favor of deletion were "I don't like it" in nature. THREE banned editors disrupted a process, scared editors off by harassing them all of the project, and mass nominated these types of articles to intentionally disrupt the project and violate POINT. They used multiple socks and proxies as confirmed by checkusers and were banned for a variety of reasons, including specifically pointed and disruptive edits against these types of articles. The same editors willing to renominate these articles for deletion even after they were kept should be fair enough to allow for a new discussion that prevents the banned editors from participating. Then, in a discussion in which not just admins (as is the case here) can see the article, but the community at large it ends up deleted, then the closure will be much less ambiguous. The PROCESS was compromised and it can only benefit the project to have a new re-examination of the article to see if consensus has changed. The first outcome did not come about fairly. Editors may have been influenced by posts made by banned editors. The deletion review here is NOT the same as a new AfD, because only some of those participating are even able to actually see the article, thus a DRV of a deleted article cannot reasonably reflect consensus on the actual article's merits. Only an at least temporarily restored article and a new AfD can result in a fair situation and make up for a compromised and illegitimate process. We have nothing to lose by doing so and by contrast much to gain. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Geez, you don't need to reply to every single post opposing your opinion; I think you've proven your point... Singu larity 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi! I'm approaching it as a discussion, rather than just a list of "votes." As I have far greater experience with AfD than DrV and so if I am mistaken and DrV, unlike AfD, is just a vote, please let me know and I sincerely apologize, but I thought it also was a discussion. If it is a discussion, then I treat any new opposition to a previous post I made as I would a conversation or dialogue in which one person says something then the other person responds and so on until they come to some sort of agreement. I spent some of today reading our articles on consensus as I was a little confused of the differences between consensus and democracy, such as Consensus decision-making and Wikipedia:Consensus. The sense that I got from those are that we approach these types of pages as interactive discussions rather than votes with the goal of reaching some kind of agreement, i.e. something that is reasonable/acceptable to the participants by the end of the discussion. Thus, if I make a post and someone posts after me and I don't respond to them, then I feel as if I'm being rude to them by not indicating whether they have persuaded me or if I disagree with their stance, i.e. by not indicating if we now have consensus or if the discussion is still undecided. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have to agree, you are coming across as very pushy and defensive, especially seeing as you are not "discussing" with people who agree with you. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but, Stifle, I'm afraid that "I don't like IPC sections" isn't the best of reasons either, especially at a DRV. Relata refero (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - But for those who agree, it's obviously understood that I would agree with them as well. I suppose I could thank them for agreeing with me. And I did thank Hobit above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: first, the banned editors were in good standing at the time of the AfD; second, their opinions did not particularly "cloud" the debate; third, this is more of a syndicated column than actual research; finally, no convincing arguments for reconsidering a new AfD have been raised. And anyway, the IPC plague is a way of enshrining trivia and ascribing it encyclopedic status, something we should avoid. Biruitorul (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The banned editors were deliberately disrupting these kinds of discussions and they were already beginning to cause problems when the discussion occurred. Their opinions did cloud the debate by being inaccurate and single-purpose. A website written by a professional historian on articles that are published is indeed actual research. No convincing arguments for not reconsidering a new AfD have been raised. In popular culture articles are consistent with encyclopedic standards and should be encouraged. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, most certainly. First: the AfD was most certainly disrupted by external problems. Second:I am by no means fond of IPC sections or articles, but I think that this particular subject would benefit from encyclopaedic coverage. Note that it has already received considerably scholarly attention: The subject of the Annual Conference of the American Culture Association; literary theorists puzzle over Eco's use of the Templars as a symbol of postmodernist rewriting of history ("a satire on the literary theory of deconstructionism in its near paranoid over-interpretation?"- Johannes Bertens); "Mystic Templars are omnipresent in all good conspiracy theories" - Barber's The New Knighthood (Cambridge U Press, 1995) paraphrased by Elaine Graham-Leigh; and so on. Relata refero (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it,

Day to Day on NPR: "Alex Chadwick discusses the literary fascination with the Knights Templar with Laura Miller, book critic for Salon.com."
Torun Museum: "The Knights Templar - History and Myth" exhibition "Apart from pieces of "high art," the exhibit will grant equal importance to "popular culture" items (literature, film, Internet content) exploring the subject of the Knights Templar."
National Post editorial: "the Templars remain a living presence in popular culture. This has happened precisely because the historical record concerning their sudden annihilation in the early-14th century at the hands of Philip IV ("the Fair") of France has been so sparse and ambiguous. Time and revolution have damaged and dispersed the sources, and made the Templars a magnet for speculation and imagination." This is a relevant, encyclopaedic topic, and all the people who say "IPC sections are just so infra dig/unencyclopaedic" should be ignored on this one. Relata refero (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no one's being hindered from writing an article on the topic, using those sources. This, however, is supposed to be a review of the deletion of a previous article, and I haven't yet seen evidence that there was anything wrong with the decision reached at that time. The main argument put forth by the nominator seems to be that he feels he didn't have a chance to bury that AfD in mountains of verbosity as he has done here, which I would count as a Good Thing. Deor (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the fact that the subject appears notable and so the decision appears to have been wrong? God, this obsessive focus on process-wankery drives me nuts. And the random incivility tucked in, as well. Brilliant. Relata refero (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the incivility with which Mr. Apocolocyntosis responded to my opinion above ("If you are not here to add anything constructive to this discussion, than [sic] I am not sure why you are here"), I think I've been remarkably restrained. Deor (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was in response to a rather direct "why are we here?" question. As I say, whatever. I've made it clear that this is an encyclopaedic topic, several of the responses on that AfD were plain wrong/uninformed, several were by sockpuppets/puppeteers, and yet we go through the rigmarole of discussing whether this is the right location for matters of notability, is there any definitive proof that that AfD was disrupted (can we hever really obtain any?), etc etc... when did we become a big giant bureaucracy? Relata refero (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Deor, please refrain from all of these personal attacks and incivility, as they add nothing to the discussion. The main argument is that at least three sockpuppeteers who were deliberately attempting to hijack all discussions on "in popular culture" articles voted in this particular AfD. The deletion review is not about whether any of us like or dislike the article. The credibility of the AfD process itself is to be considered as the process was compromised by disruptive and incivil accounts. AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, not merely a list of "deletes" and "keeps", but a discussion by which editors come to some kind of compromise or agreement. People should not be afraid of discussion. The decision was wrong because it was based on the participation of multiple disruptive accounts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist; an AfD contaminated by sockpuppets who were driving away other editors, on a subject that has clear scholarly notice, needs to be reëvaluated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - "Just because they were banned doesn't mean they didn't have good opinions" is the wrong way to view a Sockpuppet. They do have a tainted and predisposed view. [10][11] adding undue weight to the percieved consensus. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 March 2008

Gucci Gang controversy – Closure endorsed. There is a consensus here that the administrator's close was a valid one. As with other articles arguably falling within WP:NOT#NEWS, a reconsideration of whether the article belongs on Wikipedia with fresh eyes once some time has passed is probably a good idea – WjBscribe 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion was closed as Keep. I asked the closer to take a second look. The arguments for and against boil down to WP:NOT#NEWS versus WP:N. While there are several references on the page, almost all of them are gossip items, rumors, and unproven allegations. The event seems to have triggered a flurry of !news articles that lasted from the 10th to the 16th, with no further activity and no further references to the incident(s) - see a Google News search for the past week. I feel this was a flash-in-the-pan event and is not encyclopedic. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment: As seen in the discussion on my talk page, I closed the discussion as "keep" for several reasons:
1. The article expands beyond the basic coverage of the event, taking note of the legal and social issues involved with the event and criticisms on freedom of speech, thus going beyond the scope of WP:NOT#NEWS.
2. There is sufficient referencing, in more than one reliable source, to justify the notability of the event.
3. There is precedent to allow such articles, as was established in the AfD discussion.
4. Despite the use of several single-purpose accounts, there was clear consensus to keep the article.

As I was the closing admin in the AfD discussion, I offer no opinion towards this discussion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure The argument that the article fitted WP:NOT#NEWS was considered at the AFD and a sufficient consensus decided that it did not. The closing admin considered this and correctly decided there was a consensus to keep. I see no new evidence that was not raised in the AFD so as we are considering the process and not rearguing the AFD this seems to be a clear endorse. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question about that is the "sufficient consensus" that decided that it did not fit NOT#NEWS. Three or four editors seem to have hit on the same issue - that this was simply a news story and didn't have encyclopedic value. See the comments by Calton, MCB, and Snthdiueoa, besides my own. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would probably have closed it as no consensus (which defaults to keep anyway) but there was sufficient weight of opinion disagreeing with the arguments raised by the editors you quote to make a keep closure reasonable and I do not see the point in overturning a keep closure to a no consensus closure. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't strike you as a BLP1E? I know I seem like I'm beating a dead horse, but I honestly don't see how a bunch of rumors, printed in four papers and forgotten about a week later, could be considered encyclopedic? I also don't see how this is in the same league as the supposed "precedents" mentioned in the AfD? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP suggests covering the event and not the person which this article seems to, but anyway I don't want to reargue the AFD here as these arguments were considered there and I consider the closure reasonably interpreted the debate. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sustain close disagreeing with the decision is not sufficient reason if the close represented consensus,as it did. DGG (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re-examining the article,it seems that there are indeed some BLP concerns, but they could be dealt with by editing. I suppose we could write it without naming the person being accused of swindling, since the important part is not the accusations at the base but the free speech part of it.DGG (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment as I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, whether there's any real legal significance, or rather this really garnered much attention. I wanted to mention that W.marsh used to make the argument that there's a difference between News Stories which should go on Wikinews, and encyclopedic accounts of news events, no matter if they're fleeting, which do indeed belong here. He made the argument more elegantly than I have, but I think I have conveyed the gist of it. I think it's worth considering. --JayHenry (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete This brings us back to a fundamental tension at AfD. The conflation of news with notability is a longstanding and erroneous position taken by many editors. Hence we developed the WP:NOT#NEWS policy. It is, or should be, the closing admin's task to, what's that word, oh yea administer policy, not just count votes. It could be argued that this aspires to something more than news, but those arguments are highly unconvincing, as a quick perusal of this gussied up News of the World Article readily demonstrates. So this was closed properly if AfD is about counting up votes. It was closed improperly if the purpose of AfD is to subject articles to the light of our policies and practices. In my view, this should be deleted. Eusebeus (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — while there is definitely a tension between WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWS, the arguments in the discussion specifically addressed this, and the close was reasonable in light of that. --Haemo (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support article as a keep, news does indicate notability. Britannica, The World Almanac, etc. all have articles, especially in the yearly editions that are composed of news coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those bits are annual supplements (i.e.; have a defined shelf-life), and the sort of thing you're talking about do NOT go into later revisions of the main volume, do they? --Calton | Talk 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Today's news is tomorrow's fishwrap, and local news =/= global encyclopedic worth and/or impact. Seems to me that the closing admin forgot the difference between a local newspaper and a global encyclopedia, wherein the latter really must take a long view. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please define "local" news. Just because it is printed in a mere third-world country does not make it "local". Your argument is a perfect example of WP:BIAS. Starczamora (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "local", your attempt at a combination wikilawyering/guilt-tripping notwithstanding, is fairly self-evident. Hint 1: my use of "global" in opposition to the the term "local". Hint 2: being printed ONLY within small area, as you say, DOES, in fact makes it "local news", whatever handwaving you indulge in. --Calton | Talk 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure; AfD is all about asking Wikipedians to decide based on policy issues. In this case, the issue of WP:NOT#NEWS was brought up, and consensus was this is not prohibited by that article. DRV shouldn't be second-guessing that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I was neutral before in the AfD, but this "news" is definitely getting more attention past the arbitrary one-week criteria mentioned by the AfD nominator. For example, there's been an episode of the panel discussion show Media in Focus on ANC last week talking specifically about the legal implications of this blog ([12]). The article is not a news article since it provides context and analysis as well. --seav (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would also like to add that ZDNetAsia.com has also picked up the story ([13]), as well as TV Patrol which is the Philippines' most-watched news program ([14]). Looks like this news is not going to be fishwrap soon. Starczamora (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 March 2008

David Gruder – Speedily closed, copyvios are non-negotiable; just write a new article without copyvios – Core desat 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recently I submitted an article about author and psychologist, Dr. David Gruder. This page was deleted by Adam Bishop who gave no reason and has not returned my inquiry as to why it was deleted. Now, when I search for 'David Gruder' an editor with this same name appears. I truly hope that this was not deleted merely because an editor wanted his information associated with the name. I am willing to change the page to David S. Gruder. I look forward to assistance and clarification. Thank you. Traceylott (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just notified User:Adam Bishop. Hopefully we'll see him here soon to explain why he deleted, since the logs just give a "content was <yada>" summary. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted it because he was clearly just some guy, non-notable, it was spam/promotion, only one person was editing it, there were no incoming links, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, are you saying this was WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did not see the Wikipedia article, but a Google search shows that while this person is a published author and psychologist, it would be difficult to prove he is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Any such article would be at high risk of becoming an advertisement in the future. Here are some references for him: AttractingAbundance.com, Google - 2000+ hits but the top page is devoid of anything proving notability, and of course his own sites including AskDavidGruder.com. His book Sensible Self-Help won two awards (aboutus.org) so the book may be notable even if the author is not. Unless there is significant external press that is not promotional in nature, I don't see how anyone could write an article that would survive an AfD or speedy-delete. He is not to the level of fame of a Dr. Phil or Dr. Ruth, and as far as I know he isn't famous in academia either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment continued: Just looking at "content was: 'Dr. David S. Gruder, Ph.D., D.CEP, was born in 1954. He is an Integrity Analyst, the Executive Director of Willingness Works® in Del Mar, California, the Founder and Executive Director of Integrity Revolution, LLC, and th...')" in the deletion log is enough to say this was way to spammish. Uphold deletion and start over, if it is even possible to do so while proving notability. If someone really wants to salvage the content for a new, acceptable article, then they can ask to have it temporarily userfied. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as copyvio. The text in the cache is a précised version of this article. In my view there is enough similarity for it to be copyvio. Without this, the book award would be enough of an indication of importance to avoid an A7 but possibly not enough to survive the inevitable AFD. BlueValour (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment COPYVIO = trump card. Unless the text is free-licensed it can't be kept, period. Speedy-close the review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion/keep deleted good catch by BlueValour. We can't accept copyrighted text. If someone wants to try to write a non-copyvio text that's a separate issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation without copyvio There was no basis whatsoever for removing this as A7, as there were unmistakable assertions of notability. (I doubt it will pass Afd, but that is not at all the same thing). Nor is it so spammy that an A11 was justified. The deleting admin needs a refresher on WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy--and also a realisation that he must give deletion reason that make sense. Some of the above discussion seems not to realise that it is not necessary to have an article that will base AfD to avoid speedy--any assertion of notability is sufficient. Furthermore the standard of notability is much much less than fame, even at Afd. But the article is too close to the website. Just rewrite it. And unless there are some really good third party references for his actual notability, we can discuss it at AfD. DGG (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hmm. I guess I can live with that, but I would strongly caution anyone attempting to re-write this to not do so unless they can do a good enough job that it will survive an AfD or even better yet avoid one altogether. This means quality references external to the subject, real notability for the person, and no advertising, buzzwords, or trademarked terms. If the entire page consisted of nothing more than "David Gruder is a psychologist and writer. He is the author of Sensible Self-Help, which won the Colliers 1997 Mental Health Book of the Year," along with a 1-paragraph personal bio, 1-paragraph professional bio, and the appropriate BLP and stub tags, that will probably do nicely. No businesses or non-profits he is involved should get more than a 1-word mention, and they shouldn't get any mention unless he was the founder, current owner, current CEO, or in the case of non-profits, if he received a notable recognition from them. The whole thing will probably fit on one screen. Any larger mentions of his enterprises will likely result in them being edited down severely or the article going down through AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins – No action. It was not felt appropriate to take any action in relation to this page pending the conclusion of discussions about #wikipedia-en-admins at WP:RFARB – WjBscribe 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was originally redirected to the main IRC channels page because people felt it did not merit its own page. There is still the concern that there isn't enough transparency with the admins IRC channel so I have created a new page which documents the new channel guidelines, the people that have access to the channels, a list of operators and a section at the bottom for users who have concerns to post to bring them to the attention of the operators and wider community. My new proposed page can be found at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. I'm hoping that this page will open up the admins IRC channel to the community and allow everyone to clearly know who has access and what is expected of people that use the channel. The page will also allow non users of the channel see exactly who they should contact should they have any problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks good. Do try and make sure there isn't too much expansion of the role or function of the channel, though. The key thing is to keep Wikipedia central to what the channel does, and not to let it drift and become something else. You might also want to say in an edit summary in the history of that page where the text came from, rather than just "start" - GFDL and all that. Or did you write that all yourself? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I did mean I've thrown it together from other parts - I haven't created it all myself! Wasn't too sure about the GFDL with this sort of thing, I don't think it's really important with a wikipedia space page like this, but I'll throw in an edit summary. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~This looks pretty good, actually, and seems to address the main concerns people have with the IRC admins channel. Move over redirect.~~ Do nothing pending the outcome of the discussion on WP:RFAR. --Core desat 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a discussion concerning the #admins channel going on now on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page, which may affect the need for information concerning this channel to be re-created in project space. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good case for a separate page, and it's project space not mainspace. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Coredesat, do nothing until the discussion at WP:RFAR reaches its conclusion. Risker (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rachel Aldana – Overturn and delete. Although the WP:BLP#1E rationale is dubious (holding a record is not an event, and certain record holders are notable), the argument regarding reliable sources is not. Consensus seems to exist that the sources are not reliable. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I realise a large majority of the editors who took part in the AfD discussion thought the article should be kept however I don’t think that the fundamental issue – that there are currently no reliable sources to verify the information about this living person – was really addressed. The type of sources currently used in the article aren’t generally considered reliable and definitely shouldn’t be used as the sole reference material for an article on a living person. They are comprised of:

A tabloid know for scandals and sensationalism [15]
A trivial mention in a blog [16]
A user generated answer at Yahoo Answers [17]
A celebrity gossip website restating the tabloid article [18]
Another blog restating the tabloid story [19]
A youtube video of an audience appearance on short lived talk show Vanessa's Real Lives (the show doesn’t have an article) [20]
A trivial mention in a question to an agony aunt [21]

All this seems to indicate is that there was one tabloid article that a few blogs picked up on – it does not necessarily follow through that reliable sources will have also reported on the subject and no one who took part in the Afd could provide any additional sources. I realise that different sources are suitable for different subjects but a tabloid wouldn’t be an appropriate source to use for someone like Tony Blair and the absence of a better source shouldn’t change the status of an unsuitable one. In this instance the lack of any alternative coverage probably makes it more likely that “liberties” have been taken – with nothing to compare the work to who’s going to know? The fact that it is claimed she holds a Guinness world record was brought up as an assertion of notability in the AfD discussion, but with no reliable source to verify the information it doesn’t seem relevant. Most record holders are notable because such records receive coverage from reliable sources, as shown above this does not seem to be the case in this instance. Having said that I see the issue of notability as pretty secondary since without any reliable sources it is impossible to verify any of the information in the article - however well the subject might meet the general or specific notability guidelines. Guest9999 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As closing admin, I have no particular thoughts on whether or not the article should have been deleted. It was my reading of the discussion's consensus that it favoured keeping it, so I closed it accordingly. As for the issue of reliable sources, I'm inclined to think that if there's one subject that tabloids are going to cover reliably, it's breast size. Even if the sources aren't reliable, though, in light of the AFD discussion I'd favour stubbing rather than deleting. That said, I have no particular investment in this discussion, and I suppose my first overturned AFD closing will have to come at some point Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've removed the assertion sourced to Yahoo answers, and also removed the link to the YouTube video as a copyvio. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article per WP:HOTTIE. Seriously, though, it looks like it was closed properly, although sourcing could be much better (as always). At least a couple, *ahem* assertions of notability exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can't seem to find anything on the Guinness site that this happened, but it looks pretty incomplete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - I have corrected a boob in the article which stated the breast size as 32k whereas the source states 32JJ (and no, I've no idea whether this is a distinction with a difference) :-). With regard to why we are here, we are not here to second guess the editors who commented on the AfD but to determine whether the AfD was properly closed; and in my view it was. I have sympathy with the nominator's concern over the lack of reliable sources. However, that should be addressed, more properly, at another AfD. A small point; the losing admin makes some good comments here but it would have been desirable to have a fuller closing comment rather than a bald 'keep'. BlueValour (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that you meant "closing admin" rather than "losing admin", but either way your point is well-taken. I leave detailed comments in about half of the AFDs I close. In this case, I thought the consensus was clear enough that none were necessary, but lesson learned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! :-) BlueValour (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I'm not questioning that there was a consensus to keep in the AfD, I just think that the participants disregarded several well established policies formed by the wider consensus of the community (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP). Guest9999 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse rational close, the sources were appropriate for the material. There may have been arguments otherwise, but it is the community who determines the balance of policy considerations, not the closing administrator.DGG (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the main source provided is an article in a tabloid, all of the other sources (blogs, user generated content, etc.) seem to be based off that article. Tabloids generally aren't considered as reliable sources - especially when it come to verifying information about living people. In this instance the tablid source is being used as it is the only one available, given the nature of the subject and the source would it really be at all suprising if every "fact" in the article was massaged - or completely fabricated - in order to make the story more appealing to its intended audience? Guest9999 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a place in Guiness is her claim to notability, she doesn't have it. Bigger British breasts have been found: Chloe Rogers measures 34KK. [22]. Aldana's breasts, meanwhile, have grown to 32K. [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.16 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse closure~~ as reasonable per existing policy, even tho in my opinion a big bust model alleged to be a one-time regional record holder should not be considered notable. Re-list AFD if reliable sources cannot be produced. The "flurry of media coverage" is probably more notable than the record itself. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Overturn, delete. Nomination was on notability, and this subject is not "notable" by reasonable standards (letter of the law notwithstanding). Extremely poor sourcing, mentioned in the nomination and by itself sufficient grounds for deletion, only demonstrates this. The 1965 big bust record holder in Portugal would (if lacking any other notability) similarly not deserve a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete. This is a WP:BLP (or rather: a notional biography of a living person, actually it's an article about her tits, not her). None of the sources qualifies as an independent reliable biographical source. The best of them is probably the Sunday People, and that paper is, as any British reader will know, a rag of highly dubious quality. Most of the purported sources are really blogs. There's no reason the encyclopaedic content can't be covered under another article, probably breast, in a discussion of the issues raised by unusually large breasts, since that is what the few sources we have are actually about. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked on Talk:Rachel Aldana if this could be merged into another article. It would be nice if this could go away with overturning the AFD decision, which appears to be reasonably within the letter of existing policy. While the cited sources are inadequate, it is possible they can be improved since this person seems to exist; this record claim, however trivial and dubious, seems to have been made; and there has been some minor media attention. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & delete Guy has it right. Large mammary endowment is not grounds for passing WP:BIO, no matter how lax we let our standards slip. This should not have been kept by any sane reading of policy. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think policy allows this Keep. The problem should be addressed by changing the policy, not by ignoring it. Standards can be raised. There is obviously much initiative to create articles on extremely trivial subjects such as this one, and if AFD will not exercise reasonable discretion in throwing these things out, guidelines should encourage deleting them. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete as a blatant WP:BLP1E violation. This is not a proper biographical article about the person, it's an exposé on her breasts. This basically says the only thing we know about this woman is her breasts, which falls afoul of BLP. There's not even anything notable enough here to merge into another article. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been largely silent in this debate, in part because I wouldn't object to a closure of overturn and delete. However, I'd rather see it done on the bases of insufficient notability or insufficiently reliability of sources than on the basis of WP:BLP1E, which I don't believe is applicable in this case. Ms. Aldana is not notable for just one event, she is notable (if at all) for one characteristic. The mantra "Cover the event, not the person," does not apply here, because there is no event to cover (unless somebody's going to suggest that BLP concerns would be addressed by the creation of Rachel Aldana's breasts, which seems unlikely). Again, I'm fine with deletion of the article on grounds of WP:V, WP:N or WP:RS (and the portions of WP:BLP that mirror/emphasize these), but I don't see this as a BLP1E issue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Event" vs. "characteristic" is a semantic debate that skirts the issue: she is only notable for one thing, and that one thing does not constitute enough information to satisfy WP:BLP. That's it. We don't have enough information for a biographical article, which is the heart of what WP:BLP (and accordingly WP:BLP1E) are all about. -- Kesh (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hel (band) – Recreation allowed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This band has four full-length albums, a live DVD, and has toured internationally [24], easily meeting the requirements set forth at WP:BAND. Ultima Thule Records is not "non-notable", as claimed in the AfD, being one of the leading labels in the Vikingarock genre. This band has articles on the Swedish Wikipedia [25], the Dutch Wikipedia [26], the Polish Wikipedia [27], and the German Wikipedia [28], the latter of which has much higher standards for inclusion than the English Wikipedia, being notoriously intolerant of pop culture articles. I'm among the first to !vote to delete non-notable bands and cruft, but I feel that this band easily meets our requirements for inclusion. Heather (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As closing admin, I would have preferred to come to some sort of agreement before DRV on a talkpage, but que sera. I do appreciate that you took the time to at least notify me. The debate at AfD was admittedly small, the article had very minimal sourcing, and the AfD participants were unanimous towards deletion, citing policy. I wouldn't have a problem with restoring the article for User:Heather and userfying to bring to the WP:MUSIC standards. The sources here at DRV were not brought up in AfD. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure but allow recreation Closure was correct as Keeper has said - consensus at AFD was for deletion based on the article and what was mentioned at the AFD. However new evidence raised by Heather suggests an article which meets WP:MUSIC can be written. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow recreation per above. The sources provided look more than adequate. For the record, recreating articles deleted through AfD doesn't have to be done through here unless the new one gets deleted by WP:CSD#G4 (assuming that it doesn't actually make G4). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and as a "gentle jab" to the DRV opener, I would have userfied this if you had come to my talkpage before, instead of after, opening this DRV. Had you written that paragraph above on my talkpage, you'd have the article by now. :-) For next time! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly opened this because I really feel that the closure was incorrect, given that all three !votes hinged on an incorrect claim that this band failed to meet WP:MUSIC. I would really like to see the article restored, but, if you would prefer that I recreate it, could I please have the content from it to work with? Thanks in advance. Heather (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have userfied the article as requested to User:Heather/Hel (band). Just make the necessary improvements with the sources you have identified above and then move it back to the mainspace. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks greatly! Can this be closed, then? And I really do apologise if I bothered anyone by coming here--I honestly did think that it was the appropriate action in this situation (I had missed that G4 only applied to the exact same content being restored by a non-admin). Heather (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and allow recreation. Another instance where pragmatism would have indicated a dialogue with the closing admin which would have prevented a measure of Wikidrama. In all these cases it is better to request an admin to userfy and then come here for a recreation when the rewritten page is ready. BlueValour (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Primelocation – Deletion endorsed. Jmtownsend is encourage to add reliably sourced material to the redirect's target, though if he does so he should consider whether Wikipedia's policies on editing content where one may have a conflict of interest apply to him – WjBscribe 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page currently redirects to the Daily Mail and General Trust Wikipedia entry. I had written an entry for Primelocation (a property portal in the UK) that was deemed by an admin to read too much like an advertisement, so he redirected to the DMGT page. However, there's actually no reference to Primelocation on the DMGT page, so this is really a poorly explained (or rather, completely unexplained) redirect. Anyone searching for Primelocation who doesn't realise that it's owned by DMGT would be confused as to why they'd been redirected to the DMGT page. At the admin's advice, I've rewritten the entry (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=User:Jmtownsend/Primelocation) and would like this redirect to be reviewed. Please let me know if there's anything I can add to (or delete from) the entry that will make it more suitable. There was a lot more content in the original entry, so it can be fleshed out if necessary.Jmtownsend (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The section that it redirects to has been removed, but it mentioned that it is owned by DMGT. Restoring that content should fix the problem, if the proposed version doesn't work out. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not struck with the userpage version. For example the sentence "Primelocation is a trading style of Fastcrop plc." is presumably dated? There seems to be two ways forward. First of all the nominator could simply add content to the DMGT page - that is a normal editorial action and no referral here is required. Alternatively a sourced version of the Primelocation page could be made with a request that it be recreated. There seems plenty of sources available but the present userpage version doesn't cut it. BlueValour (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call me an evil bastard, but I always endorse deletion of articles on commercial entities by single purpose accounts whose sole purpose on Wikipedia appears to be "documenting" (i.e. promoting) those commercial entities. So: endorse until such time as a Wikipedian with a history in other areas comes and asks. This is, after all, how we deal with requests for removal from spam blacklists by website owners. See Jmtownsend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Primelocation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Primelocation.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 11:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fraternal triplet – Wrong forum - deletion review is for reviewing deletions not for nominating articles for deletion, see Articles for deletion for that. Have boldly redirected the article to an appropriate article anyway – Davewild (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is redundant and... less than informative. The Multiple birth article covers all of the info in the Fraternal triplet page so there shouldn't be a merge issue. 'Fraternal triplet' might also be considered for a redirect to the multiple birth page. --Thaddius (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consider nominating it for deletion, according to the procedure at WP:AFD. This is not the placeDGG (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to Multiple birth, so people searching for "fraternal triplet" will be taken to the right place. No need for afd. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Big O and Dukes – Non admin closure of AFD overturned, relisting AFD – Davewild (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

not sure if this is the right place to pursue this, but this Afd was closed by a non-admin, closed before any consensus was reached, and then results were added in the wrong place, could an admin take a look at this? Rtphokie (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert close and relist I don't see a consensus to keep, and I don't see any good sources in the article either. Reopen & try to obtain consensus. DGG (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. One actual !vote isn't enough to make a snowball keep for non-admins, WP:NAC suggests at least six. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I need open a new AFD or will this be done automatically as a part of this review?--Rtphokie (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old one'll be reopened, if this closes that way. Reopening works best, since it keeps the old comments and !votes in the main AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take back to AfD - to see if a consensus can be formed. Guest9999 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and relist Improper premature closure by non-admin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Don't Copy That Floppy – Closure endorsed. – Kurykh 00:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Really not a very encyclopedic article; cruft. Nominated for deletion before and passed, but that probably says something about the people who edit wikipedia more than its merits. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain Keep Very clear consensus to keep, based on adequate arguments. The appeal above says basically that it should be deleted because our standards are too low. But the AfD did reflect our standards, which is what it's supposed to do. DGG (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep per DGG. The closure of the AfD was just fine, and DRV isn't AfD round 2. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep as AFD nominator per DGG. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - deletion review, as far as I know, is not the place to reiterate the same concerns as the AfD, only to object to procedural problems, inappropriate closures, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep No real reason has been provided for thinking the closure was incorrect as per above. If you still believe it should be deleted then it should be nominated at AFD again, but based on the sources found in the first AFD see little chance that it will be deleted. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - as I say often enough we are here to ensure that AFDs are properly closed not to substitute our judgement for that of the AFD participants. I should like to see the additional sources found in the AFD incorporated into the page but that is an editorial matter and not for here. BlueValour (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ajay Madhok – Deletion endorsed – WjBscribe 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is about an Indian Entrepreneur, and I would like to add more references to the article to prove its credibility.
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail1535.html
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/etel2007/view/e_spkr/2519
http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/topics/broadband-mobile/articles/21458-equals-adds-voice-social-networking.htm
PuneetaArora (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied this as pure spam/vanity, with unsourced puffy claims and plugs for the company eg thought leader and key contributor to the domain of digital identity; Equals platform, which adds new dimensions of choice, privacy and control to social networking.; with a vision to solve non-routine problems using innovative solutions, helping to put India on the map for high-end IT solutions. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though I cannot see the deleted versions, I trust that User:Jimfbleak acted in good faith and made the right choice. Not sure enough to !vote endorse, though. Note that nom apparently hasn't made any edits except on and regarding this page, though doesn't appear to necessarily be a bad single purpose account. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AfD The references cited above are enough to make a weak claim for notability. If it is, the article as entered can easily be rewritten to eliminate the spam quoted. There's another paragraph there describing the work and the patents. DGG (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I see nothing in the sources provided above which anybody could write a biography on, and that's the point of having an article on the person, right? No evidence that his only claim of notability, Equals, is notable. Is it? Who knows? We don't have an article on it. There are only 128 ghits for the term "equals platform", and nothing at Google news. There are only 75 ghits for "Ajay_Madhok" and only one at Google news. I'm not saying that there should never be an article on this person, but as of yet, I don't see notability. Corvus cornix_talk 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as with lifebaka I have no access to the deleted version so I can't comment on the closure. However, in principle, I am not keen on recreations on the hope that a satisfactory page can be produced. I much prefer a good userspace version be produced then a request is brought here for recreation. BlueValour (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do acknowledge the fact that i need to edit the article the remove language that suggests marketing of any kind. I've put up an edited version on my sandbox, which i would use to restore the page. I'm citing a few other references for Ajay and Equals-

An article that was published in a business magazine in 1998 and again in 2001 that mentions Ajay's entrepreneurial success.

http://www.outlookmoney.com/scripts/IIH021C1.asp?sectionid=10&categoryid=48&articleid=902
http://www1.iinvestor.com/scripts/IIH021C1.asp?sectionid=10&categoryid=48&articleid=1953

Alec Saunders from Iotum talks about services to be offered by Equals

http://saunderslog.com/2006/01/page/2/

Phil windley talks about Equals

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3634

Fox Business covers the launch of Equals in Feb '08

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/equals-launches-public-beta-party-line_491768_1.html

Facebook app from Equals

http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=24334230464

Ajay's published patents at USPTO

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=IN%2F%28ajay+and+Madhok%29&d=PG01 PuneetaArora (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why I've been asked to comment again, but the sandboxed version is still spammy, subjects's name as a heading, talking about his vision and lots of links to the company. It's still basically a vanity page. I note that the refs above are mainly for the company - Is this article about him or his business/ Jimfbleak (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted echoing the above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dark_and_Shattered_Lands – Recreation allowed. May be editorially relisted at AfD if desired. – Eluchil404 (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason I'd like to request undeletion of this page is because the DSL MUD is a very old MUD which is still one of the most popular MUDs on the internet which is both ROM based and Dragonlance based. As MUDs have been shrinking over the years, it would be nice to keep any large, popular MUD around. I think some of the arguments could be countered, for example the Google argument, the string "Dark and Shattered Lands" was used, but "Dark & Shattered Lands" should have also been used. This turns up more Google hits than, for example, "TorilMUD", which also has a Wikipedia entry. DSL also has a larger and more active playerbase than TorilMUD and is also a very old MUD like TorilMUD, but with a different theme and a codebase which has evolved separately to become very different in its own right. I think that MUDs like this should be preserved, since people will want to know what kind of MUDs are out there when they Wikipedia MUDs, ROM, Dragonlance, etc. Not everybody knows about DSL, but not everybody knows about Toril, or it's old sister mud Duris, or many other MUDs or even what a MUD is, but I think they warrant Wikipedia pages and I believe that DSL does too since individually they may all not be very notable save the original Diku, but collectively they do make up a long and interesting history of Internet gaming and have some ties into RPGs, MMORPGs, online interactive games, etc. Also, as an example of an active, live, and larger MUD today, DSL would give a user a good experience, in the sense that it would give somebody an idea of what a MUD is like. In particular DSL is a very well-rounded MUD, so one could either "clan" and PK (Player Kill) or "kingdom" and RP (Roleplay). It has normal hack-and-slash, and a large number of classes, races and skill. Basically, I also think DSL is a good example of a MUD for a curious person to play, whereas other MUDs are rapidly declining today.

There are online resources that do refer to DSL: http://www.mudconnect.com http://www.topmudsite.com http://www.mudmagic.com http://www.zuggsoft.com/zmud/msplist.htm http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Literature/Genres/Fantasy/Series/Dragonlance/Online_Games/ and zMUD and the new CMUD which are the most popular MUD clients used has DSL as an entry in its list of MUDs, so somebody searching on the internet could possibly actually Wiki this MUD. There are also usenet references to DSL, which can be found via Google Groups.

So, in short, I think there is actually some merit in keeping the Dark_and_Shattered_Lands Wikipedia entry around. Rahennig (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The AfD apparently was quite some time ago, but the article was deleted out of notability concerns. And none of the five links above seem to be reliable independent sources as per current guidelines, so I don't think re-creation should be permitted. Of course, what you say is all true, and personally I think the game should have an article somewhere - just not on Wikipedia, where we have this kind of guidelines. --Minimaki (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AfD was closed just fine, given the input in it. If you want to recreate the page, you may do so, but be aware that, if it is too similar to the previously AfD's version, it will be deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation but as Lifebaka says, it will need to be different: the previous one did contain some encyclopedic content, but most of it consisted of an absurdly detailed plot summary of the backstory, that would not possibly meet any reasonable standard. DGG (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What about WP:ORG? DSL would fit longevity criteria. As a part of a greater whole, the MUDding community in general, which is quite large, although hard to count, a way to document the MUDding community at large is to document the individual MUDs, which have always been a bit like fiefdoms, never achieving very large size, or getting great search engine hits, or getting news coverage. Also, if it is allowable to recreate the page, could it be restored so that there is some content to work with, to make the process easier? --Rahennig (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate it. If you've got sources then just go; we can't stop you or tell you that it won't be deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the new one, I deleted it via G4 as not sufficiently different. It is still mainly a list of characters. Still no visible sources, DGG (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has just been re-created yet again, this time without the list of characters. I'll let someone else judge if another G4 is warranted.DGG (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its now been tagged by someone else with a G11, and then a hangon was added. Just fyi--I'm staying out of it.DGG (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hell. This isn't going to help your case, just so you know. Looking at the version that's currently up, you still need reliable sources in third-party publications to establish notability. Now, you shouldn't recreate the page unless you already have some of these prepared, since it will most likely just be speedied again. If there's a third deletion within 24 hours of this, I suggest temporarily salting the page and userfying a version to be worked on. My suggestion that you recreate it isn't any sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added in the last hour or so. Suggest close if the article if the G11 tag on the page gets declined. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just declined the speedy about fifteen minutes ago--although I haven't looked at the deleted revisions, the article as it stands looks all right to me. --jonny-m t 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 March 2008

User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious – Deletions overturned. There is no consensus as to how long userfied copies of deleted articles may be kept, though these clearly shouldn't be kept indefinitely when no one is going to be working on them. Where a user asks for content to be userfied, it should not really be deleted over their objections without discussion unless there are very good reasons for this. I encourage Tlogmer to consider realistically how many of these pages (and those discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages) he has time to improve and to request the deletion of those he is unlikely to get around to. That said, the consensus in both discussions is to extend Tlogmer the benefit of the doubt. – WjBscribe 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

After Captain Obvious was deleted from the article space, I requested that an admin move a copy into my userspace (I wanted to improve it or find a good home for it) -- userfication of deleted articles is explicitly permitted in WP:Userfication. A couple of weeks ago, User:Orangemike speedied the userfied page, without notifying me. Apart from anything else, speedy deletion criteria don't apply within userspace. Orangemike also speedied several other user pages, which I likewise want restored: User:Tlogmer/Sleaze rock, User:Tlogmer/Effects of Christmas on the environment, User:Tlogmer/Death yell, User:Tlogmer/Book of spells of serpents. (He hasn't responded to a message I left him, so I'm taking it here.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: just to be clear, I'm asking that these be restored to my userspace, not to the main article space. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Fix't links to userspace pages and AfD to third nom, where it actually was deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This user currently has several other Userfied articles under consideration at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages. I would suggest we wait until that MfD is complete before proceeding further. -- Kesh (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore all. Technically the G4s weren't wrong, but since there doesn't appear to be any reason not to grant this request, we should. Note that User:Tlogmer/Sleaze rock was deleted by User:Rudget, not Mike. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I disagree that WP:CSD G4 applies to the userification of an article per WP:Userification, even technically. G4 is defined as the recreation of a deleted article. Since WP:Userification says moving an article to a user page fulfills an AfD, it's simply not a recreation and G4 just doesn't apply. (The fact that userified articles get an MfD, not an AfD, is also recognition that they've become something different). Interpreting G4 otherwise would flatly contradict WP:Userification. The Catch-22s created by rules that flatly contradict each other are unjust, and just plain annoy people. We should avoid such a situation at all costs. Please don't annoy the volunteers. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
restore per Shira. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we mirror the outcome of the MfD. Don't think there's any point in divergence (unless the MfD is closed as delete and Tlogmer really wants a few particular pages restored). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror the other debate, as suggested above, per the same reasons --Enric Naval (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the MfD to conclude If those pages are kept, so should these be; if those pages are deleted, they can be added to the Deletion Review and considered here together. DGG (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On reflection WP:UFY appears to currently be simply a proposal, it appears not to have been formally made a guideline. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore If he thinks he can rescue these articles, then in good faith I'll believe him. That's what user space is for. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dan Rosenberg – Deletion endorsed – WjBscribe 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Real person, real reason to be here 69.225.202.10 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no sources, then endorse both deletions per WP:BLP. --Core desat 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69, read the afd discussion. The article was deleted because no reliable, substantial sources about him could be found. Find some and you might have a case for a reversal. "Real person" will not get you very far. See WP:BIO. 152.3.247.59 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion We need evidence that this person meets our criteria for inclusion of biographies. Right now, we don't have that. If you so us some non-trivial, independent reliable sources then we can consider it. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sorry, but WP:BLP says no sources = deletion. If you can suggest some, that'd be great. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation if there's a third party source. The article as deleted had usable non-third party sources for the routine facts of the career. Such sources are accepted for things that are not in any way controversial, and there was not any. The problem as I see it is that there was no specific sourcing given for his regular performance at major venues, which would have shown notability. I have temporarily restored it for examination to my own user space as User:DGG/DR. If anyone objects to this, please let me know. It would not have done it for a bio with anything negative & unsourced. DGG (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation - A host on KLSX, one of the most notable talk radio stations in the US, and a regular at The Improv and The Laugh Factory most certainly is notable. BLP calls for the immediate removal of "contentious" material, not for the deletion of an entire notable person's article simply because what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" aren't placed in the article yet. --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; any article can be deleted for lacking reliable sources; that's WP:V in a nutshell. --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be reading a different "in a nutshell." An article topic doesn't fail WP:V if the content is currently unverified, but if it's completely unverifiable. The content, like this person being a host on KLSX, is easily verifiable (and here's the verification).--Oakshade (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources are generally required for verification - "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be (and are) found on this topic. I guess you missed this one verifying the KLSX radio host part. Everything in DGGs stub can be verified. --Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a challenge to the veracity of the material, we do not require third party sources for routine bio material that is on an official page, or some similar responsible place. In this case, the radio station's page is sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, firstly, I don't think WP:BLP is the main issue here, and the page was not deleted for BLP reasons. Looking at the the recreated article and the AfD though, it seems to me as though the deletion arguments presented last July are still valid. I don't doubt the accuracy of the information here, but generally if someone is notable there will be at least some mention of the person in an independent source, which I still don't see in this case. A websearch brings up basically the same results as 9 months ago. That being said, I'm not strongly opposed to this being recreated, but think at least some independent sourcing should be introduced if this is so (such as some sort of outside review of either his radio show or comedy performances). shoeofdeath 05:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation, due to some evidence of notability, but better sources must be found ASAP. BTW, this the first time ever that I have agreed to re-creation at WP:DRV in my 13 months at WP. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Current stub has no properly independent sources either. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Zero independent reliable sources, which absolutely falls afoul of BLP. -- Kesh (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Userbox – CSD G4 deletion overturned, with evidence of the reference provided below. No prejudice against re-listing at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason why this was deleted so many times in 2006 was because as a redirect it was a "cross-namespace redirect." At the time, the term userbox was not notable enough for an actual article - but 18 months later, userbox is notable enough for its own article. A Google search for userbox -wikipedia retrieves over 300,000 hits. My proposal (which got deleted today) was to write a [[Userbox]] article - for example: "A userbox is an infobox on a user page in a wiki community. It usually describes the user in a certain way. Userboxes can be organized in a userbox tower." Then along the top can be written For information on Wikipedia userboxes, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. When I became curious last autumn about userboxes, the first place I looked to learn more was Wikipedia. I was surprised to find no article, and no direction. There really should be something. Kingturtle (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, WP:ASR, the sheer number of times anything at all here has been deleted should tell you something. There is no way userboxes are notable enough outside Wikipedia that an article on them is warranted, and Google hits themselves tell you nothing. None of those hits appear to be relevant in the least. --Core desat 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer number of times this article has been re-created should tell you something :) Kingturtle (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It may have been self-referential in 2006, but in 2008 it is not. Kingturtle (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still is. If you can convince me it's not by presenting reliable sources - that is, not just pages passively referring to a similarly-named feature they happen to have - maybe I'll change my mind. --Core desat 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't have a change to expand the article or to collaborate with other editors because it got deleted. That's why we are in this forum now. Kingturtle (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support overturning as this does not appear to be a correct use of the G4 speedy criteria as the original deletion debate quoted by the deleting admin was about a redirect not an article. However I doubt that there are reliable sources out there from which to write an article so see little point in overturning the deletion just for it to be quickly deleted at AFD afterwards; and also this might be seen as a backdoor way of creating such a cross name space redirect. If some reliable sources can be produced to demonstrate at least a shot at notability then will support overturning otherwise will have to say keep deleted. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not trying to get anything through a backdoor here. Kingturtle (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that might have come out badly, was not accusing you of doing so, but the perception it might be could explain part of the reasoning behind the speedy and could be an argument of deletion used by others. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No !vote, but if it was improperly speedied under G4 (since apparently it wasn't actually a recreation of deleted material), then shouldn't it be undeleted so that a wider community can have a look at it and determine its notability? -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a temporary undeletion of the article for the duration of the deletion review (but there is little there - 2 to 3 sentences), if nobody else objects I will do so. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you should give the article some time to be written before it is put up for AfD. Kingturtle (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was around for five days before it was speedy deleted and if there was even one reliable source produced in the article or elesewhere covering userboxs anywhere near significantly would support overturning and would support giving plenty of time for a reasonable article to be written. What I was suggesting above was just temporarily undeleting the article (last four or five revisions so that non-admins could see what was being discussed here. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn Does not meet G4 and is a reasonable topic for an article if sources actually exist. ASR doesn't mean we can't have articles about wikis, it is a style guide meaning that we can't have articles that say things like "Such as on this wiki". At some point I suspect we will have enough material to write a separate article on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, and that will be fine. I'll be interested to see if there is enough sourcing to make Userbox a real article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you have a proposed version? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote my initial stub version above, in my original post. Kingturtle (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation, then. Doesn't look like an overturn would do much, but I don't know if a history merge with the G4'd version would be appropriate. The ref below is good enough for a short stub like that; if anyone really wants to know more, the link to WP:UBX will help a lot. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation. Unimpressive as it might be, I have found a non-wikipedia, non-wikimedia reference that discuss (albeit briefly) userboxes:

A Guide to Wikipedia from Cornell University. Kingturtle (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken userboxes are also discussed in some detail in John Broughton's recent book "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual". JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that all a bit WP:CRUFTy? -62.172.143.205 (talk)

Overturn As promised above, should not have been deleted as a G4 as I explained above and a source has been produced as a starting point for an article which addresses my objection. We should therefore overturn the deletion and give time to see if a reasonable article can be created. Davewild (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn never met G4. Has been here many times, and has never been actually deleted in a community discussion. The full text of the article is ":''For information on Wikipedia userboxes, see [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]].'' A '''userbox''' is an [[infobox]] on a [[user page]] in a [[wiki]] community. It usually describes the user in a certain way. Userboxes can be organized in a [[userbox tower]]." Assuming Wikipedia is not the only wiki in the world that makes use of these things, an article would seem appropriate. DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The key word here being "assuming." We don't know, because there are no reliable sources. -- Kesh (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I'm going to do what I usually do here: suggest that a version be created in Userspace first, with the proper sourcing. At this point it doesn't really matter if it was an improper G4. DGG already pointed out that it was simply an unsourced stub. If the subject is notable, a user sandbox version can be made and we can work from there. A mainspace version is unnecessary, and overturning this one will just turn into another mess at AfD that'll get dragged back here again.-- Kesh (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted WP:ASR and no case is made here for how on earth this is encyclopedic.--Doc^g 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ASR. It may not say what you think it says. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with the specific connotation of "Do not delete a valid article as a cross-namespace redirect". It's pretty clear that if you can find sources that document the userboxitis on wikis in general, this is a valid topic for discussion - if not, this article probably shouldn't exist and should remain a redlink. Anyhow, since the article isn't protected or anything, I guess a draft would be more helpful than discussion in DRV. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Yes, Avoid self-references applies here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, self-referential. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Quantum fiction – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the first time I use this page. A couple days ago when I stumbled on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages an editor told me to use deletion review so I am here now. When I checked the deletion discussion, it was clearly about 50-50 split between the "Keeps" and "Deletes" and the Keep people do have pretty convincing arguments such as the citation. The Publishers Weekly is not a trivial publication. It was ended as "Keep" but mysteriously another guy came in and "override"s it, making it "Delete" again. There seems to be so much confusion over it. So IMO it should be restored. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I overrode the closure and reclosed it as delete because a non-admin should not have closed that discussion; indeed, they shouldn't close discussions that aren't unanimous or obvious. I have no opinion regarding the article. --Core desat 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The nonadmin closure was incorrect--first, it shouldnt have been closed by a nonadmin when it wasnt really clear, and it shouldnt have been closed as a keep because there was no real consensus. --but the later closure seems not quite right either, for it seems to have had no consensus after an inconclusive discussion. No opinion on the actual merits of the article--this needs more discussion.DGG (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as "Neologism coined by the author of one novel", allow redirect to the novel. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There seems to have been some spa/puppeting on the keep side of the AfD; but even putting that aside, the close was a reasonable judgment call, based on the weight of the arguments presented. (This isn't supposed to be a second round of AfD, but I'd have recommended "delete" if I'd happened to notice this one.) Deor (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There's nothing wrong with Core's closure; disagreeing with it doesn't mean we can overturn it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Keep arguments did not address policy issues with the article. -- Kesh (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in topic how do I find out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stentie (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hi-C (rapper) – Decline of speedy deletion tag endorsed. If someone wishes this article deleted, they should nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which I would suggest to the nominator is a better forum for getting 2nd opinions on whether articles should be kept – WjBscribe 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been speedily deleted a few times but I'm not sure if it's obviously non-notable. The article claims that he has recorded for some high-profile labels such as Hollywood Records and Tommy Boy Records, and appeared on songs for well-known rappers. A few of his songs are also in the soundtrack of Malibu's Most Wanted (although I don't think we should hold that against him). He also walked the red carpet (and was attacked) at The Source awards, which was a newsworthy occurrence. ... discospinster _talk 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, needs cleanup If he was involved in the making of Malibu's Most Wanted, I'm going to vote keep based on this alone, as I found that film to be quite hilarious. I realize my bias however - as a former resident of Ventura County, I was exposed to entirely too many people who acted entirely too much just like the protagonist of that film. Some, almost exactly. So, I found it far funnier than most audiences. Also, this is doubtless part of the reason I now live in Arizona... I'll add that to the article with a cite from imdb, but I'm not really into rap music so I'll leave the rest of the cleanup effort for someone else.Zaphraud (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is about the process of deletion, not about the contents deleted. —Kurykh 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list Claims of notablity appear strong, documentation I can't see. But not a speedy as the notability claims exist. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, the article was speedied on 3/20/08, recreated on 3/23, speedy-tagged but you declined and opened an AFD instead, then closed that and opened this DRV. What deletion are we reviewing? As terrible as the article is, given this and no delete votes, it's a valid if unsourced article -- so endorse your decline of speedy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to make it clear, I am claiming that the article should not have been speedily deleted in the first place, not just that the current speedy should be declined. It does not have to do with the AfD that I had opened, which I then closed because I was told that I was in the wrong place. ... discospinster _talk 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article exists, nobody is arguing that it should be speedy deleted now and see little point in debating whether the previous deletion was valid or not especially given how the present version is better than the one that was deleted. If anyone feels the history should be restored go ahead. (or ask and I will do it) Discospinster would you object to this just being closed as Refusal of speedy deletion endorsed. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no objection to it being closed. ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not been speedied this time, but it wasn't declined by anyone. If the older versions are better than the current, restore one of 'em, but mostly this seems kinda' outside what DRV's meant for. I'm goin' for close this, 'cuz we can't do anything with it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send back to AFD. The claims of notability may be strong but we need to cite reliable third party publications to back up these claims, or remove them entirely, especially when dealing with WP:BLP (biographies of living people). (jarbarf) (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: artist is notable enought, his album have charted on national charts. Source. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 March 2008

Magillem – Deletion endorsed, since the deletion discussion already took coverage resembling press releases into account, in which case the repost or a future draft needs to make a clearer case that independent references are available. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Added references ans external links Andretalierciom (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider it.Thank you

Endorse deletion, sorry. Nothing wrong with the AfD and reposts and single-purpose account concerns don't help. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major bad faith there. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it will be ok if we have multi-purpose account, how ow do we do it we need to recreate the page and add contributions? Andretalierciom (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "we" that's the problem. See WP:COI (and WP:BAI for that matter). Guy (Help!) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but how does the re-submission work? Thank you Guy Andretalierciom (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist the new version of the article has some references in it while the one that was deleted at AFD was totally unreferenced. The lack of references to establish notability was the main reason for deletion at AFD so the new version deserves to be considered again at AFD to see whether the references are sufficient for notability. I am unsure personally whether the references do establish notability so that is why I suggest relisting. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dave, but how is relist done? Thank you again. Andretalierciom (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen is that this will remain open for five days. (or perhaps earlier if a clear consensus is formed) Then an admin will review this discussion and decide what should be done based on the discussion. If my suggestion for a relist is accepted that article will be restored and then relisted on Articles of deletion to see whether the article meets wikipedia's policies and guidelines in particular in this case WP:CORP. Davewild (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I'm with Dave here; it looks like the new article doesn't match the previously AfD'd one. 'Course, I'm just saying that from what the AfD says and what the creator has said, so I might be wrong. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, a copy of the most recently deleted version was provided to the author on his talk page, per his request. The references shown in that version of the article appear to be press-release about the products, which would be comparable or the same to those found when looking at the original AfD. They do not establish notability via a reliable, independent secondary source - nothing has changed here to justify this DRV. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit reinsertion I think the sources in the present userified article are sufficient to support it, or at least justify another AfD. DGG (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The version on this user's Talk page only has three cites, and all of them are press releases. Without verifiable independent sources, there's no reason to relist on AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Daniel Brandt – Deletion endorsed. The debate below brought up many issues, but many of the arguments to keep the redirect reflect not on the information one gets from this redirect, but rather not to let Brandt 'bully' us into deleting this, or that we shouldn't delete this page since this is an encyclopedia where people might want to learn about Brandt. While I agree that this second argument has some merit (more on this in a moment), we certainly should not be deciding whether to have an article based on the conduct of the person in relation to Wikipedia, as opposed to established guidelines on notability and verifiability. So it is important to look at this situation not in respect to Brandt, but in respect to whether this redirect is worth keeping. While I agree with the users below who bring up that this was not a simple CSD deletion, and likely should have gone through RfD, I believe that WJB was only trying to improve Wikipedia, and though I would not preformed a deletion in this way myself, I can accept a WP:IAR argument for it. Now, returning to the topic of keeping content on a possibly notable person, the main pitfall of this argument is that the page on PIR contains almost no information at all about Brandt, just a single sentence contains information that is actually about Brandt, the other references to him simply being in lieu of the company name. Therefore, I believe any notability type arguments need to be kept to article discussions, not one about a redirect. I find the most compelling arguments, and the best reasoning, to be that those wishing to learn about Brandt will learn nothing about him at the PIR article, and therefore this redirect is quite worthless. If people want to know about him, create and stick to an article, don't create a redirect that will only get Joe Reader lost. While issues with Brandt are of course complex due to his history, I feel that if we ignore the spite that is (perhaps rightfully) aimed at him for his actions, it is quite clear that this is truly a valueless redirect. Thank you all for your input, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. – Prodego ^talk 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved to: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Quan (rapper) – Article restored with consent of deleting admin. Relisting at editorial discretion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was admittedly written rather badly, but the guy is unquestionably notable. He's signed to a notable record label, Atlantic Records, and has appeared on the albums of three separate, notable artists: Nas, Cassidy, and Jeannie Ortega. Additionally, I found some sources that can be used: [29] [30] [31], as well as the ones that were already listed in the article. GlassCobra 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse undeletion and/or relisting. As the closing administrator, I didn't have much to go on, but the consensus appeared to be delete based on the parsity of independent, reliable sourcing that was found by those opining for delete. I have no problem with this being undeleted and renominated (if warranted) to get a stronger consensus. In hindsight, I should have relisted instead of closed based on the discussion and late "developments." Thanks to GlassCobra for visiting my talkpage before coming here, much appreciated! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore as the deleting admin has no objection and in light of the new sources found by GlassCobra. Anyone can list it again on AFD if they want but personally do not see the need as it now appears to meet WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen – Restore history. Per principle #4 of the Badlydrawnjeff case, "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy". Whilst Doc Glasgow acted in accordance with that principle, over the course of this review the negative material in the article has been sourced to bring it into compliance with WP:BLP. As the current text is clearly substantially based on the deleted version of the article, the history needs to be restored for GFDL compliance. – WjBscribe 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

An administrator (User:Doc glasgow)randomly deleted several articles he personally felt deserved to be deleted, without proposing AFDs, PRODs or anything similar. This was a fairly balanced article about a fairly notable American legal case that tried to prosecute a man for his online actions (4,260 google hits, specific to him). I see the same administrator has been questioned for his habit of deleting articles in the past, without AFD, PROD or even notifying the page's authors...simply "disappearing" them. He was also listed on the Administrator's Noticeboard for the same actions, and removed criticism of his deletions from his talk page - and I have to echo the same concerns. AfD is the proper route for an article you wish to see deleted (and I'm quite confident that Sami Omar al-Hussayen would've resulted in a strong "Keep" vote at an AfD). The administrator in question deleted eight articles yesterday alone, for anything from "has an unreferenced tag" to "disagreement whether arrested in 2000 or 2001", this is definitely not an acceptable action. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, you see I have this nasty habit of hitting random article and then delete. Maybe I need counselling? Seriously though, if the editor had bothered to speak to me before researching my list of sins, he'd have been told that this was a WP:BLP containing a string of unreferenced criminal allegations about a living person, and had been marked as unreferenced since July 2007. There was no BLP compliant version to revert to. If someone wants to create a properly sourced version, I've no problems with it, and happy to give them the history with which to do it.--Doc^g 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles is not the answer - especially not without creating an AfD or even informing the page authors - quite simply, it's an abuse of admin powers. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy on biographies of living people is reasonably clear that deletion is the answer - "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion" --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and list at AfD. Sherurcij has a point there. That other course of action indeed seems to be a "nasty habit." <K F> 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. We don't need to make a drama about straightforward deletion of unsourced criminal allegations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB if anyone cares about the article rather than using this as a stick to hit me with, I am happy to userfy the history and allow them to fix the sourcing, make it BLP complaint then move it back into article space. Any takers?--Doc^g 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily grab the text off the Google cache of the page, nobody is trying to "hit you with a stick", I'm trying to determine the validity of your actions in autonomously deleting pages without discussion. Is there any reason why you don't list the pages for AfD instead? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AfD is for debating "do we want an article on this subject?" - that question merits a debate. Whereas my question was "do we want unsourced allegations about this subject?" - there's no need for a debate with that question as policy WP:BLP says unsourced negative allegations MUST be removed. Anyway, I've no general objection to their being an article on this subject providing it is sourced.--Doc^g 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would do better to leave the article existing, and bring attention to its unreferenced status up on the talk pages of the authors, than simply deleting it - which most of them will never notice. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced states was noted LAST JUNE, and the article tagged as such, and the authors had done precisely nothing about it.--Doc^g 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion Negative unsourced bio which has been around since 2004! BLP is quite clear that speedy deletion is the correct course of action in this situation as I cannot find any good version of the article. Allow recreation if anyone writes a properly sourced and BLP compliant article. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. From the cache, it looks pretty fine to me. BLPs gotta' be sourced, whether they're positive or negative. Nothing wrong if anyone wants to recreate a sourced one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if the article was unreferenced since July 2007, then it was hardly an emergency, requiring the use of emergency powers.
- If I read the above properly, the admin in question not only deleted the article in question, without getting a second opinion, by tagging it to show his or her concern, but his or her contribution log seems to show that he or she did not take any steps whatsoever to even inform the article creator.
- It seems to me that part of the role of the wikipedia's administrators is education. Don't bite the newbies. If a wikipedia contributor really did violate WP:BLP shouldn't it have been part of this admin's responsibilities to instruct, not just delete? How are well-meaning newbies going to learn they are violating policy, if the admin's delete articles silently? How are newbies going to learn how to comply with policy if they aren't offered a simple, good-faith explanation as to what they did wrong.
  - I shouldn't need to say this. But even Homer nods. Administrators are human, and are going to make the occasional mistakes. I want every active administrator to be mature enough to bear in mind that they are capable of error. Administrators who don't feel obliged to make their rulings openly, and, for example, offer a heads-up when they delete an article, aren't going to get the feedback necessary to them to wise up, and realize that they are making the occasional mistake they being human are bound to make.
- Last month I found another administrator had unilaterally deleted eight articles I started, in a single session, and, as with this case, made no attempt to inform the article creator (me). All kinds of people dreamed up all kinds of excuses for that admin's actions, assuming that he or she had deleted those articles after someone else had applied some valid tag to them. But they hadn't. I left what I regarded as civil requests for an explanation on that admins talk page. It is four weeks later, and I am still waiting for a reply.
- I urge administrators to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, and reserve their emergency power to perform unilateral deletions for actual emergencies. I urge administrators to use their authority openly and transparently. If the admin thought it was a {{G10}} then nothing stopped the admin from tagging it for speedy deletion, and telling the article creator, and letting another administrator complete the deletion. IMO any administrator who is too tired to be prepared to civilly explain the reasoning behind their exercise of authority, would be better serving the wikipedia to take the rest of the day off, and let other administrators take over.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand a word of this. What's WP:BITE got to do with anything? No, it was not urgent, but the content needed removing and had had years to be sourced. If you've got a problem with it, I'll userfy the article's history and you can source it yourself. If not, what are you saying?--Doc^g 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You don't understand?
1. Only use your powers when you have to, as per Wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators.
2. Don't delete articles without telling the article creator.
3. The wikipedia community entrusted you with administrator powers on the assumption that you would use them fairly, in an open, transparent, accountable fashion. When you delete articles, without telling anyone, then your decision is not open, transparent, and accountable.
4. A willingness to userify an article, so interested parties can provide references, is completely meaningless, when an administrator deletes the article silently -- and doesn't tell anyone.
5. The wikipedia has a deletion log, but it is insufficient to serve as an audit trail. The deletion log contains two kinds of entries.
  - The deletion log contains entries that show an article was deleted following an {{afd}}.
  - And the deletion log contains entries that are marked with the a criteria tag from WP:CSD. When people look at these log entries they assume the deleting administrator was completing a two stage process, where someone presumably applied a valid criteria from WP:CSD. WP:CSD recommends nominators advise the article creator that the article was tagged for speedy deletion. IMO this heads-up should not be discretionary, it should be obligatory.
  - There is no style of deletion log entry that signals that an administrator exercised emergency powers, and deleted an article that had not been previously tagged -- that wasn't looked with two sets of eyes. This is a problem.

I did a google search on "Sami Omar Al-Hussayen". The deleting administrator would have seen, if he or she had spent twenty seconds doing a google search, that lots of good sources that could have been used as references to an article about existed.

Yes, I have seen the closing administrators repeated offers to userify the article in the User spaces of various wikipedians who have voiced their concerns. I am sorry, but it seems to me that those offers to userify give the appearance of irresponsibility. These offers do not get to the root of the problem -- the administrator in question did not tell the article creator, or anyone else, that they deleted the article.

How many articles has this administrator deleted, unilaterally, and then not told anyone? Just this one? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? We have no idea. If this administrator really does make a habit of this he or she probably has no idea.

I am very disturbed that the administrator in question doesn't seem willing, or able, to understand the concerns their actions have raised.

Wikipedia administrators are granted their powers by the wikipedia community. And the rest of the wikipedia community should feel a reasonable expectation that those granted administrator powers should do so responsibly, accountably, in an open and transparent manner.

Deleting admin says he or she doesn't understand the WP:BITE concern I raised. I am not an admin. I can't look at the history, to see who worked on the article. For all I know it was a newbie, who created it, in good faith. What is that newbie going to learn from this experience? That the wikipedia is unreliable, because their first efforts disappeared, without any warning or explanation? That the wikipedia has empowered a bunch of big shots who feel entitled to delete articles without warning, possibly just because they don't like them? ::If the article was deleted because the someone tagged it with a {{prod}} or some form of {{db}}, then, the person who placed the tag should have left a heads-up for the article creator. So, when an administrator exercises their emergency powers, and deletes an article, on-sight, then that administrator is going to have to be with one who tells the article creator they deleted the article. And they are going to have to be the person who tells the creator why they deleted the article. In order to comply with WP:BITE that notice and explanation should not be an opaque reference to A7 or G10. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per BLP, no prejudice against a properly sourced recreation. Just because no one noticed it for a year doesn't mean that deletion cannot be urgent. Mr.Z-man 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a source or two (or 1590) that could probably be used for a new, sourced article on the subject. --Conti|✉ 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what's going on here. What's going on? I need more facts before I reach any sort of conclusion as to who's right. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and source based on the sources listed above. Editor of the wiki 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Can I move it into your userspace and let you get on with sourcing each negative statement, before we replace it in article space? It really is excellent when someone volunteers to do all that work.--Doc^g 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I've pointed out somewhere or the other that, in my opinion Doc's gone overboard with the button recently. "...the content needed removing and had had years to be sourced..." - Then stubify, sure. S-protect, sure. But too much deletion isn't helpful. Relata refero (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've recreated it as a stub minus all the unreferenced stuff. Happy?--Doc^g 12:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a link to this stub the deleting admin created. Deleting admin asked if we were happy. Heck no. The entire contents of the stub the deleting admin created was:

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen is a person.^{[citation needed]}

I think this stub creation sails very close to a violation of WP:POINT and WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still a lot of unsourced claims there, which I have tagged, and I'm not sure that discoverthenetworks.org is a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I too wondered about Discover the Networks. Our article about it says it is one of the stable of online publications edited by the team which edits FrontPage Magazine. Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: -- the deleting admin created a stub, which has since been expanded. I provided additional references to address the concerns of most of the {{cn}} tags.

Note: -- The deleting admin has not restored the previous edit history. When I participate in {{RfA}}s I ask every candidate for administrator whether they are committing themselves to accountable decision-making. I ask them if they are committing themselves to remember that they are human, and fallible, and will be willing to consider they may have been mistaken, whenever someone has questions about one of their decisions, and will be willing to openly acknowledge when they made a mistake. If the wikipedia is going to cultivate a culture of respectful decision-making, based on civil exchange of reasoned discussions this is what is required of administrators. I am sorry to report that IMO the responses of the deleting administrator, in this particular case, fall far short of this standard. Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As an anon pointed out earlier: "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion ". Further, restoring the edit history of an attack page is not the way we want to go. Creating a new, clean article that adheres to WP:V and WP:N would be the way to go here, not bringing back a page with unsourced negative content in its history. Doc has acted in the proper manner, and does not need to be piled on as is happening here. -- Kesh (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An attack page? I'm sorry, the article looks virtually the same as it did at deletion, except now the facts have little numbers after them. I'm not sure how you can really justify calling the article an "attack page" - could you perhaps explain? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article isn't about him; it's about the accusations against him. Regardless of whether or not they're sourced, it's a litany of negative accusations with zero biographical content. The page only exists to make him look bad, because we don't have any other information about him. That's the essence of an attack page. -- Kesh (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment When someone encounters a page like this it doesn't hurt to take 5 minutes to google it. And if they feel that they dont have time to do that, they should leave a polite note with a relevant active project that they are deleting an article related to their subject. Deletion of such content makes sense if one can't find any sources. When the sources are easy to locate it doesn't hurt to take a few minutes to add them in. This isn't a call for overturning because at this point I don't see what would be gained by overturning the difs since the matter has now been handled. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polite note? It had a polite note on it for months - fat lot of use that did. I know in an ideal world where there were no real-world consequences to out actions and all we have to worry about was not offending fellow wikipedians, then the onus would be on the challenger to fix it. Well, sorry, no. If I encounter an unsourced negative bio, I will excise the material and move on the the next. If the unsourced negative stuff can't be excised I will delete. (I've deleted about 30 or so in the last 48 hours.) It is absolutely essential we move towards a zero-tolerance approach for unsourced negative material. If someone wants to come and ask for underletion later, with a willingness to sources it, then fine. See User:Doc glasgow/BLP deletion for my willingness to undelete. However, long term we simply need to reduce the number of bios to a level where we can maintain them against the possibility of unverified material.--Doc^g 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and dandy, but couldn't you at least take the 20 seconds it takes to do a quick search for sources on a BLP before you delete it? And if you find sources, maybe leave a note at the right Wikiproject that they're free to recreate the article with those sources you found? Or, while we're at it, improve the article yourself, maybe. Wouldn't that be the Wiki thing to do? :) --Conti|✉ 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If more people were patrolling and removing stuff from unreferenced BLPs, then maybe we'd have the luxury of doing stuff to help in recreating lost material. But right now, the pressing need is for removal not worrying too much about collateral damage. I just wish people would be more anxious to help with getting unreferenced allegations off wikipedia than moaning that those who do don't spend more time fixing things for retention. Our inclusionist guns are facing in the wrong direction.--Doc^g 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn reading the cached article, I don't see how this is an attack article and so doesn't qualify (IMO) under G10. Additionally, the deleting admin's behavior in this has been pointy at best. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Posting on behalf of User:AlexandreJ, who is new and unfamiliar with the DRV process. Article failed AfD and was deleted while author was unavailable to edit or defend the article prior to it's deletion. Article was recreated by author in violation of CSD G4 criteria, but author was unaware that the DRV venue existed. A second AfD is currently in progress, but I have pointed the author here to voice his concerns. My speedy endorsement in the ongoing AfD is for the G4 violation. I am otherwise neutral. DarkAudit (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep delete Article was a book advertisement. The page went through an Afd discussion, which resulted in deletion. The second discussion resulted in a speedy deletion. Please see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book advertisement. Simply repeating the assertion will not make it so. It's an information page about a book relating to a theological issue within the Hare Krsna movement. The external links section includes links to various critical perspectives on the book and on the issues it raises.

I missed the Afd process, and found out today, after the fact, that my page was deleted. On March 19th 2008, user "Syama" had written: "Mild Keep Notable, needs a rewrite. I think that the controversy surrounding this book makes it notable, that so many are stirred to action, article should focus on the NPOV of the controversy not just provide links to forum topics."

I'm willing to re-write the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. The book is notable. The controversy surrounding the book is relevant to those within the Hare Krishna Movement and to those observing or studying it from outside. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I'm learning about how to present things so that they are acceptable to Wikipedia.

Below are some links to articles and spoken word audio, relating to the book, and the associated controversy, from various perspectives:

        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1185/1/Prominent-Issue/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1207/1/Considering-Things-Fully-and-Rationally/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1178/1/Genuine-Dialogue-and-Deeper-Realizations-of-Truth/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html
        o http://www.iskconirm.com/Dhira_Govinda.htm
        o http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/10/danavir.swami.on.dhira.govinda.das/index.html
        o http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1177/1/Concerning-the-Satvatove-Experience/
        o http://gbcsaysdontgohere.com/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/dhira.govinda.on.prominent.link/index.html
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3
        o http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm
        o http://zavestkrisne.org/ritviki_neznanje.htm
        o http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-07/editorials1312.htm

Many of the links above criticize the book and its thesis, from various positions and for various reasons. I had included many of them in the original article. People could access the various links and make up their own minds with regards to issues and controversies related to the book. It is not an advertisement.

If I understand correctly, the article was nominated for deletion on March 16th, and was deleted on March 22nd, 6 days later. User "Ism schism" wrote: "Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources." After reading his comment, I added links to various critical perspectives on the book.

I find myself in a complicated process involving technicalities. I created a page. The page was nominated for deletion. I was not aware of this. I work full-time and don't check the page every day. The page was deleted. I've recreated the page. The process of appeal is not clear to me, and appears needlessly complex. I believe my page is valid and I want to speak my piece about why it should remain. I'm an educated person with two University degrees, and I am nonetheless having difficulty making sense of all of the technicalities at play in this process. If I understand what to do, I will do it. I request that the page remain, at least long enough for me to understand why it was labeled as a "book advertisement" and what changes I need to make so that the article is acceptable to Wikipedia. The book is notable, this was already discussed.

Please understand that I am not as savvy as you are about Wikipedia's hair-splitting rules, and regulations.

User:Ism schism wrote: "The creator of this article has a history of being advised on the article's relevance. Please note a conversation from 2 years ago on the same subject we are discussing here"

The outcome of those previous discussions was to allow the article to remain. I was naturally surprised to see the article once again scheduled for deletion. I'm willing to do the needful and modify the article so that it is more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.--AlexandreJ (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first nomination resulted in deletion. That discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, began with the statement that the article was a, "Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources." This is still the condition of the present article even after the second discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned a nomination from 2 years ago. After that nomination there were discussions. The article was allowed to remain. The book is notable and the article is not an advertisement. More recently (this year) the article was once again scheduled for deletion, and deleted. I'm not sure why it was again scheduled for deletion, if the discussions 2 years ago allowed it to remain. I'm willing to modify the article. I would like to more clearly understand what is required. I did not participate in this year's deletion nomination process and did not know that it was taking place.

You wrote: "Article is an advertisement". No it's not. This was discussed 2 years ago, the article was allowed to remain. You wrote: "for a non notable book". The book is notable. This was discussed two years ago, and the article was allowed to remain. You wrote: "with no reliable third party sources". I added a number of links to articles providing alternate perspectives on the book, the majority of them critical. How is that an advertisement? There was a sampling of articles and audio media from groups and individuals in and around the Hare Krishna movement, providing various alternate perspectives on the book, the issues it raises, and the associated controversies.--AlexandreJ (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a proposed version? I'd like to see what you're proposing we put back in article space before I decide. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response, and for your willingness to hear my perspective. I'd be happy to create an alternate version. I want an article of a high caliber. As it stands I'm not clear on what the article needs in order to be more acceptable to Wikipedia. Two years ago I had some discussions with editors, and the result of those discussions was that the article was allowed to stay. This year, the article was deleted. The reasons for deletion seem vague and unclear to me, and seem to contradict the outcome of the discussions from 2 years ago. It's not clear to me what details of the article were found objectionable this year. My understanding is that the outcome of the discussions from two years ago was that the book was notable and that the article was not an advertisement. If anything, the book has become more notable since then. Yesterday I had added a number of links critical of the book and its premise to the article, thus giving multiple critical points of view on the book. This further cements the article as not being an advertisement. I posted a number of links to critical articles and audio files relating to the book and associated controversies. I added a number of them yesterday, to the recreated version of the article, after having read User:Ism schism comment that the article has "no reliable third party sources."

What specific elements of the article got worse since the discussions from two years ago? As far as I can see, the article's only gotten better. Should I post proposed revisions directly onto this page? Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. I am willing to learn and cooperate. I'd be happy to include footnotes, but am having some difficulty figuring out how to link the footnote number to the particular information source.

The most recent version of the article can be found on my user page. I welcome all constructive feedback on how I can improve the article.--AlexandreJ (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep delete Article has the same name and is defacto a book advertisement. The second discussion resulted in a speedy deletion. Its a clear case of OR and book advertisement (while book itself is controversial)Wikidās 12:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. What is OR? What specifically makes the article a book advertisement? I see this assertion repeated, with no justification and no explanation. There were discussions 2 years ago about the book's notability, and at that time the assertion was made that the article was a book advertisement. The result of the discussions was that the article was allowed to stay. The article has only gotten better since then. The article was not a book advertisement two years ago, and it isn't a book advertisement now. Simply repeating the assertion that it is an advertisement does not make it so. The article was found valid two years ago, it remains valid today.

You wrote: "Article has the same name and is defacto a book advertisement". An article having the same name as the book discussed in the article does not in and of itself make the article a book advertisement. The Wikipedia Lord of the Flies article has the same name as the book, and that does not make the Lord of the Flies article a book advertisement.--AlexandreJ (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello AlexandreJ, recreating the deleted page on this review page is getting to be a bit confusing. May I suggest that you recreate the article using your Userpage instead. That way your new article might be more presentable and the discussion taking place here can be more focused. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will move the recreated article to my user page. --AlexandreJ (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AlexandreJ, that helps a lot. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG recently deleted the recreated article from my user page. Is there somewhere else that I should re-post it? Should I simply undo his delete? Thanks.--AlexandreJ (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest undo. Please also see WP:OR WP:NPOV. Thanks AlexandreJWikidās ॐ 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, and for the links to the information about original research and neutral point of view.--AlexandreJ (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, that is my fault. I know there is some way to do it using userpages. I am sorry for pointing you in the wrong direction, I thought it was a normal practice. Ism schism (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Wikidas Are you referring to the speedy which just closed this morning? That was more for process reasons than the merits of the article. See my nominating statement above. DarkAudit (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. Please refer for discussion above for more info. Wikidās ॐ 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, correct per process. AlexandreJ has few or no other contributions to the project, so can be forgiven for not understanding how things work, but the deletion is perfectly valid. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, thanks for your comments. May I ask what has changed since the article was originally reviewed 2 years ago? At that time, the article was allowed to continue. This year it was deleted, apparently for reasons that were already discussed/countered/refuted 2 years ago. Since then the book has become more notable. I am willing to modify the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. I am willing to cooperate with editors, so as to make this article the best that it can be. --AlexandreJ (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CCC. What's changed in this case is probably that now we have over 2 million articles we are trying to be a bit more even in how we apply notability criteria, but that's just a guess. Fact remains, this was a valid deletion by our process. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and allow recreation. It's pretty clear that the AfD was fine in and of itself. But the new version of the article looks notable from where I stand, though articles could always stand a little copyediting. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lifebaka, thank you for voting for allowing recreation.--AlexandreJ (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion which was sensible given the current state of the article and the views expressed during the AFD. AlexandreJ should develop the article in userspace ( User:AlexandreJ/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link) with reliable secondary sources cited inline, instead of listed as external links, before recreating the article in mainspace. If he needs technical help, he can contact me on my talk page or post on WP:HNB. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, thank you very much for your offer of technical assistance, and your suggestion on how I might proceed from here. I appreciate it. Also, you wrote: "sources cited inline, instead of listed as external links". I've included my references as footnotes, is that acceptable? The article is currently on my user page, I've also included a copy of it at the address that you suggest in your message above. My username is not "Alexander", will that cause a problem? Should I move it to a page labeled "( User:AlexandreJ/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link)"? Or is it okay that I put it in the link that you suggested?--AlexandreJ (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading these comments concerning deletion to the page: "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link" and I find it totally amazing that the Wikipedia people can think that the page is simply "advertisement" to the book. The truth is the book is ***The**** most controversial topic in the whole Hare Krishna Movement. For the past 4 years or so, the Hare Krishna Movement has been doing everything in its power to make this book disappear from the face of the Earth. The Governing Body of the Hare Krishna movement prohibits all its members from reading the book. Yet, no matter how much the Hare Krishna has tried to shut the concepts given in the book, Hare Krisha devotees are still fighting about this every single day. All one needs to do is to go to one of the many websites that are visited by the Hare Krishna devotees such as the Sampraday Sun and one can see daily discussions about the topics talked about in the book. The Hare Krishna movement has everything well controlled inside the movement. Yet it is a bit more difficult to control the internet. There is a man name "Gauranga" who happens to be a Hare Krishna, he has some kind of administrative privileges in Wikipedia. He constantly deletes anything that appears negative on the "Hare Krishna" page and the "ISKCON" page. Those two pages are only propaganda pages for the Hare Krishna Movement. The "Hare Krishna" page in Wikipedia mostly talks about ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness). ISKCON is not the only Hare Krishna group! My point is that since 1977, ISKCON has been fighting as to what is the place of Srila Prabhupada in their movement. ISKCON pays lip service to Srila Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON. But they use him only as a figure head to get people to join. They use Srila Prabhupada's teachings to lure people to join their movement. But once they are inside, they tell the newcomers that Srila Prabhupada is not their link to the disciplic succession. The book: "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, says otherwise. That is why the Governing Body wrote papers trying to defeat the book. A group of supporters of the book have gotten together and form a internet discussion group. There are many other ISKCON devotees who favor the book also, but are too afraid to come out and say it. The concepts of the book has been an ongoing war within ISKCON for the past 31 years. ISKCON does not have any other topic that is more controversial than this. Anyone who is a member of the movement knows this. The Wikipedia people don't know this. They do not understand the daily political struggles of Hare Krishna Movement, to be more specific, ISKCON. But I urge members of the Wikipedia team to investigate the most controversial topic in this movement (ISKCON) and they will find that there is nothing more controversial then the topic of what exactly is the rightful place of Srila Prabhupada in HIS movement. The Hare Krisha leaders will want Wikipedia to think that "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link" is just propaganda and it should be removed from Wikipedia. But hundreds and thousands of devotees will say that Srila Prabhupada is the Prominent link to the disciplic succession. If any of the members of Wikipedia read the book, they will see how ISKCON has tried and have been trying to make Srila Prabhupada only a figure head. There has been a tremendous fight all over ISKCON concerning this topic. If you remove this page from Wikipedia, you will be helping the Hare Krishna Movement (ISKCON) censor the opposition to the leadership of ISKCON. You will be doing the dirty work for them. If you remove this page, you in effect are siding with the oppressor who want to censor the devotees. — George3h (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Overturn as per nom. This certainly isn't an advertisement, and it is notable for the amount of controversy it has stirred, though that could be better highlighted in the article. Editor of the wiki 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, carried out per process. No reason to disallow recreation if well-sourced and neutral. Relata refero (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I closed the AfD as delete bases on my reading of consensus that the proffered sources were not enough to establish notability. I have no objection to a recreation that addresses the concerns about sourcing and tone. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback. I think I understand the concerns about sourcing. As far as the concerns about tone, I assume that you're referring to presenting a neutral point of view.--AlexandreJ (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

IMPACT-Charlottesville – Userfied – Core desat 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like a temporary review of the article so that its contents could be moved to another site Community service (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that the GFDL allows it, sounds great. But I've got no idea if it still applies to deleted articles. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the GFDL is irreversible. If something is published here under it, anyone has the right to use it if they keep the attributions. That does not mean they can force us to facilitate it, and we wouldn't do so for libel. But even then, if they find it in a mirror, the license remains applicable and the further use is their concern.DGG (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userfied per user request. DGG (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 March 2008

Future timeline of Earth – Closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted, most of the delete votes were based on the concept that as the article is about future, it is WP:CRYSTAL. But the delete votes ignored the academic field Futurology. This article documented the timeline of events on planetary level which will have great impact on Earth, and these timeline were based on a scientific approach, these were not speculation or personal opinion. These were scientific predictions from reputed scientists and reputed research organisations. Scientific predictions with references from reputed scientists and reputed research organisations are not crystall ball. The article was merged with Timeline of the future. But the two articles, despite similarity in nature, are completely different. The article Timeline of the future documents events of future at every level, it may include future timeline of sports, timeline of technology, spaceflight, timeline of the solar system, the universe everything. But Future timeline of Earth document only the timeline of Earth at planetary level. The specific predicted events were merged into the respective years, but not all year articles are present, and this article will be expanded much more than its original size when it get deleted. WP:CRYSTAL is not apllicable in case of scintific predictions and the facts which are inevitable like population growth predicted by the United Nations, sea-level rise -- all are scientific predictions by reputed persons and organizations. So this article needs much more work, not deletion and it will become a good Futurology related article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirect. The article was not deleted as the history is still present. The article was redundant to Timeline of the future and the individual year articles, so there was no sense in having this one around. Redirecting seems like a good decision. --Core desat 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that the purpose of the articles Timeline of the future and Future timeline of Earth are not same. Please read the comments above why these two articles are different. Existence of some facts in the year articles does not imply that one summary article cannot be created. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the future is for timeline of future which include social, economic everything, but Future timeline of Earth is for timeline of Earth at planetary level. I have no idea how much time I have to repeat it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure; there's no question the consensus was delete or "merge and redirect". If you were arguing that it should be deleted, a case would have to be looked at, but DRV is not AFD 2.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The redirect is not possible now because Timeline of the future has been nominated for deletion. Timeline of the future is a nonsensical amalgam of various irrelevant facts ranging from near-term sporting events to far-distant cosmic and geological forecasts. But this article is for timeline of Earth in planetary level predicted by scientific studies. The two articles are completely different. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; then the consensus was consistent with deletion, then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and further Delete article if AfD of redirect target is deleted. The close was proper, and as it appears the target is going to be deleted at AfD, the redirect will no longer serve a purpose. Otherwise, re-redirect to Futurology, as that's what the DRV request clearly indicates this is really about. -- Kesh (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

France-Japan relations (19th century) – Article has been restored by the deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The France-Japan relations (19th century) article was deleted by Administrator AGK on the ground that it was related to "Medieval history", an area which the creator User:PHG is currently restricted from editing. However, the 19th century has nothing to do with Medieval History, neither does backgroung material mentionning the second half of the 16th century as the beginning of Japan-Western relations (For most historians the "Medieval" period typically end with the 15th century, or the 1492 discovery of the New World). It is requested that the article be immediately reinstated, so that the author (User:PHG) can continue his legitimate work on it. The creation of this article was also used as a justification to block User:PHG for 60 hours, a decision which is currently highly contested by numerous users on User talk:PHG. This seems to be part of a pattern of harassment following PHG's Arbcom restrictions. Besides his restrictions from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles, PHG was actually encouraged by the Arbcom commity to contribute in other areas, an example of which is France-Japan relations (19th century). Please reinstate the last version of this article. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[32][reply]

Please note that I have developed a continuation of this article on my Talk Page, which is visible User_talk:PHG#France-Japan_relations_.2819th_century.29_More_text. This will give everyone a sense of how this article is supposed to look like when completed. I am planning to insert this content as soon the article is restored (the sooner the better). Regards to all. PHG (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This was hardly an "abuse" and while I copied PHG's note verbatim, I consider that a terribly incivil way him to start out. The admin made a judgment based on his own review and the concurrence of other editors that PHG was skirting the lines of his editing restrictions via the recent ArbCom case. At best the period known as "Medieval" is shaky as far as actual dates; the article Middle Ages goes into detail about this conundrum; PHG's claim is that the history in the article he wrote started a few years after the Middle Ages were over, but his history started in the mid-16th century (his talk says 1545 precisely but that was not in the article) and the Middle Ages article states the period is "commonly dated from...5th century to the beginning of the Early Modern Period in the 16th century". I'd ask an expert to figure it out, but as far as I can tell, they don't agree with each other on the subject either ;) Also, its worth noting that this was not the only reason for his block and goodness knows the block doesn't need to be discussed more here. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:PHG for the backstory). Shell ^babelfish 10:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. As noted on PHG's talk page, I do not think that this article violates the terms of his topic ban, i.e., articles relating to medieval history. The article starts off in the second half of the 16th century, and even that period is only mentioned once; in general, this article is not about medieval history at all. Accordingly, the article's speedy deletion was out of process. — I agree with Shell, though, that the tone of this request by PHG is incivil and disruptive, and that this is not the place to discuss PHG's block. Sandstein (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and possibly list, despite the nominator's tone, this doesn't appear to violate his topic ban, which makes the speedy deletion out of process. However, it looks like the user didn't stray too far on the globe from the previous disputes that ultimately led to the ArbCom case. That aside, though, this should go to AFD instead, if it's to be deleted. --Core desat 11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to being (in good faith) improperly speedied. No objection to AfD listing. Hobit (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just read much of the RfC in question. I stand by my !vote, but emphasize the good faith comment. Hobit (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. PHG appears to have been gaming the system regarding his ArbCom restrictions, creating an article about the "19th century", which was actually a WP:COATRACK to write new information about a period considerably earlier. Per remedies posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, PHG should have just proposed an addition to the existing article, at its talkpage, and then after work was incorporated, a split may have been appropriate. PHG has been disruptively creating many other POV forks like this, which is one of the reasons that the ArbCom case was even needed (see the evidence page). If he creates anything else in violation of his sanctions, it should just be speedy-deleted, rather than requiring an extensive review process on every one. We already have a backlog of dozens of other articles needing cleanup from PHG's work, we don't need him making even more problematic articles in the meantime. Or to put it another way: If all PHG wanted to do was add some information about 19th century relations, he could have easily added it to France-Japan relations, or suggested it at the talkpage. But it is my opinion that he knew that if he added a section about the 16th century to the existing article, it would have been easily seen as a violation of sanctions. So instead, he created a new article, with a title of "19th century", so that he could put information in it that was from previous centuries. This kind of behavior is disruptive, and was the reason he was put under ArbCom sanctions in the first place. These actions continually waste the time of other editors. So if he does this again, we should just speedy the articles, rather than spending days discussing each one. Bottom line: The speedy-deletion was appropriate. --El on ka 21:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this is highly unfair Elonka. The article is indeed about the 19th century. I only mentionned the second half of the 16th century (which, by the way, is after the Medieval period, and hence beyond my Arbcom restrictions) as a backgroung sentence explaining that the first contacts with the West occured at that time. I have good reason to write extensively about 19th century relations between France and Japan: I actually know quite a bit about the subject and created two FAs (Boshin war and Imperial Japanese Navy) in this area. I am afraid this article is totally legitimate and that it is totally obvious that it has to be reinstated :) Best regards. PHG (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more of my intended content for this article, please see User talk:PHG#France-Japan relations (19th century) More text. Best regards PHG (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn With the best of motives, this was judged a too stringently beyond the restrictions imposed. There is furthermore no apparent tendentiousness in the editing, and I do not see a recurrence of the problems involved in the articles considered by arbcom. Thesmall amount of earlier background material is totally uncontroversial. I think he needs and deserves the chance to edit things he knows abut that are outside the restriction. Had arbcom wanted to ban from editing on history, they could have done so. If there is a case for extending the ban to history in general, they can be asked to do that also. this is simply a mistake. Elonka, please end this by simply reverting your decision; if there are subsequent problems, they can be discussed when they arise. DGG (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, what exactly is it that you want me to revert? --Elonka 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think DGG means to undo your deletion and just get on with things. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uhm, Elonka didn't delete the page and the deleting admin has restored it :) Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right. Never mind then. I'll go back to my corner now. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete; were the blocking admins looking for an excuse to block PHG? It is a pretty extreme definition of medieval that covers the ~~1550s~~ 17th century. Until if and when you get him permanently banned, you are obliged to treat him fairly; he is entitled to be blocked only for clearly stated reasons that follow WP policy, and pages that he makes, outside any ArbCom ruling, should only be speedy deleted within the rules for speedy deletion and and subject to discussion on DRV and most likely undeleting and relisting on AfD, just like any other article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn aka endorse undeletion that has occurred. I believe this was a mistaken interpretation of the ArbCom restrictions and endorse DGG's view that PHG should be encouraged to edit on topics outside the restriction. As there do seem to be tendentious editing issues, a cite check (already initiated) seems to be the appropriate level of response at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lovette – deletion unanimously endorsed, speedily closed per WP:SNOW, no need to keep on inflicting harm. – MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 March 2008

Image:Adnan Oktar August 3, 2007.jpg – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 20:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I deleted the page as a copyrighted image. User:White_Cat had tagged the page with the rationale, "Source says: "Harun Yahya International © 2008. All rights reserved. Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site.". Does not grant derivative works, does not grant commercial use." I agreed. However at least two others disagreed with its deletion, arguing that having the image here was allowed. I submit it for review. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagreed with the deletion, and still do. I feel that as use is permitted, providing the site is referred to, commercial use is allowed. Why should commercial use be any different? It blatantly says 'material can be copied', so why are we adding rules to what has already been stated? As for derivative works, again, the website owner explicitly states that the work can be reused, only with the limitation that the website must be credited. This doesn't say that deriv works are not allowed, so why should we believe they are, or even believe there is a chance they are? To be utterly ridiculous about it, this website does not explicitly state that someone wearing black socks can reuse the work. I'm wearing black socks- am I allowed to reuse? I understand that material is not free unless it is explicitly stated to be so, but expicit permission to reuse with only the one limitation has been given in this case. A lot of people disagree with me, but I have failed to be convinced as of yet. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted "Harun Yahya International © 2008. All rights reserved." is pretty clear. Assumption is the root of all f*** ups... -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment; no, it's not clear at all. It's basically meaningless; it says that someone owns a copyright on it (like most of the stuff on Wikipedia) and that they are conservative enough that they put the All rights reserved that was required to prevent the copyright from going into the public domain somewhere in the world for just about all of the 20th century.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, not only is it a copyrighted image, but it's available for non-commercial use only. Not allowed here as it would be speedied under I3 if it hadn't been under I9. --Core desat 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - copyvios aren't negotiable. Copyright requires positive permission - you can't do something unless you're permitted to, rather than the other way around. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It looks like permission is granted in this case (may be copied, printed, etc.). I'm sure I'm missing something important here, but I don't see it. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's exactly how I feel. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is, even if permission is granted, that permission is for non-commercial use only, which is unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. If you want to debate changing I3, do it at WT:CSD, but this isn't the place to try to reword policy. --Core desat 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vedette SS – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I speedy deleted this article as CSD A7, but one of the main contributors has appealed this on my talk page, citing [33] and [34] as evidence they meet WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure they constitute evidence of notability so I'm placing my deletion for review. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse both speedy deletions as A7. No claim of notability, absolutely standard WP:SPA band article, the purported sources do not meet WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Cannot see any assertions of significance in the deleted version and the two sources quoted above do not appear to be reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid A7, "sources" given aren't reliable secondary sources. --Core desat 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of religious wars – Article userfied as requested – Davewild (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary review only. This list still appears as a red link on the page List of wars. Deleting admin has been inactive for many months and I'm sure Rama's Arrow had good faith reasons for the deletion, but it appears deletion was speedy (or at least I don't see any archived deletion discussion for the date deleted). I'm researching the possibility of a new portal about Civil wars, and I was wondering if I could see the list to determine whether a more general deletion review process might be appropriate. I can see some reasons why this might not best be open for full-viewing, so if this is approved, I'd like to see it pasted into User:BusterD/portal#List_of_religious_wars_.28for_temporary_examination.29. Second choice would be email. A fuller look at page history and talk history might be helpful as well, however. BusterD (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion and allow userfication per nom. The article consisted of a list, organized by religion, with entries like the following:

Christianity vs. Zoroastrianism, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE

Typically each war would be listed twice so as to appear in the section for both religions involved:

Zoroastrianism vs. Christianity, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE

Allowing userfication so that BusterD can (hopefully) improve the article with sources, reorganization, etc., would be reasonable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 March 2008

The Game (game) – Article recreated using new version. – Kurykh 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|Afd3|DRV|AfD4|DRV2|AfD5|AfD6)

Important request: If you have just arrived at this DRV for the first time and have already decided what your recommendation will be then we respectfully suggest that you should review the new article and its sources before commenting in this DRV. This DRV has been created as there now exists a prototype article based upon multiple published sources, which the article's creators believe addresses all of the objections raised at the previous AFDs. Please kindly take the time to study the prototype article and its sources before posting your comments.

Click here for the prototype article, a list of sources and further claims of notability

WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS have all evolved since the last time the subject of this article was discussed so please ensure you read and understand these policies and guidelines thoroughly before casting your opinion.

Previous debates regarding the topic of this article have seen what appeared to be considerable attempts at "ballot stuffing", both for and against the article's existence. This is pointless as DRV is not a vote. If you intend to take part in this debate, please ensure that your comments are constructive and refer clearly to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support them. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (allow re-creation). Now has multiple reliable sources. (I became involved as a result of a posting by the nominator to the Help Desk.) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only reliable source in the list is the Canadian Press reprints. The De Morgen article has already been discussed and rejected frequently. Corvus cornix_talk 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De Morgen is one of the three most popular newspapers in Belgium with a readership of over 50,000. There is no policy invalidating foreign sources. If anything this is further indication of how widespread The Game is. Please clarify/reference what you mean by it having already been rejected. LoserNo1 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the previous AfDs, the article was rejected because De Morgen was the sole source where multiple sources were required. The De Morgen newspaper was never rejected as a reliable source. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because there was no explanation in the article as to where the information came from, it appeared to be derived from unreliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there are no policies or guidelines that require a reliable source to state its own sources (which, in turn, must be reliable). Surely that would lead to an infinite regress. If I am mistaken please reply with the relevant links. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator who closed the 5th AfD said "I did a lookup against reliable sources for the De Morgen article, and it says that foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguments are moot." LoserNo1 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that doesn't apply to the first two sources listed above, which are largely based on direct quotes from players of the game, (i.e. primary sources,) including documenting the phenomenon of someone finding that friends who live in 2 different states have also heard of the same game. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just notified User:Ezeu, the deleting admin from the last AfD. I'm going to wait for him to come by before I make my decision. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

allow re-creation Proposed article appears to be well sourced Hobit (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Additional reliable source since the last AFD pushes the article over the notability standard. Davewild (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. Nice, well-sourced article on the subject.--Father Goose (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Yes, we know they have a website devoted to gathering every passing mention in the hope of getting a Wikipedia article, which to some of them has achieved the status of a near-religious quest. No, the sources are not compelling. Yes, I have had enough of the obsession with this ridiculous trivia. Yet another request from a single purpose account. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reference to Wikipedia policy that supports your opinion. The fact that you personally think the subject of the article is ridiculous is no reason for the article not to exist. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but allow recreation - what is this, "shit on DRV perennial requests by trying to fix the objections often cited in numerous DRVs" month? Still, it's doing something the ED DRV failed to do: all three of the top sources supply significant-if-not-sole coverage. Well done. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. Looking through the previous AFDs, there were a number of serious problems with the earlier article that was deleted (only a single reliable source, contained original research that wasn't in the source, little evidence of verifiable notability at the time). The proposed article here looks like it fully addresses these; it now has multiple sources satisfying WP:V and WP:RS which are consistent with each other and assert the subject's notability, and importantly, the proposed article sticks firmly to the information presented in those sources. A well written and suitably sourced article. Wiw8 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, semi-protect/full-protect article. After all that's been done to bring it back into Wikipedia, I fancy a vandalism shootout in the very near future, if only for its infamy.--WaltCip (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per the new sourcing and keep a close eye on the page per WaltCip. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per the new sourcing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with no prejudice against taking back to AfD. I doubt it's every going to be a great article but there seems to be enough reliably sourced information to support a stub at the least. Guest9999 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation without endorsing the sample article. There do seem to be reliable sources for more than existence now, though I understand Guy's caution. Note to the nominator: if you want the article to survive long after undeletion, it will need to lose the "look how neat this is" tone in the current sample article. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean by this? Myself and others spent a long time writing the article to try and make it clear, well-referenced and, well, neat... Sorry. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were trying to make it "neat", that explains the tone of the last two sections. Unfortunately, the tone of both is wrong for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I'd suggest reworking them to be more neutral - but, more to the point, I'd suggest accepting that an article written in that tone is likely to either get rewritten (after all, "anyone can edit") or lead to the article being AfDed again. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, do you mean "neat" as in "tidy" or as in "cool"? I'm a bit confused. I don't see how these paragraphs are biased. They are facts taken from the sources. If you could give me some examples of the problem and an example improvement I will try to fix it. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LoserNo1, I'll put some suggestions on your talk page about how the tone of the article can perhaps be changed. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few amendments to the wording of the article following some of Coppertwig's suggestions (see my talk page for more details). LoserNo1 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. Seems to address all the previously-stated problems. Also, I just lost. --- RockMFR 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I never think about what I'm saying, I have never lost the game.--WaltCip (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

allow recreation We now have multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources. This does not make the game any less idiotic. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with the absolute intent of further encouraging article improvement as a means of escape from purgatory. The topic is so easily recognized across a wide swath of ages and backgrounds that it's odd it has not been written about more often; don't journalists want to make people lose? In any case, notability has been satisfied, the editors have gone the extra mile to incorporate offline and non-English sources, and the DRV request is well-formatted, thoughtful, and respectful of our policies. I see no reason to object. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should really be recreated at a different title, like "The Game (mind game)", since this isn't the only "game" that goes by that name. WarpstarRider 09:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. When the previous articles existed it looks like this was the only game called "The Game" on Wikipedia, but this is no longer the case. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted I guess it's pointless to ring in with a vote like this considering this is damn near a snowball, but I agree with Guy pretty much 100%. This is dumb college crap and should stay gone. JuJube (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to Guy. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the opinion of a Wikipedian that a topic is "dumb", or even the fact of a topic being verifiably "dumb", whatever that would mean, is not a criterion for deletion. Having something to do with college is not a criterion for deletion either. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted Blogs and webcomics do not establish notability. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, such sources are not usually sufficient to establish notability. But this article also has multiple, independent, non-trivial published sources that discuss the subject and its notability which you may have missed - may I politely suggest that you examine the newspaper articles listed in section number 1 here, which should demonstrate that this article is not relying on blogs and webcomics to establish its notability after all. Thanks - Wiw8 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against-the-grain and probably pointless keep deleted - I still feel that the De Morgen article is nothing more than a throwaway opinion piece with no facts cited, no quotes to base the article on, and nothing that makes it useful. The Canadian Press article depresses me, because while I know that community newspapers will occasionally do articles on trivial topics, having the CP do one on this and actually putting it on the wire - and having editors pick it up... that says "slow news day" to me. The other topics are, as noted above, not reliable sources, leaving us with one single item that actually comes close to passing WP:RS. I don't feel this is enough to meet verifiability, and thus the article should be kept deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony Fox. As I suggest in the header for this DRV, it would be helpful if you could refer to policy that supports your opinion. I can find nothing requiring a reliable source to have "quotes to base the article on". As for the De Morgen article having "no facts cited", the entire article is filled with facts about what The Game is, where it is played and strategies that people use. I have incorporated these facts into the prototype article and referenced them to the De Morgen article. If we deleted every Wikipedia articleabout things that some people thought were pointless then there wouldn't be much left. This topic has reliable sources and evidence of notability, and you will need to refer to Wikipedia policy rather than your personal feelings towards the subject if you want to make a strong argument. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I refer to verifiability and reliable sources guidelines there and expressly attempted to remain well clear of my personal feelings towards the subject, you may want to reread what I wrote. I've said before that if any reporter who worked for me gave me an article with as little actual cited fact as was in the De Morgen article - which looks like the writer just took a bunch of website prints or something and said "This is what this game is, here's what happens in a few places, but I'm not going to give you any indication that it's anything more than something some kids made up someplace because I don't have actual scholarly citations or other backing material," I'd have told them off and sent them to get a real story with quotes and actual content. None - zero, nil - of the facts in the De Morgen article are backed up by anything. Thus, I see it as an opinion piece. As far as I'm concerned, it is not a useful reference. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Corvus cornix above, there is no requirement for reliable sources to be backed up by other reliable sources. This would lead to an infinite regress. The De Morgen article is on page 2 of a major Belgian newspaper. I am aware that you mentioned verifiability and reliable sources guidelines in your comment but you did not point out any specific part of them that invalidates this source. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of prefer my references to actually have some kind of factual aspect to them. The De Morgen article has no quotes from sources; it has no references to any sort of source for its claims. That's my point. It is completely and utterly unverifiable, and in my view trash as a reliable source. Last comment here, as it's bloody pointless to continue and I'm just getting miffed with the whole exercise. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion — at this point, an article can be written that covers all three of the major content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV). I can understand the arguments for not having biographies of marginally notable BLPs, but that is not an issue here. For popular culture articles, meeting the basic core requirements should be all that is needed. *** Crotalus *** 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per the prototype article being sourced by reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Phoebe Price – No prejudice against recreation. While not necessarily a hoax, the original article was short, problematic and hardly recognizable as referring to the person mentioned above. A fresh start from reliable sources is being preferred here. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person is real, and is notable, please see [35], even if there are some fanciful claims there needing cleaning up. This is just one 3rd party source confirming that. Qu e ntin Smith 14:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd probably be easier just to recreate the article. An admin can e-mail you the previous content if you want a starting point. I can't see a cached version, so I don't know how long it sat tagged as a hoax. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but allow re-creation without reference to previous version. The previous version consisted almost entirely of inaccurate or unverifiable statements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ill Bethisad – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This seems to have been deleted for want of 3rd party, non-self-published sources, but there are some - [36] [37] Qu e ntin Smith 14:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. AfD looks fine from here (but I can't see the deleted page). Sources provided are to blogs, which are not reliable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closer made the correct call. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Swami Jyotirmayananda – Recreation allowed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Gbito (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) I am trying once again to create the article for Swami Jyotirmayananda. I was able to create it as a Project successfully, but when I try to create it as an article it comes up as a protected page, yet the article does not exits. Please see my content for Swami Jyotirmayananda as a Project, and I would like to use that as the article. Gbito (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current seems to exist as Wikipedia:Swami Jyotirmayananda, has also existed as Article:Swami Jyotirmayananda as well as the multiple deltions as Swami Jyotirmayananda --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is in wikispace at Wikipedia:Swami Jyotirmayananda. The target in main space has been protected after three recreations by another account, one copyvio and two more or less empty ones. A previous post of Gbito at Article:Swami_Jyotirmayananda has been deleted (incorrectly) as repost per G4. The current draft is still in need of better sourcing and wikifying, but asserts enough importance to avoid a speedy A7 deletion: So allow recreation ) because the previous history should not stand here in the way of a good faith attempt nor raise the bar or trigger automatically an AfD.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allow re-creation in mainspace. Quite possible could survive if improved per Tikiwont.DGG (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Unsalt. It's not the best, but it can be worked on. In the meantime, I've moved it out of wikispace to User:Gbito/Swami Jyotirmayananda. It can be worked on and moved to mainspace from there. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also working on cleaning it up. Copyediting and wikifying tonight. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. It's been unsalted and an article exists there. Looks like this's been taken care of. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 March 2008

Digital Paint: Paintball 2 – Consider deletion endorsed or insufficient consensus for overturn. – Kurykh 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was originally deleted because it did not achieve an optimal level of notability. Digital Paint: Paintball 2 has recently satisfied the general notability criteria (WP:N) by being featured in the PC Gamer UK magazine, as seen here. The article was deleted by User:Eluchil404, the following was his response to my restoration request, which was denied:

You requested the restoration of Digital Paint: Paintball 2 citing a new source. However, the article has not yet been published and does not seem to meet WIkipedia's reliable sources guideline, though it probably will if it released in the actual magazine. I suggest making a formal request at WP:DRV after the publication of the article. I won't favour restoration until two independent, reliable sources covering the game can be cited but am happy to submit the article for wider consideration.

The article itself has been published, and it now meets the general notability requirements. Here is the original, informal, deletion review.75.13.160.9 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A single source is not enough to satisfy WP:V or WP:N. You need multiple independent sources to cite. Is there anything more than that? -- Kesh (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nothing wrong with the AfD. It'd probably be easier to start from scratch anyways. I dunno' about anyone else, but I'm kosher with a WP:STUB on the subject. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editors may also want to consider this earlier DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 1) as well as a prior AfD at a different title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Paint: Paintball 2.0). As I said when asked (and am quoted above) I still don't view the proffered sources as adequate but don't have any particular stake in the matter. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Modernista! – Restore article content and its history (overturning thus speedy deletion). This has already been done, with the article meanwhile listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modernista!. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion cited "content was Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance". I don't believe either of these are true. Modernista! is not a real person. It is an advertising agency that is among the top 60 ad agencies in the U.S. and top 20 independent ad agencies worldwide (as of 2007 according to AdvertisingAge [38]), and its significance and importance is evident in that is the agency of record for automakers HUMMER and Cadillac. Further points of significance were described in a "Notable Work" section. Do a Google or Google News search and you will find dozens of references to the significance of the company from highly reputable sources.

The company has come under the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community recently due to prominent linking to Wikipedia from its new website. This is the reason for the large amount of vandalism activity over the past few weeks. There may be some portions of the article that do not belong on Wikipedia, but the agency is certainly important enough to have an entry and join the rest of the American advertising agencies with Wikipedia entries.

I believe the current article (referencing Los Sietes Modernistas) has been hijacked by a prankster with a history of vandalism.

Thanks for your consideration. 68.236.98.2 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current version and Restore the original - wow, these guys are pretty damn big and handle some very high-profile accounts. There's some buzz right now about their site (and with the current page makeup, going to their site and clicking Wikipedia will make a lot of people go 'wtf?!', which - considering they're getting the buzz - could be bad for us in general) at present, and plenty of Google News Archives hits. Here's a full-length New York Times feature on them from last year; that certainly gives them a level of external coverage. I think A7 was a very bad choice for this article - it expressly asserted notability in the list of clients that was in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7s. Just looking at the info above, it clearly isn't an A7. I'll bet that a vandal made the page look like an A7 and then the speedy tag was added before it could be fixed. I figure it doesn't matter if we delete the current (except to history merge), as long as the old version is visible. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, someone removed my last comment while not logged in. User:DustyjXXX has taken over the new Modernista! article and is highly vandalizing it. He added sections questioning the morality of using an exclamation mark in a name, and something about Wikipedia being 'ired' by Modernista! for using their Wikipage as a website. I'm removing both sections. I'd like to call into question the reliability of his other additions. I think this may be an issue of sabotage, corporate or otherwise. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I just discovered that Modernista! is using nothing but a little red bar that directs people to Wikipedia and Facebook as their website. [www.modernista.com] [39]--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would probably be helpful if we could indicate that alongside our external link, WP:ASR be damned. Sourcing to a pro blog would be fine with me but not others. psfk marketing vox and adrants of course. --Dhartung | Talk 09:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Apparently, the article on the band has been deleted, and a new version discussing the ad agency has been started. This is getting more confusing now. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they are a notable organisation and have references to show it, and permit a NPOV article to be written, there is no reason why they should not use the WP article as a place to refer people looking for information about them. I sure other organisations (and probably people) link to the WP article about them somewhere on their own site. Is there any technical way to look for this sort of thing? I'm not aware of anyone else who has done it in quite the same manner, though. I'll admit it sounds intrinsically wrong,but i cant really find a good argument against it, except the need to be extra careful about COI. The way they do it though does seem problematic. Instead of just linking to the article, they reproduce it. They are essentially hosting this particular article on their own site, with their overlay. That would be fine--GFDL certainly permits such use--but they also copy the interface and the trademark, which is not so fine--I don't know what our policy is about such hosting. We might need some sort of a tag for the particular case. As for what DustyX is doing, he is playing games with us, but is not actually being destructive. Given the Business Week item -- an editorial blog from their staff editor. . [40] they almost certainly are notable--but then they apparently did the design for BusinessWeek, so that isnt fully independent. Considering the articles appearing about their use of it this way, we probably need a more general discussion somewhere. DGG (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I share these concerns. I guess you could call it going commando. It would be interesting to see if they continue to do so if the article is fully NPOV and includes critical material, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The ad agency appears notable - [41], but that link to their "website" should go away, since it just links back to the Wikipedia page, with their own links added in the upper left hand corner. It needs reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreated article to stay and restore history I suppose is the way to go here. I think the 20 March deletion was not really borne out by the existence of sources and assertions of notable client work in the Google cache from 19 March. That said, the list of clients was pretty much completely unsourced, and we need to observe WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 09:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like people to note that the Modernista!'s website does not just link you to Wikipedia. It also links to Facebook, a playlist on YouTube, a search website, Google News, and a job application search. It also lists their contact information. I find just as fair to say that they are "using Wikipedia as a website" as it is to say Google and Yahoo are for linking people to it. Even if it is rather viral and unconventional, its basically a website that fits into the top of your screen that links to other websites. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

NavXS – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well known mobile social network with a few thousend users developed in Germany. Please could you undelte it? Tuckatucka (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If the nom can demonstrate notability of the subject through sources, feel free to recreate it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The A7 looks fine from here, given what you've said (a few thousand users isn't a lot). If you can provide a better reason why this should be overturned rather than recreated, I'll reconsider. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

tbaMUD – Deletion endorsed. If recreation of some sort is desired (i.e. userfication, etc.), drop a note on my or any admin's talk page. – Kurykh 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original admin who deleted has been idle since January. Deleted by a few individuals, original creators and those maintaining the free non-profit codebase never notified. Would like to recreate to share information about the MUD codebase and fix broken links in wikipedia and else where. Nathan Winters (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close of AFD (the link to which I've fixed above); no good reasons for keeping were provided in the discussion. No problem with someone creating a new article as long as it's verifiable based on reliable sources - which the previous article most definitely was not. Source it or it'll get deleted again. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, could an admin please restore?

Recreating and restoration are sorta' mutually exclusive. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. No good reasons to keep, and the merge !votes were just "keep under this other name because that's what it's actually called" (my bad if that doesn't read civily). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Anonymous (group) – Endorsing early "Non-admin closure" of AfD by SynergeticMaggot (talk), and thus also their own preceding early closure of this DRV in substance, but not form.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was Speedily Kept by User:SynergeticMaggot, a non-administrator. AfD discussion fails Wikipedia:Speedy Keep guidelines, because nominator has not withdrawn the nomination, and a second Delete !vote appeared before its closure, (spa accusation notwithstanding) Closing non-admin invoked IAR in their closing statement, which is inappropriate. Discussion should be relisted and allowed to stand the full five day discussion unlss and until the discussion correctly passes Speedy Keep guideline RoninBK _{T C} 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no actual policy-based reason for deletion in the deletion request. It reads as if a group of people who are apparently not happy with how the article looks saying that because it won't be shaped unto their designs want it deleted. The nominator claims inaccuracies - but in the delete request says that the articles that meet WP:V are the inaccurate ones. That's a touch confusing. All told, the deletion nom (not the DRV nom) gives me a feeling of bad faith, and I don't actually see a valid deletion reason there. Endorse keep Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing but true. The innacuracies in the "reliable sources" are the cause of the innacuracies in the article. I still endorse the decision to speedy keep though. Z00r (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid WP:SNOW/WP:IAR keep. Initiator showed no real arguments on why the article should be deleted (and it has been already Kept on the earlier AfD with more resounding arguments for potential deletion given) Charon X/talk 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure The link you followed was for the first AfD. The second was closed by me. I've also reverted a few attempts at vandalism to the page, as well as page blanks. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was intending to nominate the deletion of the second nomination. I attempted to correct myself after the template substitution, and only screwed up further. If anyone could correct the nomination, please do. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The keep was a perfect example of when snowball makes sense. The arguments for deletion were lacking, and only a single purpose account supported deletion (aside from the nominator). While an admin probably should have closed it, the result would have been the same. Justin ^chat 16:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse blizzard keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. Maybe the close was technically wrong, but I see absolutely no reason to reopen this on a technicality when the result is obvious. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep Someone please speedy close this obnoxious nomination. Eleven Special (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep - Same logic as above. Mac Davis (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep -The nomination was done on the grounds that a faction of Anonymous (which is a non-centralised ideological collective) didn't like the fact that Wikipedia policys where beeing implemented on their article, and because it made the claim that varafiable sources where inacurate, and accurate sources where unverifiable. The nomination was not a good faith one because the nominator of the AFD has encouraged vandalism of the article [42] prior to the nomination.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Speedy close. Partly for the irony, but mostly because the close was fine. We are not slaves to process, and this was an obvious snowball keep. As this DRV is looking to be. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Only delete !vote was from a WP:SPA, and it's pretty clear that the nom had no reasons to delete in it. Editorial issues shouldn't be handled in AfD.
As an afterthought, does WP:NAC work on DRVs? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally considered bad form in DRV. -- Kesh (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Pin Young – contested PROD automatically restored. Notability still quite doubtful, article might not survive AFD if nominated. – GRBerry 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

reliable source IMDB listing now available. Pin Young is a new stage name and took a while for IMDB to add the new listing. Her birth name and stage name accounts are currently being merged on IMDB. Her IMDB listing is at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2953440/ 70.187.173.176 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean it's being merged with Pin Chen? In any case, while IMDB is generally accepted for confirming such things as roles played, it really isn't sufficient by itself for notability. Keep deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic restore. Uncontested PROD, we overturn these. Please be aware that it can still be subject to an AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 March 2008

Category:Wikipedians interested in television by genre – Discussion moved elsewhere. – Kurykh 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This category was created for the purpose of further sorting of the Wikipedian categories related to televsion series to be a sibling category for Wikipedians interested in literature by genre. It was also created to make it easier to find the possible sub-categories that could be created for Wikpedians interested in the various television techologies if Wikipedians interested in television is depopulated and made strictly a parent category. Wikipedians interested in television by genre and Wikipedians interested in literature by genre were then placed in the Wikipedians by genre interest. The category was emptied and then deleted by Jc37 without discussion.

The sub-categories were:

Category:Wikipedians interested in children's television

Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television which has been put up for deletion by Jc37.

Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television which has been put up for deletion by Jc37.

Category:Wikipedians interested in fantasy television

Category:Wikipedians interested in non-fiction television, which was created for all non-fiction television series sub-categories, was also emptied then deleted by Jc37 without discussion.

Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television which has been put up for deletion by Jc37.

Category:Wikipedians who like reality television which has been put up for deletion by Jc37.

Category:Wikipedians interested in science fiction television

The sub-categories were created based on established genres for which there are Wikipedia articles. - LA @ 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's upmerging the subcats in those to a single more general user cat. Makes sense to me. Also looks like they were already empty of users. I don't think there's anything we can do at DRV for it, anyways. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this just looks like some bold reorganization efforts here...and as such, you could just recreate the category as there was no UCFD on it, it was deleted as C1. That being said, however, I don't see a problem with the changes he has made and would probably support deletion in a UCFD if the category was recreated. VegaDark (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We're attempting to discuss this here. - jc37 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Wikipedians interested in non-fiction television – Speedy close in favor of one above. – Kurykh 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Category:Wikipedians interested in television by genre - LA @ 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as it's covered better above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

To Live and Shave in L.A. – Deletion overturned. Relist on AfD at your pleasure. – Kurykh 03:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion unwarranted, see talk page on reposted page.W936ZXBO (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google cache. The article was tagged for needing independent reliable sources for almost a year and none were forthcoming. Endorse with no prejudice to re-creation if reliable sources exist. Otto4711 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Deleted as A7 on he basis of there being no sources to support notability; but A7 is for no claimed notability, and the article certainly claimed a good deal. If there were no sources theat might be a reason for deletion via AfD, but not via speedy. I am not the person to comment on what bands are notable, and I'll doubt if I'll follow the eventual AfD on this one, but by no stretch of the imagination was it an A7. DGG (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, lack of sourcing is not a speedy deletion criterion. Put it to afd if you still think it should be deleted. - Bobet 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. DGG hit the nail on the head right here; the article claimed the band's importance pretty well. Now, granted, it doesn't look all that notable to me given the sourcing issues, but that's something an AfD should handle. Overturn the speedy and let someone list it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm happy to edit the posting to make it conform with citation and sourcing standards, as well as to make the subject's larger relevance clearer. I'm preparing copy now; I'll add it when the article is reposted. Thanks, W936ZXBO. —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. The article makes an assertion of notability, which is sufficient to avoid A7. whether the achievements mentioned in the article truly constitute notability under WP:MUSIC and whether the assertions can be verified from reliable sources, is something that needs to be addressed in an AFD. To avoid speedy deletion, a simple claim to notability is sufficient. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - might be a candidate for deletion but definately not by A7, claims to importance are there (even if they're not very good). Guest9999 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list - as with others I do not see this as an A7 but sufficient doubt has been expressed about notability to warrant examination at AfD. BlueValour (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, relist at pleasure. Definitely not an A7 even if sourcing was dodgy -- there's a NYT review in there right at the top! May be difficult to write a full article with online sources, and accepting zines will be problematic for some editors, but those aren't in the CSD brief. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Baffled by the continued debate about notability. The NYT is cited in the opening paragraph; several other claims to notability, established by credible third parties, are included as well. Several well-known print mags and other well-known reliable sources are cited. The above assertion that "sufficent doubt has been expressed" about notability seems a bit questionable in this light; "repeated doubt" might be more accurate -- and that doubt seems to have been expressed in spite what the citations show. Upon examination, even the self-cites are germane, and not puffery. One is tempted to wonder whether the deletion was motivated by the band's aesthetics? Again, edits will be made to clarify larger cultural relevance if it's relisted. Thanks again, W936ZXBO.

The NYT article only makes passing mention... Hobit (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and perhaps list in AfD. Doesn't meet A7 requirements. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

A More Perfect Union – Non-admin close overturned. No harm done. Boldness is strongly encouraged. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was speedily kept per WP:SNOW. However only a few hours was allowed for debate and, in particular, this excluded Europeans like me who would have been asleep. I would have voted for deletion on several grounds such as WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. My impression is that this is a parochial item of news relating to long campaign in which many such incidents will arise. Given that there may be some partisanship in this matter, a hasty close seems improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how this wasn't deleted and the article can be re-listed on another day I think this is a waste of time. As closer of the AfD, I'm sticking to my rationale. I would also like to point out that I wasn't intending to be time-zone biased. I have no opinion either way. I see consensus where it exists. I won't complain if another AfD takes place, since I know it will be kept as well. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. I think I overlooked the comment of partisanship. I'm not sure if you were referring to me when you (Colonel Warden) said that, as its unclear (i'm just now trying to get to bed, i think/thought). For the record though, if you were referring to me, I'm an anarchist. This is posted on my userpage, and has been for some time now.
  - Nothing personal. My point is that we can expect partisan responses to this and so a flurry of snow may be due to that rather than an overall consensus which would come in more slowly. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this was coming the moment I saw that it had been closed so quickly. Normally, I don't even go into deletion reviews; however, I think it extremely, extremely important that this stay, as most of the arguments against something notable and verifiable are WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Personally I don't believe in mainstream partisan politics and myself am actually a member of something smaller; I have no love for the person who gave the speech. Relevant controversies that the speech was actually meant to address, here in America it kind of took on new meaning. Saying that it is WP:SOAP is going a little far. As a politician, he has better ways to try and convince people of the merits of his arguments other than going onto a website that does it's best to strive for a NPOV and summarizing what other people have already said about his speech. Judging by the article, I don't really think it has that effect anyway. In any case, if that's a problem, this is wikipedia and therefore editable. Be bold and fix anything you think is a problem. Also, As WP:UNDUE is a NPOV thing and not really grounds for deletion unless the subject itself is inherently weighted, the only argument that really exists here is !news. As a political speech, even in one day, this has surpassed what it was intended to do and has become sort of a meta-speech, and, in the days of a rapidly-declining economy has managed to garner quite a bit of coverage as an inspirational piece. It is, and will only become more so, notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is to review the close, not to recapitulate the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, there's nothing new to bring up, and resurrecting it would be without point. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe some newpapers already comment this is probably the next "I have a dream" speech, so it is relevant and should stay. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for this in my morning newspaper (the Metro which is read by millions of Londoners). It appeared in the article with the headline Hillary dealt blow as new poll rejected. Buried in that article was Yesterday, Mr Obama was forced to once again condemn comments made by his pastor.... It was just routine campaign coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently linked from the front page of BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7303987.stm - I think we can say that Europeans are "aware" of the speech. Onesecondglance (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that this is a notable speech, even if it isn't spoken about years from now, notability is timeless. If it is notable now, it's always notable per Wikipedia standards. There was substantial coverage of this one simple speech. KV(Talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a new AFD is wanted so as to give more people the opportunity to chime in, I see no problem with that. However, in all honesty, the amount of third-party non-trivial coverage this speech has received makes it not only notable, but more notable than half this encyclopedia. Joshdboz (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should absolutely be kept, as it concerns a speech that will be in the history books, and studied and quoted for many years (even centuries, assuming race remains a persistent issue in America) to come. It is absolutely inexplicable how this article could fit under any of the normal deletion critera, such as for (1) poor writing, (2) pages needing expert attention, (3) articles written in a foreign language, (4) bias, (5) a short article, (6)lack of verifiability, or (7) a small article which could be merged into a larger one. This article is not going to be a small article. It is likely to grow in length as the tens, perhaps hundreds, of commentaries about the speech accumulate over the coming weeks. I suspect some of the comments above are from people who have not read the speech from beginning to end (be honest). Seeing a few snippets on cable entertainment/news does not fulfill the responsibility of a Wikipedia contributor on this subject. --Tkhorse (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was an unfortunate idea closing this as long as there was strong deletion arguments made by more than one person and an ongoing discussion about whether to keep it. Finding consensus whether this is just WP:NOT#NEWS and whether most keep votes are just WP:ILIKEIT was the point of the AfD, by preventing discussion about it, now it all was just wasted time. But at this point, I think it is best to wait a few months with a new AfD, then things might be easier to decide. So while not endorsing the AfD closure, also not saying the outcome should be changed or the AfD re-opened right now. --Minimaki (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems worthwhile to actually review the close rationale which said, Rationale. There is no real reason to delete. Article violates no policy, and is well sourced. Proper title so no merge. Stand alone so no redirect. Consensus has been reached thus far. No reason to prolong. Also, so this is 100% clear, and no one feels its necessary to provoke argument over this close, I will cite, albeit, and essay. Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. It still seems to me that most of this is quite wrong. Hyperbole like 100% clear and absolutely obvious seems quite wide of the mark. And there was clearly a policy issue since the article obviously violates WP:NOT#NEWS which is policy. The speech is not even 24 hours old yet and such rushed coverage seems quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Isn't this stuff what WikiNews is for? The close seems to misrepresent the facts of the matter and does not present a strong enough case to ignore the normal 5-day rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misreading the above text. "100% clear" is in reference to the clarity of what the user was doing, not why he was doing it. And I'm sure someone has linked to it already, but the NY Times lead editorial is on the topic of the speech today, which frankly ought to be enough to exempt pretty much anything from deletion on notability grounds. MMZach (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Pointing to fresh news coverage in a daily newspaper is prima facie evidence that something is news rather than the contrary. The notability guideline explains this: It must also be borne in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews is appropriate for topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage.

(ec) Overturn and relist per WP:SK: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of 'keep' can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a 'speedy keep' instead." Non-admin closing a good-faith, potentially contentious AfD after less than five hours seems an egregious rejection of process. Nothing would have been lost by letting this run longer. Deor (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to wait a few days before relisting. I'm not sure that enough time was given for the AfD, but I know that for now at least we can't say that it violates NOT#NEWS; it might turn out to be notable in a few days, and then we'd have wasted some good work. It needs time, both to determine lasting notability and to make sure that everyone who'd want to comment on an AfD gets time to read the article first. I figure it doesn't matter whether or not we overturn the thing, unless we want to make a point of slapping the closer on the wrist, and I'm not very fond of that idea. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. This was a premature close. Sometimes the apparent consensus of the first few hours changes, whether due to time zone differences or other time lags for people to learn of the discussion. I would have likely voted delete for WP:NOT#NEWS too. It seems premature to me to label a speech as historic within a day (not everything that gets editorialized by the media is "instant history"). While it is quite possible that the speech will turn out to be historic after all, it is not our job to guess. --Itub (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 March 2008

Daniel Boey – Deletion endorsed. Allow recreation and improvement in userspace. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am writing this in regards to the continuous deletes this article gets from numerous Administrators. There seems to be a trend with this article where many of the admins do not read on the history of the article or the resolutions made with discrepancies in the past. I am neither messaged about potential issues, by way of Wikipedia or email which is active. I in turn get hasty deletes for issues that have already been remedied by previous admins. Case in Point, First deletion was made by User:Pedro for a redirect issue. I contacted Pedro immediately to rectify this. Once it was corrected the article was allowed to be active. Next deletion was by User:Jerryfor the same issue. I contacted Jerry to inform him that this issue was rectified working with Pedro and he also informed me of a potential notability issue. I conveyed to him that this same issue was brought up in Nov 2007 and my changes were accepted by the admin at that time. He then allowed the article to be active. Then the article was deleted by User:Discospinster or I should say moved to my user sub page due to a notability issue. I worked with him to rectify the issues and over numerous discussions to make sure the sources were valid he allowed me to move the article back to the original name place. At 23:13 on March 17th I receive a speedy deletion message for a G4 violation (which was rectified by Discospinster) by User:Kesh. 4 min later I had the article deleted by User:Toddst1 for a A7 violation. Upon questioning his reason for delete after providing him significant proof that the A7 violation was not valid in this case, He responded in a condescending manner. In just I responded accordingly. I then received another delete, and I am not sure why or how, by User:Jmlk17 for a G1: (Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) violation. I have questioned him on this delete and he did respond and asked me kindly if I would like the article to be moved to my sandbox for further editing.

I have done all that has been asked of me, added numerous sources from many different publications to satisfy any admin that has had an issue with it, Changed any redirect issue affiliated with the article etc. This has become a daily chore for something that should not be. If the article cannot be found for debate I can post it If allowed under my user sub page. Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Boey and closed without much discussion as Delete. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Text can be found at User:Succisa75/Sandbox --Calton | Talk 04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed malformed DRV request -- Kesh (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse article space deletion, Overturn user space deletion - At the time I tagged the article, it had been rewritten but I felt did not significantly fix the problems it was originally sent to User space for. Namely, the article still read as more of a resumé than an encyclopedic article. I am not sure why the User space version was deleted, especially as G1 was an improper reasoning. There are valid notability concerns, but I'm not sure that avenue has been exhausted yet, and Succisa75 deserves a chance to find more sources in his/her sandbox version. -- Kesh (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse article space deletion as one of the several deletors. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Jerry's assessment (below) that the user does not seem to have the facts straight. My observation is that the user has been disruptive with recreating an article that was deleted for good reasons. I believe it is a borderline notable autobiography and WP:SALT is in order to prevent further disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The requester does not seem to have the facts straight. The only times it was deleted "because of a redirect thing" was as a normal part of userfying the article. This is always done when a mainspace article is userfied. What really happened is below:

On 26 October 2007, User:W.marsh deleted Daniel Boey ‎per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Boey. On 12 November 2007 the same admin userfied it to User:Succisa75/Daniel Boey, at the user's request. The contents of the article were subsequently inappropriately recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements), without a deletion review or administrator consultation. On 13 March 2008, User:Discospinster re-userfied it, and stated that it was determined not to be a notable subject per the AfD. User:Pedro merely deleted the resulting cross-namespace redirect, because Discospinster accidentally left it there. The contents of the article were again subsequently inappropriately recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements), without a deletion review or administrator consultation. On 15 March 2008, User:Jerry (that's me!) deleted "Daniel Boey" citing WP:CSD#G4, recreation of content deleted at XfD, and Protected it. Also on 15 March 2008, Jerry (still me!) deleted Daniel boey as an apparent attempt by the author (this requester) to evade the protection. I protected that title as well. On 16 March 2008 Discospinster unprotected it, stating that the author had added better references. The contents of the article were subsequently recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements). On 17 March 2008, User:Toddst1 deleted it citing WP:CSD#A7 (group); Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance. The contents of the article were again subsequently inappropriately recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements), without a deletion review or administrator consultation. On 18 March 2008, User:Jmlk17 deleted it citing WP:CSD#G1; Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible. (This was likely an error, as it was probably intended to be another G4 deletion.) JMLK17 also protected it.

I say that the problem was that when Discospinster reviewed the article, if the determinations was made that it would likely pass an AfD, then Discospinster should have cross-namespace moved it, and made a comment in the edit summary to that effect, as well as making the usual talk page oldafdfull with a comment about it being improved. Had that happened, we would probably not be here discussing it. We may well be at AfD2, but that's another story.

If Discospinster was not confident enough to do that, then it should have been deferred to WP:DRV for a review. Having said that, I do not think the article has sufficient context for natability in V RS to support its N, so I think we should endorse deletion and it should remain userfied and the author should be advised to continue to try to improve it, and take it up at DRV when it is ready. Until then, we should WP:SALT the page to prevent further cut-and-past recreations. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry, Just to clarify, Wmarsh did approve of the additional sources that I added to the article and did allow the article to be created. From my recollection, I believe the "copy and paste" was an error on my part due to not understanding how to move a page over correctly.

Also in terms of notability, what more are you looking for? if needed I can email you the revised article with the additional resources for you to look over.

To all the admins here, I know that to contact every writer of each article might be what you call daunting, but I feel issues such as this could have been rectified by someone messaging me by either wiki or email prior to the delete. As you have all witnessed I do respond rather quickly to resolve any issue that might arouse. I feel the allowance of speedy deletion for numerous reasons has caused some to abuse that privilege.Succisa75 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually alot easier than you seem to think. Just put the article back to your userspace, improve it if it needs it, then come to DRV and request a review. If the result of the review is to mainspacify it, then you are home free. If not, you will receive good feedback on what more you need to do. Your userspace version got deleted because you blanked it and requested deletion after a cut-n-paste move. As far as daunting... I replied to your emails, didn't I? We are not too lazy to reply to you... your user talk page has evidence that several people have been telling you about the notability concerns with this article in all versions to date. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jerry you did reply to my emails, and were helpful. I never once used the word lazy in any of my complaints. Lack of research, yes, and the repeat deletions for the same thing steer me to that conclusion. Especially when not one but two admins approved of the changes they requested, (Wmarch in 2007 and discospinster as of recent). How could I have have the article active without it?

I cannot recreate the article in my userspace because a deletion has been done User:MZMcBride.

Also, There has not been an article for deletion discussion about this article post 2007. All there have been is speedy deletes and discussions there after.

I blanked my userspace version and requested deletion so I would not have an issue with the redirect. Was this an appropriate move on my part? Probably not, but I did not understand where and how the redirect issue came about, so as a novice editor here on Wiki I tried to rectify it with the limited know how I had.

Last, to address the notability issues that some admins might have had with this article, if one admin approves an article and others disagree on the notability issues, or feel it might need more wouldn't you think it would be fair that more detailed reasoning be given as to what amendments need to be made than just simply saying notability concerns? How is one able to fix an article where such vague feedback? Succisa75 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user has brought up that certain admins have approved the article. That's not how it works. No admin has the authority to "approve" an article. Any comments that an admin might make to the user that an article has become "better" or meets with their approval is their personal approval and does not imply any administrative approval. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin does not have administrative "approval" of an article, how can he or she delete an article then move it back to the mainspace once it meets their criteria? Succisa75 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The sequence of admin actions is confusing, but the latest deleted version of the page is still very unpromising. (It looks like a G11 speedy candidate to me, since it reads like an advertisement, has little or no exposition, and it just rattles off a bunch of credentials of unknown significance). Respectfully, I suggest a new deletion review at such time as a better article is created in user space, so there can be a discussion as to whether it now meets the bar. We should allow undeletion of the user space article so the editor can work on it. Keep the name salted in mainspace until a new DRV permits recreation of an article. Let's not have more out-of-process recreations. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is mainly a comment addressing User:Jerry's first comment above, just to clarify some misunderstandings:

Jerry claims that I forgot to delete the redirect-to-a-user-page when I userfied the article on March 13. This is not entirely true; I placed a db-rediruser tag on the page (since I didn't become an admin until later that day, I couldn't delete it myself).
When I moved the article back to article space on March 15, it was a proper move and not a cut-and-paste move, as suggested above.
The reason I moved it back in the first place was because I thought that notability had been established. I admit it was "borderline" but I felt it was leaning towards being an appropriate article. I see now that I probably should have brought it here in the first place, but we're here now, so...

Anyway, after reading the rest of the comments I see that I jumped the gun, so I'll endorse deletion without prejudice and also support keeping it on his userpage. ... discospinster _talk 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My humble apologies, Discospinster... I was unaware that you made admin in the brief period between the page move and my review of the logs. I suppose I should walk by RFA every so often, eh? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion in mainspace and userspace. This shows an obsessive desire to create an article on a subject which plainly does not meet our inclusion standards, and every iteration I've seen is plain old-fashioned spam. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Upon reading these opinions and discussing my article with other admins, I am in the process of rewriting the article in a manner more suited for the majority. I do however take offense to my article being labeled as "Spam". You may criticize me for my writing style or lack there of, but do not accuse me of pushing spam onto this site. I feel this is an article on a prominent figure in the fashion industry in South East Asia. While the subject of fashion might not be everyone's cup of tea per say, it is relevant to the goings on in an industry that generates billions of dollars globally. My desire to get this article online not only stems from the fact I believe the content to be valid, but I also want to be able to contribute to this site continually, and to do that successfully I want to learn the correct way to create an article.

Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak overturn I can't see the article, but procedurally I'm worried that there was only one comment in the AfD. The article in the Financial Times (certainly non-trivial) and the three or so in New Straits Times (one which looks non-trivial) seem to meet WP:N issues. In any case, I think this should have been relisted rather than deleted. Hobit (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article and would like feedback on it. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=User:Succisa75/Sandbox Succisa75 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: See Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Toddst1 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks. Made the changes you requested. Please see above sandbox link.Succisa75 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games – Deletion endorsed. This is a bit convoluted, but the consensus below was pretty clear once I determined what the consensus was about. I'm convinced by the argument that BoardGameGeek is about the website (and even if it isn't, user categorization as a "BoardGameGeek" is dubious). The fact that a replacement "interested in" category is available along with accompanying userbox is also important. Given the variety of German style board games, an "interested in" category seems more useful than a "plays" category anyway. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This category was misinterpreted as a "masquerade" for users of an external website, but is in fact a legitimate "users by interest" category. I've made changes to both the user box linking to this category, and the category itself to remove any confusion about its purpose. In it's current form, I believe it follows policy. — Aldaron • T/C 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is the cat you mean? It doesn't appear to have been deleted ever. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It the user box pointing to it has been "unhooked" from it, and the reason given is that this is a CfD. — Aldaron • T/C 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link to the UCfD. That might help. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I highly doubt I misinterpreted the category introduction: "For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek." - and the userbox text: "This user is a BoardGameGeek." It's very clear that this is about playing board games at the website (note even the usage of the capitals witout spaces between the words), and has zero to do with collaborating on articles about board games. And if now, one were to change the text of the userbox, or the category header, it calls into question if this would then miscategorise Wikipedians. Even if we were to accept the premise of the nominator above (that this is not about the website), at the very least this specific userbox (which obviously does concern the website) should not populate this category. (Which, AFAICT, would leave the category empty - C1 speediable.) - jc37 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I still don't follow you. The category and user box have been fixed. What is your problem with it now? Or perhaps more to the point: what does one now have to do to get a userbox and category that does what I'm claiming this one does (which is really all that's of interest to me or most people who have used it): to have a category (like the chess and mahjong players have) that identifies players of German style boardgame? do I really have to delete this one, unhook the userbox, build a new user box, define a new category (what would it be called, the name of this one is just right) and then have everyone who now uses this category edit their pages, or can't we just preserve the corrected version of the existing userbox and category? — Aldaron • T/C 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per my comments above. - jc37 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer per Jc's comments above. --Kbdank71 13:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently the category is called "Wikipedias who play German-style board games", the category page clearly defines it as a group of users who play German-style board games, and the template used to link to the category clearly states that it is for users who play those games. Whatever confusion there was about the purpose of the category in the past, it clearly serves a far less sinister purpose than you seem to accuse it of. What's the point of deleting it now? The whole thing will just have to be added back with a less accurate name in the future. — Aldaron • T/C 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with just rewording the userbox is that it's likely to create miscategorisation. The people who added the userbox to their user page did so because of its content; now that the content has changed, the userbox may no longer apply to them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true? I don't believe it is. In any case, the user box now also clearly states its correct purpose, and has had it's icon updated to call attention to the change, so any user who cares will delete it if they feel they have been miscategorized Deleting the category is just nuts, because we'll have to make a new one to replace it, and what will we call it? Seriously, this is just a misunderstanding, it shouldn't result in the loss of a useful category of users. — Aldaron • T/C 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that most people would notice a change to the wording of a single userbox, especially when many editors have dozens of such boxes on their user pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. What do you suggest I call the new category for Wikipedians who play German-style boardgames, once this one is deleted? — Aldaron • T/C 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get you to "give up", but rather to encourage an alternate way for seeking to preserve categorisation that minimises the potential for miscategorisation. I think that the problem was not with the category title, but rather the way it was populated. So, I think that the text of the original userbox should be restored and the creation of a new category based on the new userbox discussed. In other words, rather than attempting to reverse the "delete" closure, I think it would be more efficient to attempt to get consensus for refocusing the scope of the category from one for visitors to BoardGameGeek to one for editors interested in the topic of German-style board games. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There doesn't seem to be a reason to delete now that the boardgamegeek link has been cut. Hobit (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Per my comments above and in concurrence with Hobit. Additionally, deletion will create confusion for users who are already members of the category, and will necessitate the creation of a new less accurate name for a replacement category. — Aldaron • T/C 01:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Even if Jc37 had been completely wrong in the nominator's rationale, there is no reason for this category or any similar category to ever exist. It doesn't help Wikipedia to know "who plays" anything, and no such categories should be created or recreated. The deletion was sound. VegaDark (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is new logic (and not part of the original reasoning, as I understand it). If that's the case (and truly represents policy) then fine, but the parent category and all sub categories (for example, Wikipedians who play go) should be deleted too. — Aldaron • T/C 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy on user categories other than WP:NOT, what is acceptable or not is generally driven by consensus. So that is my opinion, not policy. As for the other board game categories being deleted, many have been deleted recently and I would agree with the deletion of the rest. VegaDark (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The AfD is clear, it does not look like there was any misinterpretation. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per my and others' comments above, but permit recreation of Category:Wikipedians interested in German-style board games iff it is properly populated. A specific userbox for visiting a website should not populate such an interest category and, in general, the content of userboxes that are currently being used by many editors should not be dramatically changed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. And that category name is the right one (and consistent with the parent). What's should I do with the old userbox though? It now points nowhere and (despite your assertions) most people who have it put it on their pages because they're "interested in German-style board games" (not because of an affiliation with a website), so the correct thing to do (unless you think I'm lying) is to have that add the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you're lying, but neither you nor I can really know why someone added the userbox to their user page. I'm ambivalent about what should be done with it. On the one hand, I generally don't favour repurposing in-use userboxes; on the other, your seemingly firm belief that use of the original userbox is tied to an interest in the subject of German-style board games is having an effect. I think that, for now, I'll leave it to others' to comment on the issue. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a matter of accuracy. Essentially there are at least two criteria in place for the current userbox. German-style board games playing, and usage of the website. Due to WP:AGF, among other things, we presume that those who placed this userbox on their userpage ascribe to either or both criteria, and felt secure enough in that to place said userbox on their userpage. Now if someone comes along and "repurposes" a userbox, we run into the problem of the possiblility that the userbox may now not apply to the user who affixed the box to their userpage. And considering that users are frequently not active or on Wikibreak, or may just not have noticed the change, "re-purposing" a userbox is an incredibly bad idea. I agree with the others above: Revert the existing userbox to it's previous form (while removing the category per the discussion), and add the "re-created" category to the new userbox. As always, we should "err on the side of caution" when dealing with declaratives and categorisation of Wikipedians. - jc37 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the abstract, for two arbitrary criteria, this makes sense, but the truth of the matter is that the two criteria are not mutually exclusive: anyone whose interest in "affiliation" with the BGG website is strong enough to have inspired placing the userbox on his page is also interested enough in German-style games that they would hardly be harmed or confused (or feel "repurposed") by the change of characterization of the category. The chance that anyone with the userbox lacks an "interest in German-style games" is effectively zero. So I don't see this as "repurposing", but as an inconsequential refocusing. And even that is only for those who added the userbox with BGG foremost in their thinking—as I've maintained, I think most people with the userbox had their interest in German-style games foremost in the first place, and were only incidentally concerned with the website. To the uninformed, the original characterization of the category ("For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek") is easily misinterpreted, since it hides the fact that the set of people who "frequent BoardGameGeek" is a strict subset of the people who "play German-style boardgames", so that the latter characterization (and the updated category) is correct for everyone in the old category. So it's clear to me that the correct thing to do is to have the old userbox point to the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're missing here is that there is no need for the userbox to have a category attached. Those using the old userbox, still can. What we're discussing is whether the category is appropriate for inclusion in that transcluded userbox. In addition (though really outside the scope of this discussion) that "repurposing/refocusing" a userbox which is transcluded on other's userpages is a really bad idea. Period. Just because someone may like a certain website, doesn't mean they may like a topic associated with that website. And I note that BGG deals with more than just "german-style board games". Anyway, all this aside, by attempting to change the original userbox, and so on, you've essentially agreed with the premise of the original closure, so this DRV can probably be closed as "endorse" now. - jc37 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No I completely disagree with the original premise (as I've tried to explain), but having fallen down the deletionist rabbit hole, I've tried my best to get back to reality (and have, of course, only become more disoriented in the process). In any case. I'll do my best to sort this out so that it does the least damage to the real people who are actually using the userbox to find each other and contribute game-related content. Please do delete the old category though, since nothing will point to it. — Aldaron • T/C 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can find others using the userbox without having any category associated with it by simply using the "what links here" function on the left side of the page while at the userbox page. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for the closer - Please see also User_talk:J_Greb#3PO, and particularly its subsection: User_talk:J_Greb#Ok.2C_found_it, in which this discussion is somewhat continued. There is some information and some links which are noteworthy. - jc37 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Spishak – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary Review: I request that this article be restored to my userspace so I can simply copy the content to my computer. I have no intentions to restart the article. UrPQ31 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the e-mail you registered works, I believe that'd be easier. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fine.--UrPQ31 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Lillian Verner Game Show – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary Review: I request that this article be restored to my userspace so I can simply copy the content to my computer. I have no intentions to restart the article. UrPQ31 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the e-mail you registered works, I believe that'd be easier. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fine.--UrPQ31 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Damir Dokić – Endorse speedy deletion as attack article, with no prejudice against recreation of an article on the subject which is neutral, balanced, and sourced. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article on Damir Dokić (father of Jelena Dokić) was speedily deleted under CSD G10, which covers attack pages and severe BLP problems. I understand the need for caution for biographies of living people, but I strongly suspect that G10 does not apply. When I last edited the article, it was not a hit job by an editor with an axe to grind. Instead, it was the biography of someone who has mainly been in the news for his misconduct. I think he is notable, based on sustained coverage in broadsheet media, but even if he wasn't, by itself it doesn't merit G10 - rather, an AfD or merging would be more appropriate. I'd discuss with the deleting admin, but the person is no longer contributing to wikipedia. Andjam (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article was primarily about the misconduct, then it is a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:UNDUE. -- Kesh (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The article was primarily negative comments with no sources; speedy G10 applies. Marasmusine (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion As said above the whole article reads throughout just as one negative statement after another and almost completly unsourced. Speedy deletion was the correct course of action in those circumstances. Would suggest just creating a redirect to Jelena Dokić where any notability he has stems from and where he is already mentioned quite a bit. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We have a BLP policy for several good reasons. Articles like this are one of them. I personally apply BLP very narrowly,but I would have unhesitatingly applied a G!0 under that policy for this article as it stands. This is the very model of an attack page, consisting almost entirely of unsourced negative statements. DGG (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone email me the version that I edited (I think I wikified a Balkan newspaper) and the version that got deleted? I didn't recall it being an attack article at the time I edited it. I promise not to publish any BLP-violating content. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Damir Dokić is a very controversial person, the epitome of the tennis dad. A lot of controversial things can be listed here. But that's all the more reason to be cautious. This article listed a lot of controversies, with very little sourcing. As such, it violated WP:BLP, and deleting the article was justified imo. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, negative and unsourced.--Doc^g 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of this version, no opinion on recreation with iron clad sourcing. Damir has recived a lot of media coverage over the years. Viridae ^Talk 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Nothing but unsourced negative material about a living person, no good version. Valid BLP deletion. It can be recreated from scratch withing the limits of BLP. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but certainly allow recreation. Daniel (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid G10, but allow recreation of a neutral article with proper sourcing. --Core desat 06:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion entirely negative biography citing virtually no sources. Recreation is fine if the new version is sourced and NPOV. Hut 8.5 07:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per almost everyone above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (having redirected it). This article only has two versions: an unequivocal A7 and an unequivocal G10. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Don Murphy – Overturn: Honestly folks. Any editor may feel free to re-list this at AfD with a reasonable rationale. Any new AfD rationale should refer to specific Wikipedia policy and guidelines or provide a compelling case as to why those policies and guidelines should be cast aside in this case. A note to remember: Wikipedia is run by Wikipedians, and the decisions are made the Wikipedia community, even if the community make those decisions based on outside influences. Free access to the sum total of all human knowledge, for all time and without bias, is our goal. Whatever the outcome, let's keep that goal in view. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The discussion on the Don Murphy deletion review has been moved to its own subpage as it was becoming too long for this page. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy if you wish to comment. Nick (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 March 2008

Myles Dyer blade376 – Deletion endorsed – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Speedy deleted due to a previously deletedArticle of a similar nature, also because of new info that was not included in the previous article. Irejectreality (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the article should be undeleted? A ecis^Brievenbus 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was deleted because it was seen as a "Repost" of a previous article about blade 376, although it is almost completely new. it got a solid structure, it's all referenced, and should at least be given a chance. Although the original article for blade376 was taken down because it was for a "Non Notable Internet "Celebrity" in the past few months he has done a lot of charity work, and is taking part in the competition "Upstaged" which has earned him a large gathering. May i also note that this article is only very slightly based on the original article, which was sent to meby the original author, so is basicallya completely new article, which is follows wikipedias notability guidelines (As far as i can be sure) and is fully referenced. Irejectreality (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After having looked at Myles Dyer blade376 and Blade376, I feel that deleting Myles Dyer blade376 per WP:CSD#A7 is valid. This guy is basically someone who occasionally uploads something on YouTube. WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply however, since Blade376 wasn't deleted as the result of an AFD discussion. Keep deleted. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had reviewed that tag while it was placed, but before I could act on it, Jmlk had deleted it. What he deleted it under is not a speedy criterion; the closest thing it resembls is G4, which doesn't apply to speedy and prods. However, it should still have been deleted under A7 web. There's no need to undelete and delete under a new criterion, so I endorse his deletion. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion log contains the speedy nom, which states "nn-bio", so I'm assuming that A7 was part of the reason. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may say that, but other less well known people from that site have fully functioning articles on wikipedia, such as nalts boh3m3 and renetto. If these people are fine to have an article, then why can't blade376?? Irejectreality (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Going (boh3m3) has been covered by i.a. Associated Press, the New York Times, Newsweek, New York Post, CNET and Newsday, to name a few sources. Paul Robinett (renetto) has been covered by The New York Times, New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and BBC News. Kevin Nalty (nalts) has been covered by The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and ABC News. If you can provide similar sources for Myles Dyer, you've gone a long way towards establishing his notability. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see what i can find. I do know hes had quite a bit of press coverage, it's just finding it. I'll update this shortly, so if you cancheck bac then, i'll be very greatful Irejectreality (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Endorse deletion, content qualifies for speedy and the requester has no significant history other than promoting this subject. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Back to the Future timeline – Non delete closure endorsed. The discussion below doesn't show a clear consensus for or against the merge, but that can be hashed out editorially. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was closed by User:Haemo as "The result was Merge to Back to the Future trilogy", but "merge" was only suggested by one of the twenty participants in the discussion. It appears that merging is Haemo's personal solution, and not a neutral or proper interpretation of the consensus represented in this discussion. There's no possible way that merge can be interpretted from this discussion. Haemo has clearly stepped over the line here. Except for the one merge !vote, the discussion was divided strictly between those who wished to keep and those who wished to delete, with the keeps prevailing either directly or defaulting to keep via no clear consensus. I'm baffled by Haemo's closing of this deletion discussion as "merge". The merge should be overturned and the list kept as per the real consensus. The Transhumanist 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the page still unsourced ? Nick (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My closure was not based on merely the bolded !votes — it was based on the arguments made, and their basis in policy. The strongest policy-based argument made was that this article has insufficient 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability — as such, most of the article was some form, or degree of original research. The strongest argument in favor of keeping the subject was that renomination was premature — the "sources exist" argument was not compelling. As such, I found that the consensus of the discussion was that the article was inappropriate. No editors contested the deletion argument, while the keep arguments were roundly contested. However, nearly all of the "delete" arguments argued the content was better dealt with briefly in the articles on the respective films, and that it was the concept of the timeline as being independently notable that was the issue. Consensus clearly indicated that there was some plausible place for the material in other articles — since the clearest suggestion for which article was to Back to the Future trilogy I settled on that.

Your statement that Keep was the "correct" consensus is wrong. AFD is not a vote, and if I had gone merely by the strongest bolded recommendations, this article would have been deleted. Instead, I opted to actually read what people recommended, and decided that consensus was in favor of this content in some form — just not as a stand-alone article. --Haemo (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is "Back to the Future", and it is obviously notable. The word "timeline" is a standard Wikipedia construct, a specialized form of "list", and pertains entirely to the format in which the material is organized - it is not subject to the notability requirement. The contents of articles (including lists and timelines) are not subject to notability (see WP:N#NCONTENT, only the subject of the article is. For example, the List of World War II ships doesn't have to provide notability of the list as a list but only of the subject it displays in list form, the same applies to timelines as timelines, such as the Timeline of World War I -- timelines do not have to have been published elsewhere or referred to elsewhere -- Wikipedians have constructed timelines in the same way that they construct lists and other articles, and timelines are no more a synthesis of their respective topics than articles or lists are of the topics they present. Chronological representation of material is just one of the formats used in Wikipedia to present information, and that's what the word "timeline" in Wikipedia articles refers to. Therefore, the argument that you identified as the strongest in the discussion is actually the weakest, as it has no basis under Wikipedia policy. The Transhumanist 22:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not AFD part deux — this argument was not advanced in the discussion, therefore it would be impossible to close based on it. The notion that a novel collection of original research on a subject becomes immune to notability guidelines because it is called a "timeline" is debatable — and, indeed, was debated. Your rationale for overturning this discussion was that it did not reflect the consensus — I have argued that it does — whereas you have instead advanced a new argument which was not displayed in the discussion as a rationale for keeping it. The core contention you make here was discussed, and was found to be outweighed by the problems of original research, plot summary, and the fact that the material could be better treated in other articles. You seem to be confused about your rationale for overturning this discussion, since you are arguing that the close did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, based on an argument that not made in the discussion. --Haemo (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. My rationale pertains to the strength of an argument which you based your decision on, and as you stated above upon its basis in policy, and I showed how that argument was weak based on Wikipedia's policies and standard conventions - in other words, I was evaluating your interpretation of policy as you applied it to the closing of the AfD. And I provided a more sensisble alternate interpretation. The Transhumanist 22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, the discussion indicated to me, that your rejoinder to that argument was considered and rejected. This may seem ironic, but I am not trying to interpret policy here at all — I'm determining which policy-based arguments were held to be the strongest in the discussion. I may believe, for example, that WP:NOT#PLOT is a bogus policy without consensus support in the community and any argument based upon it is equally bogus — however, I would still judge these as policy-based arguments, and look at how the discussion perceived their strength relative strengths. If an argument is weak, based on my interpretation of policy over which there is (and was) discussion, but the debate does not agree with my interpretation I should nonetheless defer to the consensus in the discussion. To give a personal example — I dislike "No sources demonstrate notability" arguments in discussions, because they are a negative statement. However, I would not overturn a discussion which held those to be the compelling argument on a subject. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and close as no consensus, looking at that AFD, I don't see consensus to merge. --Pixelface (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing something as merge, keep, or no consensus won't make a difference, the end result is the same each time. If he had closed it as a 'no consensus', he could've still merged the thing. Even now, anyone who disagrees can revert the merge, since nothing's been deleted. - Bobet 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse merge Haemo's explanation is reasonable. AfD is not a vote. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A well-reasoned decision, compliant with the AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Closing admin is not bound by the numbers and is charged with interpreting the entire debate, including the relative strength of the arguments and their concurrence with policy and guidelines. Closing as merge reflects both the desire to preserve the information in some form and the policy and guideline arguments against keping the article as a separate entity. Otto4711 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, strongly, or overturn and delete outright. Local consensus cannot override official policy, and you will never find a clearer example of original research on Wikipedia than this. The first and second afds are actively nauseating. —Cryptic 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, very moderate. I'd have nuked it as worthless badly sourced cruft. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse merge, looks like a reasonable outcome. Yes, this was OR, but there wasn't consensus to delete it, and merging was the best solution; AFD is not a vote. --Core desat 06:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. I don't like it, and I think in time it will just be merged out again for space reasons. But it does work, and I can see it as a valid close. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to keep !votes go toward keep and it comes back to two questions: #1 is this OR, and #2 is it notable. #1 I don't have a clue on. #2 I'd have to say the topic as a whole is, and breaking this out seems like a reasonable decision. A merge seems like a poor idea given the size of the articles involved. Plus merger wasn't really anything near the consensus (perhaps because people were aware of the size problems) Hobit (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As long as the info remains at Back to the Future trilogy#Time Travel Theory where it is now, it works out fine, and that article is the better for it. In any event, that article is unlikely to really need to grow--twenty plus years in, we're not likely to get another sequel or major new information. Never say never though, I suppose... Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

History of For Better or For Worse – Overturn and Delete. – Nakon 00:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

An article which clearly completely fails a standard policy WP:NOT#PLOT, but was kept. Not only does the article contain plot summary, it is nothing BUT plot summary. Given the recent RfAR on fiction, where editors described WP:NOT as "disputed", this could set a precedent. Black Kite 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Article clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which was the whole point of the nomination, and the Keep votes in this AFD do not answer this. It seems the closing admin just counted noses. This was a terrible closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Although there was no consensus to delete (and at the very least, the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than as "keep"), no one in favor of keeping the article presented any argument that it is not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Rather, the "keep" arguments were based on the article's being "useful" and the fact that it was previously removed from the main For Better or For Worse article. Frankly, neither of those arguments outweighs the fact that the article is a policy violation. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim that "no one in favor of keeping the article presented any argument that it is not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT" is false. At least two people in that AFD mentioned that the article was split off and could be merged back in (which renders WP:PLOT moot). The simple fact is that the content is not a "policy violation" if it's put back where it came from in the first place. I should point out that the article actually complies with the initial wording of WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series." --Pixelface (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion [this is a typo, see below], based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean endorse closure? It wasn't deleted. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the place for this is in the parent article, except that this is far too long and detailed, and a useful summary of the important plot points already exists there. Black Kite 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's of course what I meant. Too many AfDs and DRVs. Here is my revised statement:

Endorse closure' as keep, based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. However, the closer followed what the discusssion seemed to want. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Unsourced, nothing but plot summary, utterly misconceived. This isn't what Wikipedia is here for. Perhaps someone could put it in Comixpedia; it doesn't belong here, though. Nandesuka (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure' as keep - the community has decided to keep this, which provides the opportunity to fix it. If it isn't fixed in a reasonable amount of time, it can be nominated for deletion again. In the meantime, we should respect the consensus. There is no procedural point upon which the AfD should be overturned, and therefore it should be upheld. The Transhumanist 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly procedural - "The community" doesn't get to rewrite policy, and the AfD should've been closed in line with policy - which it wasn't. If it was WP:BLP that was the issue here, there would be little argument - why is WP:NOT different? Black Kite 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree consensus should be respected. The AFD did not reach any consensus, but WP:NOT does have consensus. This article is in violation of WP:NOT and there is no way to "fix" this article other than by deleting it. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The community actually does get to rewrite policy. Policy flows from consensus, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Personally I don't think WP:PLOT even belongs in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is written by the community; that is not the same as a small cadre of editors choosing to ignore policy and claim it as "consensus". Consensus is what created the policies in the first place. If you wish to rewrite WP:NOT, then WT:NOT is the correct venue. Black Kite 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find there already is a discussion going on at WT:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no procedure on display here at all. The full text of the closure was "The result was Keep." With an obvious result that is probably okay to do, but in this AFD the glaring WP:PLOT was simply ignored—the article has simply no other content except plot summary—with no rationale given for this Keep. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as keep, there was no consensus to delete that article and DRV is not AFD round 2. If necessary the content can be merged back into the For Better or For Worse article (since it was spunout in the first place). WP:PLOT doesn't even belong in WP:NOT, it belongs in WP:WAF. And Angr redirecting the article after the AFD was over was disruptive. --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be merged back into the parent, then. WP:SPINOUT clearly says "Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.". Black Kite 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you'll be withdrawing this DRV? --Pixelface (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My redirecting the article after the AFD was over wasn't nearly as disruptive as the creation of this "article" in the first place. It shouldn't have been spun out of the main article, it should have been simply removed from the main article. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The article still exists. Black Kite 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said it needs to be merged back into the parent. I take it you brought this to DRV so it could be deleted but if it's merged it can't be deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, if the material is put back in the main article then this doesn't need to exist any longer. (It shouldn't exist separately anyway, hence the DRV - but a summary of this material is unobjectionable as part of the larger topic). Black Kite 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is put in the main article, the history for this article needs to exist to fulfill the GFDL. Merge and Delete is never the right option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting a merge then delete? Go read WP:MERGE, particularly the part that says "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect." --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge always needs a redirect (unless there is no edit history). However, since this article is entirely plot summary, it can be deleted wholesale. None of this makes a point; it just recaps what happened in the strip for 25 years. That said, if this information is considered helpful in the parent article, a merge would be an acceptable solution. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created on October 12, 2006 by JenKilmer[43], who spun it out from the main article[44] since the article was getting too large. We have plot summaries for 2 hour films and years and years of soap operas, so why not plot summaries for comic strips that have been published for nearly 30 years? DRV is to determine whether the closing admin interpreted the debate correctly and so far I have seen nobody here who says there was consensus to delete in that AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was WP:CONSENSUS to delete. None of the Keep voters addressed the nominator's valid policy concern. This was not a poll. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was no consensus to delete and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Editors can ignore WP:PLOT if they think it improves Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot invoke IAR to ignore a policy that you don't agree with. That is utterly ridiculous and tendentious. Black Kite 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's exactly what IAR means. --Pixelface (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR applies to editing, not to AFD. It means you do not need to be fluent in Wikipedia's rule system to edit. It doesn't mean all policies are void if you don't like them. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it applies to everything. Essentially, it's there to keep Wikipedia from turning into a bureaucracy. If blindly following the "rules" leads to a conclusion that is clearly absurd, or is at odds with the consensus of interested editors in a particular situation, you ignore the rules and do what's not absurd/in accord with the wishes of those participating in the discussion. Bureaucracy is bad. Avoid it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, Pixelface is invoking IAR in order to achieve a situation that is clearly absurd, namely that an article that has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and never can have any encyclopedic value whatsoever, should be kept. The rule Pixelface would have us ignore is the "rule" that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that makes an article encyclopedic? Can you give a concrete definition, or are you just using it as a cover for your destructive ambitions? There's nothing absurd about it--its contents are perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia. I fail to see how anyone could ever think otherwise? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "your destructive ambitions" might not be in the spirit of assuming good faith. You had better invoke WP:IAR, and fast. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure as keep or no consensus. The parent article covers a comic strip which has has a 27 year history. This article does needs clean-up but deletion is not the answer. The parent article, which existence would seem to negate the entire WP:NOT#PLOT issue, seems well-balanced and it looks like this was spunoff to deal with size issue, seems cruel to now delete content when they were trying to follow protocol. If WP:NOT#PLOT is such a big deal then add a lede summary to address that concern. If it otherwise needs rewriting then perhaps that should be addressed. Benji boi 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse closure. First, the article as it stands is nothing but plot summary, which is not -- absent real-world information -- encyclopedic. I would have recommended deletion had I participated in the AfD. However, it is clear that there was no consensus to delete the article among those who did participate. While I realize a closure must take into account the strength of arguments, I believe a "delete" result cannot be reasonably supported given the discussion that occurred. I personally would have closed it as no consensus, based on the weakness of the "keep" arguments, but I don't find that to be grounds for overturning. I would support a relisting to clarify consensus. Powers ^T 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete - The article even states itself at the beginning: Story outline by year. Violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, with no rationale by closer as to why this should be kept over policy. -- Kesh (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I just ask again those endorsing - at which point did we allow a small "consensus" (actually, it wasn't even a consensus at 6/4) of users to agitate to keep utterly unencyclopedic material in this encyclopedia completely against policy. What on earth is the point in having policies if we completely ignore them? I have never, ever, seen such a clear-cut example of an XfD which is a clear Delete where policy is being completely ignored. "If WP:NOT#PLOT is such a big deal...." - it's a POLICY. I find this DRV so far utterly unbelievable and a shocking indictment of what we have allowed Wikipedia to become. Black Kite 23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the interpretation is that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is policy, but the specific application of that policy to (in this case) plot summaries, is not writ in stone. Alternatively, if you prefer, the consensus was not that the current content of the article is encyclopedic, but rather that the article topic ("the fictional history of the characters in the comic strip For Better or For Worse") is encyclopedic -- and thus that the article should be improved rather than deleted outright. That opinion is within the bounds of What Wikipedia Is Not policy. Powers ^T 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree. WP:NOT#PLOT is quite clear, and we don't keep articles that "might be improved" if they utterly fail policy. After all, we wouldn't keep a WP:BLP violation on the basis that someone might fix it, or a WP:BIO violation just in case that person became notable in the future. Black Kite 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't about WP:BLP and this isn't an article about living person, which has stricter standards. Go read the editing policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, just tell me - which bit of WP:NOT#PLOT is unclear, or doesn't apply to this article? Tell me that, and I'll withdraw this DRV. Black Kite 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You should have withdrawn it right after you said "It needs to be merged back into the parent, then." --Pixelface (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And again - tell me which bit of WP:NOT#PLOT is unclear, or doesn't apply to this article? Black Kite 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:PLOT says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." It doesn't say articles lacking that should be deleted outright. The For Better or For Worse article *does* contain real-world context and sourced analysis, as well as detail on the comic strip's historical significance. This is a sub-article of that article — which is evident by the presence of the {{main}} template under the ==Key storylines== heading. If you *insist* that this article be viewed as an island, information about the work's development and real-world context can be merged from the main article to this one. Or this sub-article can be merged back into the For Better or For Worse article. Now what makes you think Keilana interpreted the AFD incorrectly? --Pixelface (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So you are proposing that an article composed entirely of plot summary can be saved by adding a token amount of non-plot content? Solutions based on raising article quality from unacceptable to merely bad-but-WP:ILIKEIT demonstrate that this AFD could only have been closed as Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that poor articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. I've already offered a solution — merge the content back into the article it came from — which shows that the AFD could not only have been closed as delete, and that Keilana actually closed it properly. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay there's something wrong with my browser. When I type in WP:NOT#PLOT, I come to a page that looks like Wikipedia, but it says
    Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.
    Please tell me what it says when you go to WP:NOT#PLOT, cos when I scroll up on this page, I swear it says it's a Wikipedia policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Go type in WP:IAR and tell me what your browser says. --Pixelface (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - On that basis, I could press "Delete" on this article right now, because I'd be improving the encyclopedia by deleting an unencyclopedic article that fails a core policy. I'd think about that before you go flinging IAR around. Black Kite 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry. What was that? I'm trying to help Edgarde with his browser. --Pixelface (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Pixelface. Looking at this page is seems like "Ignore all rules" is your only line, so perhaps discussions relating to procedure and policy may not be your strong point. I have more on IAR above. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh I know all about policy and procedure. DRV should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. I'm glad you're browser is working better now. --Pixelface (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahem, please save the snarkiness for off-wikipedia use; to both your points this article is the plot of the parent article and as such WP:NOT#PLOT wouldn't seem to apply. That is, if we put all this content back into the parent it wouldn't be a WP:NOT#PLOT issue. DRV process is to see if the AfD was closed properly. Benji boi 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; and it wasn't, because it was closed against policy. Black Kite 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by building consensus. When there is no consensus to delete during an AFD, the article is kept. If referring to policy is all that was required, it would be unnecessary for editors to comment in deletion discussions. --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly misunderstand the function of AfD. Whilst the comments of those at AfD are taken into account, they are always subordinate to policy. Black Kite 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was not closed properly, as stated above. And WP:NOT#PLOT also means excessive plot summary is still not desirable even in an article that contains other content. WP:SUMMARY does not make the presence of a parent article into a policy escape clause. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, those policies were built by community consensus, and even if those expressing opinions on AfD aren't citing the policies you wish the person closing the AfD also needs to look at the consensus of the AfD. edg, this article wasn't created nor does it exist in a vacuum. Benji boi 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, but if we're starting to ignore policy in favour of ILIKEIT votes in AfD discussions, then we need to look very carefully at some very problematic areas that this could lead us. That is my concern. Black Kite 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When editors ignore a policy, that indicates the policy doesn't actually have consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just indicates tendentious editors to me. As I said, the place for policy discussion is not in articles. Black Kite 07:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please point out to me the "ILIKEIT votes" in that AFD (or point me to the AfD discussions you're referring to). Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. When a handful of editors ignore a policy, that indicates we ought to correct their misunderstanding here at deletion review. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please go read the editing policy which says "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:...move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)." And go read WP:ATD, which is also policy. --Pixelface (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reading suggestions, but I am already quite familiar with our guidelines and policies and simply disagree with your seeming ignorance of key portions of them. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to be ignorant of several policies yourself — particularly the original wording of WP:PLOT which actually allows for this article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for the trip down memory lane. Ahh ... 2006. Those were good times. --Dragonfiend (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Angr's argument is compelling. — Dulcem (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete — per Angr's argument which puts it well. --Haemo (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and keep Pixelface makes some good points. A merge discussion on whether it should be in the main article or kept separate is more appropriate than deleting this material outright. Buspar (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as keep; comprehensiveness requires the existence of a subarticle for greater detail. We have to reconcile the idea that articles should not be solely based on plot with the need to expand content. Certainly one could write more about the history of this strip than just the history of its storyline, so isn't that a solution? If someone could just expand the scope so that the article discussed the author's ideas about the strip, syndication and popularity over time, awards...any kind of "real world" history, we could avoid this argument. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has done that - it's in the main article already. Black Kite 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm just pointing out how the article could be expanded so that it is more than just plot. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per Angr. Keep !votes had no basis in policy. Reso lute 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. No policy asserted that would justify retaining this. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as keep Storyline of a notable comic strip is an encyclopedic topic, and articles of legitimate subjects should stay as it has every chance to be improved. A page of this type is acceptable in that it allows for a clearer and more logical orgnization of a large topic, see WP:NOT#PLOT where it says "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." (that does apply to stand-alone articles) Clean up the article, trim it down to just one or two paragaphs as you see fit; it's still not a reason for deletion. I'm surprised that some editors have asked to overturn the close and even delete the article; there is no consensus, by any means, for any act of deletion in that AfD. DRV cannot go blatanly against the will of AfD participants. The most they should ask out of this DRV is a relist, not deletion. A merge or a no consensus would require keeping the article anyway. Good close. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Delete Consensus should be judged against policy not headcount. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete; Weight of keep argument: WP:ILIKEIT = 0. — Coren ^(talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please point out the ILIKEITs in that AFD and why you think Keilana interpreted the debate incorrectly? --Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep argument: appropriate spin-out page for plot of a series. Suggest those wanting to delete wait 5 or 6 months, when there might be clearer consensus for their position in another AfD; this is what would be appropriate.. Those who say no basis in policy, mean, no basis in their interpretation of policy. But the way we interpret policy is according to the expressed consensus. DGG (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be any interpretation of policy here - this is just "what happened this week in this cartoon" which people add to occasionally and that's it. It's sat there and failed WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NOT for a long time - why should it change in six months? Black Kite 06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, I think the WP:V and WP:NOT are answered by WP:SIZE and suggested breakout rules. But WP:OR isn't. Could you identify the OR you see? 68.40.58.255 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure This isn't AFD part 2 so all this talk of why it should or should not be deleted is irrelevant. The closure was reasonable and should be upheld, though "no consensus" would probably have been a better summary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This is, in fact, not nearly as clear cut as those arguing so vociferously to remove this content would like us to believe. It seems obvious to me that WP:NOT#PLOT was written about articles that were standalone plot summaries with no other context or content. But this is a sub-article that was split from a lengthier main article. I see no evidence that WP:NOT was meant to apply to a sub-article written under the auspices of WP:SUMMARY, which is an essential guideline for writing an encyclopedia. I cringe to imagine the destruction that would follow from such a narrow-minded reading of WP:NOT. That this is the result of following the summary style guideline makes it a special case, and Keilana correctly interpreted the previous discussion. --JayHenry (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no formal distinction between standalone articles and "sub-articles". A reader encountering this article for the first time sees a "standalone plot summary with no other context or content". When content is spun out from a main article into a sub-article, the sub-article has to meet all the requirements other articles are subject to, including WP:NOT#PLOT. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we need to write rules and policies about the difference between standalone articles and subarticles perhaps we should do so. I'm not a big fan of WikiLaws and see this as an obvious example of a moment for a common sense exception (and thus find a common sense closure of an AFD appropriate). Of course, I've been here long enough to know that common sense is not popular, but I'll advocate for it nonetheless. The vast majority of people coming to the article are, of course, going to be coming to the article because they are looking for the information, probably via the For Better or Worse article. So your initial statement is simply not true most of the time. How else does someone get there? The random page button? Okay, but even then surely they'll read the first sentence where it explicitly states that it's broken off the main article. Respectfully, I disagree with your conclusions. --JayHenry (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - THe problem is that the nature of enwiki means that "common sense exceptions" are immediately used as precedent (though frankly, I don't think this is an exception - it's as clear a failure of WP:NOT as I've seen, especially as a cogent summary of the plot is already in the main article, and has been for a while. This article is effectively "what happened this week in this series" - look at the last paragraph "April visits Grandpa Jim and Iris. Anthony and Elizabeth become engaged on March 13,2008,with both of them subsequently talking to Francoise individually about their relationship." Is this encyclopedic information? No. Black Kite 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be clear, the only thing I'm endorsing is that common sense tells me we should not give sub-articles a lawyerly and unbending reading of guidelines and policies that were written to apply to standalone articles. An overly lawyerly reading of WP:NOT could lead one to delete Timeline of Jane Austen. I think this is an example where we probably agree that it would be idiotic to delete -- right? -- a scholarly and extremely encyclopedic article about an important literary subject that could run afoul of some of the strictures of WP:NOT. The difference perhaps, is that the Timeline of Jane Austen is extremely well done, whereas this article is a mess. I don't disagree that the article needs substantial clean up. But I don't see that as a reason to take it to AFD and DRV. --JayHenry (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the difference between Timeline of Jane Austen and this article is that Timeline of Jane Austen is a timeline of things that happened in the real world, not a fictional universe. And the last thing we need to do is create a difference between standalone articles and subarticles. Articles are articles, and all are equally subject to policies like WP:NOT. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand that it doesn't run afoul of WP:PLOT, but I'm reluctant to advance arguments of where it might run afoul of other aspects of WP:NOT, for fear that someone would then rush to delete the article to demonstrate how important they want "WP:NOT" to be. Goodness, I'm merely talking about using sound editorial judgment and considering the context within Wikipedia of an article. Sorry, but you're mistaken if you think WP:NOT, because it is "policy", takes priority over having a good encyclopedia; sometimes having a good encyclopedia means considering the context of an article in relationship to other articles. I'm arguing that's the case here. I'm not saying that a sub-article is exempt from every single sentence of WP:NOT. I'm saying organizational scheme and context are perfectly apropos considerations. Please, I'm not being a radical here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think WP:NOT takes priority over having a good encyclopedia; on the contrary, WP:NOT defines what a good encyclopedia is. And History of For Better or For Worse is no part of a good encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 02:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To be clear: I do agree that this particular article, as written, is not a quality article at the moment; I disagree that it never could me. And I'm extremely reluctant to endorse the notion that such an article, as part of a broader scheme, could never be "encyclopedic" under any circumstances. --JayHenry (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, per Coren. Much handwaving and misdirection from the "Keep" side, litlle actual policy or reasoning. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, keep arguments were not grounded in policy, and Wikipedia is not a plot guide. --Core desat 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Although I like the information, it is simply not wikipedia's mission to present a (detailed) plot overview without offering analysis. WP:FICT makes an excellent point in suggesting a trim of plot first before creating spinouts. If that had happened 1.5 years ago (when WP:FICT said other things), this article would never have been created in the first place. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep Article was split as per WP:SIZE. Viewing the topics as a whole notability is obvious. Per WP:IAR the first goal is to make wikipedia better. Making one huge article on the topic is clearly the wrong thing and insisting on a "break-out style" where the sub-topic broken out is notable isn't the right way to write this article (else that's how people would have broken it out). Put another way: there were valid policy reasons for the keep. They were, IMO, stronger than the deletes so a keep was rational and correct. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the article should not exist on its own per WP:PLOT but it would seem appropriate for information on the history to be included in the main For Better or For Worse article. Most of the arguments for keeping the article seem to be based on WP:SS but even if the two article were combined as they are now (and I imagine the history article will be pruned/cleaned up as suggested in the AfD), the resulting article would be under the 50K limit suggested at WP:SIZE. Guest9999 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse.~~ While Wikipedia isn't for bare plot summaries, spinning off sub-articles that dwell on plot information may be a useful technique for dealing with large articles. I'd be happy to see this deleted myself but other conclusions are possible (including a drastic trim and merge back to main article, which would be "keep") based on the discussion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain this closure does not contradict policy? The parent article already contains a summary of notable storylines, so the merge you propose is neither needed nor likely to be attempted. A recent redirect was promptly reverted. It is hard to see how a Keep in this case is anything less than a Keep. Are you really certain you endorse this? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it remains as it is, we can continue the discussion from there. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I switch to abstain because I think the principles advanced in either direction have merit. In balance I don't believe the deletion of this article would result in a loss to the encyclopedia. I reiterate that the closer made a good and decent call. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or relist. This is excessive detail for a general encyclopaedia and the debate appears to me to have been distorted by canvassing. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder: in Deletion review, the main decision being made is to Endorse or Overturn. While a "Relist" is basically an overturn, a "Merge" may be interpreted either way. As for canvassing, this Review was instigated by a dispute on WP:ANI. I'm not aware of any actual canvassing. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep Appears to be a proper list article. Perhaps it needs a template that points back to the section it spun out of, but this nom appears to be a "second bite at the apple." Ursasapien (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin – Divisive and inflammatory userboxes are always liable for deletion. This is no different. A userbox attacking another user is completely unacceptable. (This DRV was originally closed by User:Nick; template was substed by User:Jerry. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's a sad day when Wikipedia has to quash freedom of speech in order to "uphold policy". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have confused wikipedia the project to build a free encyclopedia, with wikipedia the experiment in personal expressions of free speech. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted: Freedom of speech is (1) not an absolute, and (2) doesn't apply to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Free speech). Userboxes that attack an individual are most emphatically not permitted under our policies (which DO apply, while freedom of speech does not). Further, the userbox was replaced by one that does not identify a particular person, though it is polemical (and userboxes have been deleted on that basis before). See User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin, which makes this DR pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Darren M Jackson – No consensus closure endorsed. Relisting at editorial discretion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you ignore the extra keep vote by User:Diamonddannyboy, the multiple comments by him, and the comment by the single purpose ip of 90.208.51.74, then there is indeed a consensus to delete. Furthermore, nearly all of the keep votes admit that there are no reliable sources for the subject of the article. RogueNinja_talk 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original editors who put it up for deletion even came to its rescue, it has five keeps by indepentent editors, not to include those by User:Diamonddannyboy but five from others, notablity was proved under WP:ATHLETE 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was added by User:Diamonddannyboy - RogueNinja_talk 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the AFD entry page there is Five keeps indepentent of daidannyboy and four deletes and one weak delete. why is put up again for a review. This again due to it being part of the Romany project. 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)

As the closing admin, I endeavored to clean up various repeated comments by Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) and sort these things out, I obviously missed one bolded keep, but that didn't affect my close decision. My close was based on a few things...I don't count votes when I close AfDs, but I can't help but notice there are six different editors that registered some form of a "keep" comment and five going the other way. If I was a countin' type, that's a no consensus for sure. As noted in my brief closing comment, "Keep working on WP:BIO sourcing", I was aware of the general concerns brought up and sympathize with the arguments that the current sourcing is gray-area for notability guideline purposes. I took that into account as I viewed the large changes that occurred over the course of the AfD (compare: before/after and the addition of several references). These changes, and the comments from later in the AfD leaning towards keep (weak or otherwise) indicated to me that there was a trend of improvement within the article that merited a no consensus decision to allow further progress. I stand by my close, obviously, and also add that reference and notability tags may be appropriate for the article, and an AfD renomination--after vetting the new references--is a perfectly valid option (though I would hope substantial improvement time will be allowed). I would, naturally, have explained all this to RogueNinja if it had been brought up to me first... — Scientizzle 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain keep a reasonable close;; the article was improved during the afd, and most of the keeps followed that improvement. DGG (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be revisited. One of the keeps, for example, argued: It seems to me that an unfortunate combination of an underground sport and a long-repressed ethnic group requires sketchy sources. In fact, information from this secretive people is so rare that Mr Jackson must be notable for even courting attention this far into the mainstream. That could be read as countering systemic bias, or it could be read as "keep despite failing core policy because it's hard to cover this subject otherwise". Yes indeed, bare-knuckle fighters are not widely covered. Neither are fighting dog breeders or cock fight promoters. Do we take whatever we can find in order to cover these subjects, or do we simply decide that they are too much of a niche for us to be able to cover without violating policy? Guy (Help!) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain keep I argued for a weak keep of the article after ~~making changes to layout~~ converting to prose (sorry realised that it was more than layout) and trying to track down references. Still, in spite of that bias, I would argue that the article started off as unsuitable for Wikipedia, and after the work of several editors (in which I was involved) during the AfD it reached a point where it is worth giving it more time. My impression of the AfD debate was that most commentators had moved to that point as well - not that there was a strong desire to keep, but instead a belief that the article had been improved sufficiently over the course of the AfD to warrant keeping for now. As recommended by Scientizzle, I'll continue to chase down and verify the remaining references, and if they can't be verified (or aren't sufficient), and if no other support for the article is found, I expect to see the article renominated in a couple of months. - Bilby (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain keep The primary editor is a newby and as such botched all sorts of things including dealing with those who came along to delete their work. Right now they're trying to figure out how to cite a magazine interview even though that work isn't online. If, as has been suggested there simply isn't enough RS to support this then I'm quite confident someone will quickly AfD at the first chance possible. Until then I'm willing to AGF. Benji boi 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to simply say what I have said from the start of the afd, and that it the aticles proves notable under wiki guide lines AP:ATHLETE must compete in a fully professional league. See pro record from sherdog this proves Jackson competed in a fully professional league, it does not say is in AP:ATHLETE is Jackson a fully professional. Enough is done, come on guys!!! its a great article thanks to all those that helped 07:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)

Comment Added more reliable source from the Romany Routes website. see Darren M Jackson ref 7. 10:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Diamonddannyboy, the primary author and contributor has been blocked for one week so is unable to make further corrections or contributions until then. They were blocked for sockpuppetry apparently to sway articles from being deleted. Benji boi 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain keep Keep under WP:ATHLETE relibale sources.— 90.208.218.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Rnb – Deletion endorsed. Userfy upon request. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template was deleted without any prior discussion or voting about this template. There was a voting about the project page connected to it, but NOT about this template. If there was any discussion about this that I didn't notice, please inform me. This request also concerns the subpage Rnb/button. Free style 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous deletion discussion which was closed as "Userfy" - that is when material not suitable for the main namespaces (article, template, wikipedia etc) is moved to the userspace rather than being deleted. The Random Button was deleted because the creator moved the template back into the Wikipedia namespace. The nominator was well aware of this prior discussion - he took part in it, after all, but for the benefit of others Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Random Button. I'm also a little disappointed this was brought to deletion review by the nominator without any discussion, I was never asked to undelete or explain the deletion first. That's just not cricket, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template was deleted also without giving me (one of the main contributors) any notice or a chance to give my opinion prior to deletion, so I recognise this disappointment in a way, although you didn't quite put hours of work in deleting this template as I did making it. Still I do agree with you that it would've been better if I'd came to you before starting this request. Sorry about that.

As I said the discussion that took place earlier was about removing the project page connected to this template. I can see that having a project around a template would be not wanted, but deleting the project page does not grant the right to delete the template alltogether. At least I was not aware that the discussion was about the project page and the templates. This should have been made more clear by the nominator at the time, and I seriously doubt this was clear to all other voters. I think this unclearness might even be the reason why it has been put back in the first place. Free style 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia:MFD#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Random concludes with the project being kept, I'll restore the random template into your userspace. Nick (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, allow userfication in Freestyle nl's userspace if requested. VegaDark (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

SwordSearcher – Clarification sought and given on closure from closing admin – Davewild (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's not about having the close changed but rather I don't understand what the closing admin wants me to do. I'm not sure if they're notable, or s/he simply wants me to unbundle and renominate them or...? I'm not fluent in Wiki and I haven't heard an answer to my question. I don't want to do the wrong thing, but I don't know what to do. There doesn't appear to have been any consensus so judging from that doesn't help me much. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. As for your question, I didn't see it for some reason, I must have missed it. As for the close, there were some that may, on their own, achieve a consensus to delete, but the articles as a bundle did not. So, if you feel that some are less notable than others, I would recommend renominating them individually to get a clear picture of what should stay and what should go. Does that help? Again, sorry for the confusion. Keilana|^{Parlez ici}

No worries. Just saw your note now on my talk page, but replying here to keep it all in one place. I wasn't aware that a whole bundle needs to go one way or another, I thought they could be considered together to avoid the same arguments copy pasted in several AfDs and cluttering the page but that individual articles could be kept or deleted. My mistake, I'm still learning. Thanks for the clarification. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 March 2008

STARS methodology – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was speedily deleted without allowing me to reply (see my user page for my reply). In view of this, I consider that the deletion was not made in good faith and lacked fairness. So I request that STARS methodology page be restored and I can address the issues raised. Thank you --Isabel de pablo (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Actually, upon review of your userpage, it is apparent that you have had several editors leave you messages about this article over the course of a full month. Some have asked questions about your potential conflict of interest, which you have not answered. The article was deleted under ~~WP:CSD#A3, which implies that it lacked encyclopedic content.~~CSD-G11, which implies blatant advertising. You should attempt to create a version in your userspace, for example at User:Isabel de pablo/STARS methodology, and then come back to deletion review to ask for it to be put into mainspace. Failing that, there seems very little we can review here in order to justify overturning the deletion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this was spam, plain and simple. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was deleted as G11 (advertising). I think this is a reasonable interpretation of that CSD criterion after reading the cached version here (for the time being at least). All the article and references in the article appear to be of the same person (van Loon), and there are no independent references or other pages which discuss this idea. Moreover, there is no evidence in the article that this methodology has actually been used anywhere. The entire page looks like promotional/descriptive/prospective material for one person's idea, so I will endorse speedy deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per Sjakkale. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per Sjakkale. XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Murloc – Request withdrawn with no substantial support from others. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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

It appears this article was merged into another article, Playable races in the Warcraft series, that was subsequently deleted. Given that the previous AfD discussion resulted in a pretty-overwhelming "Keep," restoring the original "Murloc" article seems appropriate. DegreeAbsolute (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - Consensus can change, the fact that the article was a merge target was brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playable races in the Warcraft series and there was still a consensus to delete. Guest9999 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument is misleading. You're talking about consensuses on two different articles. In legislation, this technique is used in reverse--you propose an amendment to a proposed bill that is completely unacceptable, thereby killing the bill. Here, after an adverse AfD decision, the article is then unilaterally merged with other material, and the whole omnibus package is thereby rejected. I don't think the second consensus at all reflects a change in the first, policy or no policy. Indeed, the original article is never mentioned. The fact that murlocs aren't even a playable race further undermines the credibility of the merger. If the solution is challenge the original merger, then I am perfectly prepared to do so. DegreeAbsolute (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elected to withdraw after reviewing discussion of deletion of omnibus article. I note, for the record, that I assume good faith here.DegreeAbsolute (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Comparision_of_desktop_search_software – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lack of fairness and good faith. There are other comparison articles in worse (i.e. without any or very few references) condition than this article was. It's unfortunate that the value of this type of comparison articles is largely underestimated. http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparision_of_desktop_search_software The.real.monkey.d.luffy (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. An outstanding call by Keeper76, whose closing rationale clearly explains his valid reasoning. This article was pure synthesis, and has no place in wikipedia. The fact that other stuff exists is entirely irrelevant. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion nobody at the discussion addressed the fact that this topic has not been covered in any reliable sources and the article just consisted of synthesis of information published by the software manufacturers. The only argument that was made to keep the article was that there are other comparison lists on Wikipedia lacking references. This is a flawed argument - if there are references available but the article does not cite any then go and reference the article, if there are no references available then the article should be nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion as per commentzzzz above XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Illyria – Speedy close as non-valid request. This was a request to review removal of content from an article. This is beyond the remit of DRV. In DRV we only consider overturning speedy deletions, deletions of expired PROD's, or closing decisions at XfD. What is described in this request is a content dispute, which is not appropriate for deletion review. Users are encouraged to utilize article or user talk pages to amicably discuss the issue, and if this fails, to use RFC and ARBCOM as next steps. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted my largely sourced material PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=User:The_Cat_and_the_Owl deleted without a valid reason my sourced&referenced material considering it irrilevant

for the examination of the issue it can be read the last post i opened in the talk page of "illyria" called "Illyrians as Albanians"

as it can be noticed in my post, what i added is largely sourced, but the 2 users Megistias and The_Cat_and_the_Owl consider this irrilevant.

i consider it rilevant, related and sourced, and i remember this is a enrichment of the article, and i did not found a rule of wikipedia that denie me to enrich an article.

theyr behaviour makes me think what they done is intentional.

"If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the Talk page in the first instance." taken from the rules of wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#What_is_tendentious_editing.3F

thanks for the attention, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the section was removed exactly because it's irrelevant to the article. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Illyria#Illyrians_as_Albanians Pelasgicmoon is wrong to say the least among other things.Megistias (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Banishment_in_the_Bible – Restore as contested Prod, noting that it should not have been deleted per prod a second time. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

On 2008-03-05, discovered that the page was deleted on 2008-02-02 due to a Prod placed on 2008-01-28, but could not find the reason behind that Prod. On 2008-03-05, inquired the nature of the Prod from the editor who made that deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb&oldid=195977449) So far received no explanation back from the editor. Since the nature of the Prod has not been specified, I would like to contest the deletion. Rpdant767 (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 March 2008

Frederic H Dustin – Deletion overturned. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was a consensus between those that voted keep and those that originally wanted it deleted that the article was notable and did merit inclusion however needed work to improve it however the administrator that deleted the article ignored the consensus, said the article wasn't notable and deleted it. 72.1.222.140 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn this really poor judgement call by Seresin. The deletion reasoning was that the keeps failed to provide reasoning for keeping. We default to keep and need a reason to delete, not the other way around. One delete said "delete if..." then the if condition was never proven. Another delete said "just not notable", which is a classic argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and the only other delete changed his/her mind to weak keep. The nominator's weak nomination was that the article made two big claims to notability but a search on yahoo turned up little to support it. Yahoo searches for information in Korea are not easy because of accent marks, and other language problems. The deletion policy says to keep unless a sound objective reason to delete has consensus. This did not happen in this AfD, so we need to overturn it. If it was me, I would have relisted it based on the first !voter's statement that he/she changed their vote from delete to keep based on improvements made during the discussion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my rationale for keeping. My rationale was that there were legimiate concerns about notabiliy, and the keep comments did not sufficiently refute this. The two that did were both weak keeps, and one even said there were still notability concerns. One was just keep, which was a useless comment. One was an SPA who has only edited the article, and one only made accusations about systemic bias. However, there were delete comments that all questioned the notability of the subject. A no consensus might have been germane as well, but I still believe that, when the keep arguments are considered with relation to how they addressed the notability concerns, deletion was the correct closure. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The man was the first person in the United-States to get a master in Korean language and literature, is partly responsible for introducing basketball into the country, was the first person to write a guide book about the largest island in the Republic of Korea, created and still owns one of the largest tourist attractions on that island, has received several awards and honours, has taught at several universities, is a noted philantropist giving away 80% of the money that he makes and is the foreigner who has lived the longest in the country. How is he not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn significant arguments regarding notability her made. The fact that they came from SPA should not have made them be discounted. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need more independent sources. Cite some and you can have it back straight away, that was the problem and it was not, as the closer says, addressed. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone confirm, please, whether the version in the cache is effectively the deleted version? BlueValour (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the closers arguments as stated above should have brought him to a keep, or at worst a no-consensus, not a delete. "concerns about notability: is not a reason for deletion. The deletion arguments weren't substantial. The references, though not great, were enough to show the accomplishments. DGG (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are notability concerns not a reason for deletion? seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion policy lists several criteria for which an article can be deleted. Nowhere in this policy does it mention "concern" about an article's notability as a valid reason for deletion. Have a look over Wikipedia:Deletion policy#REASON. While several people effectively said they are concerned about the notability of the subject of this article, nobody stated that they performed an exhaustive search to find reliable secondary sources to verify the existing assertions of notability in the article. The failure of such an exhaustive search would be a valid reason to delete the article. From the discussion at the time you closed it, it was apparent that several good wikipedians were in-fact attempting to perform such a search. Their initial results were good enough to satisfy one of the original delete !voters. The fact that they improved the article substantially should have lead you to weigh the earlier delete !votes less. Closing it as you did unilaterally ended the process while there was no consensus for the deletion, and therefore was a mistake. I am sure you had good intentions, but it would be better if you would just consent to the restoration of the article and then possibly relist it in a while if notability is still a concern. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I interpreted "concerns about notability" as being unsure about notability, and if notability is merely subject to possible doubt, then the article is kept by default--it has to be stronger, such as no evidence for notability DGG (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should note that when the article was originally up for deletion, it was because it consisted of roughly two lines and no references or sources at all. There is no question that an article in that form would merit a rapid deletion however I and others then started working to greatly ameliorate the quantity and quality of the information within the article. As can be seen in the votes for deletion, we were changing people's minds even to the point where the originial nominator was conditionally ready to pull his nomination for deletion. Sadly, we were not able to improve it further since when I went this morning to look at the article, to my shock and confusion, I saw it was deleted. I admit that those of us working on the article are not veterans of this site and we're not fully versed in the wants and requirements of Wikipedia but whenever someone raised a concern or noted that something was lacking, we did our best to quickly and adequately fulfill those requirements. Likewise, for all those other concerns and requirements needed to make this a quality article, if we are told what they are, we will do what is necessary to properly remove all flaws and imperfections and make this an article worthy of this encyclopedia.--72.1.222.140 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and then prune mercilessly until only the information that can be verified by reliable sources is left. Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems my closure has been deemed inappropriate by the majority of editors here. I am willing to accept this. Speedy restore and reclose as seen fit. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consent to overturn and relist. Although I voted delete in the AFD, it was a pretty weak delete; but I'm not really sure it goes past a pretty weak keep, either. There's a lot of WP:V-dodgy stuff as Guest9999 notes. As far as the process goes, though, I think "no consensus" is a truer representation of the outcome. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I started the article intending to work on it bit by bit as I got time. I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia and was unaware that it would get jumped on for deletion right away - rightly so at first as there were only a few lines. Having added a few references and a significant amount of information as evidence of Dr. Dustin's 'notability', I was surprised to find one morning that all my and others' hard work had disappeared. Without just cause, from what I've read of Wikipedia's policies. Like I've said, unless Wikipedia is going to run out of space in the next couple weeks, give it just a little time - all references will be provided (where possible - much of the information was gained through personal communication), as well as a list of articles about Dustin in Korean sources. Written in Korean, I suspect there will be few English-speaking editors who will be able to verify them. So before hastily deleting the article again (if it gets restored), please first try searching beyond the English version of Yahoo, and ask a Korean to check the sources I'll provide. Further, many sources are in Korean newspapers which cannot be found online - though they are readily available in any decent library in Seoul or Jeju. I'll provide the dates and page numbers of those newspaper articles. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejujejujeju (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Riverina Theatre Company – Automatic overturn of contested prod. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was created by myself and deleted without any notification for it's deletion on my talk page. The reason given in the log was it was that it does not assert significance however it is significance as it's Australia’s longest established regional professional theatre company Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Must have been speedied? or Proded? I can't see the cache or AfD for the article. But, pending sourcing, notability would be granted by being Australia’s longest regional theatre company Fosnez (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it was deleted but I find unfair that no deletion notice was given. I posted the link above to the source which is an Australian Government website (I'm sure it was in the article as well for being the oldest) (Source: www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au). -- Bidgee (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems to have been deleted using non-notable as the reason, it was actually an expired prod. Automatic restore'DGG' (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG. Although it's bad form to not notify you, that by itself is no reason to overturn a deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 March 2008

Daniel Boey – Speedy close; article had already been userfied to the requester's userspace at User:Succisa75/Daniel Boey, and it should be first improved there before requesting undeletion. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I have noticed a page I created has been deleted without any notification or message to me. The article was titled Daniel Boey, about a Singapore fashion show producer. I have tried to write the article in accordance to the the policies here as well as uploading any pictures. Can someone please help me to have this article undeleted.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Succisa75 (talk • contribs) 18:35, March 14, 2008

Moved to proper day's log. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been userified to here. I'd suggest you work on it before putting it back into mainspace, if that's what you plan. Drop me a line if you want any help. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment - The article was was not deleted, it was userfied to User:Succisa75/Daniel Boey. That said, it was previously deleted at AfD, and the current version in user space still reads as highly promotional in tone. -- Kesh (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

My Bad Too – Userfied to User:Will/My Bad Too; users are encouraged to improve the article and have an administrator review it and cross-namespace move it to mainspace if the concerns raised in the AfD are adequately addressed. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was (finally) deleted for lack of official referencing. Now it's referenced, I think restoration of the page should be (relatively) uncontroversial. Will ^(talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally AFD'd the article, and was quite militant against its existence. Will ^(talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just recreate it with the references? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not salted, you can just recreate it. If you want the old article text, request that an admin e-mail it to you or userify it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would violate the GFDL. Catchpole (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does userfying violate the GFDL? It preserves the history.DGG (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 March 2008

E-Valid – Deletion endorsed. A userspace version would be helpful here. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is true that we proposed an eValid page last June, and we understand that it was perhaps "too commercial". We accepted that judgement and are acting on those recommendations.

The current proposed page is patterned 100% after the page for HP's QTP (Quick Test Pro), both in terms of organization and in terms of style. "Simple declarative sentences" was our intention all the way.

QTP is also a commercial product, in a similar space to eValid but using a different technology.

The eValid technology alone should be of general interest to Wikipedia users/readers, and in particular to web applications testers, because intantiation of test functionality into a browser trivializes many test activities that are very complex otherwise.

We welcome constructive comments on language and style and we pledge to abide by all of the recommendations made.

If the process here cannot yield an honest persistent eValid entry in Wikipedia, then we would request that the entry for HP's Quick Test Pro also be deleted. That would only be correct, because we believe that a spirit of fairness prevails at Wikipedia.

Reviewers and commenters may contact Dr. Edward Miller (415) 861-2800 or [email protected] to have questions and issues resolved if they wish.

P.S. We would VERY much appreciate use of the eValid form rather than Evalid or E-Valid or EValid...eValid is the actual technology name. Sr2008 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment This is the second time you have opened a deletion review without offering a reason for reviewing the deletion. Rationale now provided. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to see a proposed version before I register a !vote in this (try creating one at User:Sr2008/eValid or something similar). As for what you've said, I'm affraid that we can't overturn the deletions of either E-Valid or EValid based on other articles or delete other articles based on these (please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). From what you have said, however, it appears that someone else should work on the article; it seems as though you've got quite a conflict of interest here. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you want help. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A userfied version, as Lifebaka suggests, would be quite helpful for this review process. Having a potential conflict of interest does not preclude one from creating or editing an article, but it does require extreme diligence to not allow their POV to become imparted into the article, or to take too much ownership of the article so as to deny others the collaborative freedom to completely change your article. Most people, it has been shown, are unable to make this separation of interest from activity; so it is generally recommended that one participate on the talk page of the article and/ or of its contributors, rather than the article itself. In this case, as you have apparently made quite an effort to product a start article, if you userfy it and allow others to review it, it would be beneficial. It would probably ease the minds of those reviewing this request (my own, certainly) if you were to also pledge to not directly edit the article, should it be moved to mainspace (other than very minor error corrections such as spelling, grammar or numerical fact errors that can be verified through independent sources). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that you should present a userspace version to us. I would recommend against using your competitor's article as a model; instead, look at Category:B-Class .NET articles, as these are software articles of at least average quality, or better yet, anything on Wikipedia:Good articles#Software, which are of reasonably high quality. Any article meeting these quality standards is much less likely to face deletion. I'm glad you've recognized the need for non-sales language in the article, but you must also address independent sourcing by providing citations about your product from the best publications available. If these sources do not exist, meeting a higher quality standard is irrelevant, as your product will probably not pass software notability guidelines. In any event, we will not make a decision on any other article out of a spirit of fairness, because we work from secondary sources, and sources -- like life -- are often not fair. Some products or people just get more coverage than others. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you are referring to yourself a "we"? Corvus cornix_talk 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That question and its potential answer and ensuing dialogue are not relative to this discussion, and should be taken to a user talk page. Please stay on topic. The topic here is the merit of the request to undelete this article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and optionally list at AfD. There's enough objective material there to prevent a speedy. The detailed description might be considered advertising, but it can readily be removed. There seem to have been two independent reviews talking about the product, so it might even pass afd. A userspace version might be necessary if it had been deleted via AfD--but the article as it stands is enough to pass speedy. DGG (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless independent 3rd party sources are found. Google suggestes there may be some sources in specialist magazines, but the online versions are all behind pay-walls. The deleted page is here. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that bit about 'deltionpedia' is far more interesting than e-valid. I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletionpedia--Tikiwont (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Guilty Pleasure – Keep closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing editor (non-admin) seems unsure of procedure, ruling "keep" but saying "Merger or redirect is left to the disretion of the individual editors". Also appears to have not taken into consideration that neither keep !vote addressed the notability issues brought up in the nomination. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Proper closure, no one but the nom supported deletion. Redirection or merging is at the discretion of editors (upon gaining consensus, of course). At worst, it might require a relist, but I'd say we're better off here to discuss it on the talk pages of the articles involved first and see if a merge/redirect is better. Only if that fails should it come back to AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse-No consensus to delete. Even if every keep or redirect vote was disregarded (not that I'm necessarily saying they should be), we'd have only one person supporting deletion, which would result in a no consensus closure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn keep decision and relist. ~~AfD was only open for 1 day~~, with two !votes to keep (and no policy arguments at that), one !vote to merge/redirect, plus nom delete. Not a clear consensus and not enough time elapsed to determine a clear consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC). Sorry, check that. AfD was open for full time period. Still, I would say a relist, not a keep closure, is more appropriate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of AfD is not always to reach consensus — it is to evaluate whether there is a rough consensus that an article should be deleted. When there is not, the article survives. This recent habit of multiply relisting is burdensome to AfD and unfair to the authors of the articles since AfD nominations are bound to acquire more deleters as time wastes by. I closed one AfD the other day that had been listed four times, despite having about 20 participants - just because the admin was not presented with a trivial keep/delete closure method! It is possible to argue to relist on a very light debate if the thing is so insipid that it's not even clear that "no consensus" can be concluded. Splash - tk 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No further support was shown for deletion, thus the correct manner is to close as a keep. Splash - tk 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I am a little confused here. I thought that if a !vote's accompanying argument or reasoning was unsound, then it was discounted. In this AfD, one "keep" was that the articles just needed expanding and made no comment on the notability of the songs (they are all old non-charting singles—I doubt significant media coverage exists), the other "keep" was that since the albums the songs appear on are notable then the songs are notable. I'm not trying to be argumentative or wikilawyer to get my way, I just want to be clear on the rules—if I mistaken about how AfDs should work, I'd like to know. I've seen quite a few AfDs where the !vote count was skewed radically one way but the closing admin took the actual nomination reasoning and arguments into account and closed it the opposite way. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the admin still has to be able to point to a rough consensus among those who are anchored in policy (where in any case policy is a fluid creature developed over time and practise). Even if we dispose of both the keepers in this debate, we're still left with the only person apart from the nom (you) still not agreeing to deletion. You can't have a consensus of one! Possibly your argument about the nature of the keep rationales is enough to warrant a relisting, but as noted above, in cases like this, it is genuinely worth exploring editorially if anything can be achieved through merges/redirects. Splash - tk 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I was thinking of a relist with this DRV, not close as delete. I felt there should have been more discussion. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Doesn't appear that there was much consensus there. Deletion arguements weren't really addressed, and the discussion was very small. I'm assuming that the nom had a good reason for nominating it, so I'd like to see at least more discussion before closing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The keep !votes were unsound and should have been ignored. The redirect !vote is actually a delete vote with an additional recommendation to create a redirect so searchers find the corresponding album articles. I could have seen consensus for delete/redirect out of this, or in absense of seeing that, relisting it for more participation. Keep outcome certainly seems obtuse, and thus wastes valuable process time. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep votes do not have to reference our notability guidelines to be valid. Catchpole (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But they do have to give a valid reason why the article should be kept, otherwise it's just a vote (which, of course, AfD is not) instead of a debate. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen AfD when closed one editor (the nominator) thought the article should be deleted, one thought it should be redirected and two thought it should be kept - doesn't really seem like a consensus, with further input one might be formed. Guest9999 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Noting that the question of merge/redirect is still open and left to regular editorial process is a perfectly routine matter, and is not a sign of being unsure of process. There was most certainly no way any consensus existed to delete, and with that in mind, AFD's hand on the matter is finished. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm just used to seeing "keep", "delete", "no consensus" or "merge", not "keep but editors can merge if they want." And, as I said above, I did not open this DRV to get the articles deleted, but re-listed. As for being unsure of the process, the editor in question still hasn't finished closing the AfD—the AfD tags are still on the articles (except the main one I nominated, which I removed when I placed the DRV notice on it). I notified the editor of this and s/he archived that note, along with my original note asking about the closure, without responding to either. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Charles E. Crutchfield III – Userfied per request to: User:Kerrygirl/Charles E. Crutchfield III. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temp viewing of deleted article Kerrygirl (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I am requesting the article to be restored in my userspace or emailed to me so that I can work on it to address the problems that led to its deletion. Thank you.[reply]

Comment ~~- Are you sure about the name? Above links do not indicate a deleted article. Neither does your edit history.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Okay I found at corrected the links (No ',MD', but 'E.').--Tikiwont (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dick's Cabaret – Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD – Tikiwont (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Rudget deleted Dick's Cabaret a few minutes after I posted the article, stating that the article did not indicate importance/significance. The article indicated that "In March 2008, the club was placed in the national spotlight when it was revealed that David Hernandez, a singer and current finalist on the seventh season of American Idol, worked at the club in 2004." That seems like importance/significance. The article was fully footnoted and a simple google search shows hundreds of articles on Dick's Cabaret all over the world. I asked Rudget to restore the article, but I'm confused as to how it could be deleted in the first place. Please help me out and let me know what is going on and please restore the article. Thanks. Fredgremlint (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD Being loosely associated with a famous person does not make something notable by itself, so it wasn't a very good claim of importance, but it was a claim of importance nontheless so a speedy wasn't really appropriate, especially in light of the number of Google News hits Fredgremlint offers. I'm not sure the article would survive AfD - most of the coverage looks like brief mentions in the course of articles which are actually about David Hernandez - but it's possible that someone with more patience than me will find some more substantial coverage in there, so it should be given the chance. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/list-A page needs only to claim notability, not prove it, to be ineligible for A7. A connection to a notable person is a claim. Let AfD decide how good a claim it is.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD; if there is more to say, it might conceivably pass . DGG (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator should communicate with the deleting administrator (if he hasn't already) and ask him to consider restoring per this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take to AfD - seems likely it will be deleted but not an A7 - or any other speedy - candidate . Guest9999 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) – No consensus closure endorsed. If interested users desire a merge, it should be pursued editorially. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfD debate was closed per consensus of merge. However, between a possible bad faith nomination and suspicious IP activity between several users, I request the nomination be reconsidered. Please see the relative AN/I discussion here, as well as a report on the suspected sockpuppets here. Before the involvement of several sock/meatpuppets, the AfD consensus was in favor of deletion, but then several single-purpose accounts and possible proxies clashed. Nori198 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that it was closed without consensus. --Haemo (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear: are you saying that there was no consensus for a "no consensus" close? If so, that's absurd... we don't !vote 'no consensus'. If you are instead saying that the admin was correct in closing as "no consensus", because at closing there was no consensus, then that seems more logical to me; it is not possible to determine which you mean, or if you mean something else altogether. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain close It was closed properly as no consensus, even the nominator says so. The merge was only a mentioned in the close as a possibility to be "reevaluated by active editors on the subject"; this is not binding one way or another & if there is no reason to force a merge on the basis of what the closing admin said here,--he said that the eds. might want to consider it. It didn't even amount to a recommendation. DGG (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please take into consideration the AN/I / suspected sockpuppetry. There was clearly something wrong with this "consensus." As pointed out, the nomination was in favor of deletion prior to several single-purpose accounts appearing and battling between keep and delete. This only gives the illusion of a distorted consensus, and shouldn't be granted any consideration in the closing decision of the AfD. Hence, why I request it be restored or reconsidered factoring in the evidence provided. Nori198 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - There's at least enough evidence of meatpuppetry that the outcome is dubious. I'd say a new AfD is in order here, to sort out the valid arguments from the multiple solicited accounts. -- Kesh (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What can we do to deter this situation from happening again? There appears to be meatpuppets for both parties involved in the issue. I have been unable to determine a possible sockpuppeteer belonging to the nominee, or any users who might regard the article in bad faith. Assuming the "keep" puppets are dealt with, we still have the issue of those endorsing the article's deletion. They are quite numerous, as well. I would suggest an administrator consider the matter individually rather than relisting the discussion for public nomination. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as the request is beyond the remit of DRV. We can not establish a new consensus here to overturn a proper closing where there clearly was no consensus. That the debate had no consensus for a variety of reasons, including a botched nomination, is likely; but this may only be reason to renominate it, not to overturn the closing. If your common sense tells you to immediately renominate it, then by all means: be bold. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but my primary concern now is dealing with sockpuppetry. Relisting or renominating the article would do little justice if no one can intervene on part of the abuse. I've made several attempts to report the issue, both to AN/I and AIV, and haven't gotten any response. Such discussion is little more than a dumping ground for the accused himself, who is making spurious counter-claims against me for reporting him. I'm still relatively new to dealing with vandals, so I would really appreciate some insight here. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally-speaking, sockpuppets will be single-purpose accounts. This means that their contribution histories will show little or no activity outside of the current discussion or article under consideration, and their accounts will be fairly new. An elaborate network of experienced accounts over a long period of time is certainly possible, but without a checkuser request, there can be no definitive action taken. If you see SPA's contributing in apparent collusion on an XfD, you can add the spa template below their post to alert the closing admin. Most closing admins will ignore SPA's and very new users in debates that appear to be tainted by collusion. That aside, since XfD's are not a vote, even sockpuppetry and meat-puppetry can have a difficult time overriding proper consensus, since it's not the number of keeps, and deletes or whathaveyou, but the reasoning of their comments and their basis in policy, guideline or precedent that is considered. Where a debate's outcome must rely on subjective opinion, and therefore socks have a stronger chance to muck up the outcome, a keep outcome is more likely to be the appropriate outcome anyway, as the deletion policy says to fail to the keep side when objective reasoning with clear consensus to delete is not present. So in a nutshell, just try again, and mark the SPA's with the template, and if it all seems to come down to the majority of opinions, then deletion is not appropriate anyway so just accept the keep outcome and move on the more pleasant tasks to improve the encyclopedia. Just my (slightly more than) 2 cents. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking how to deal with the suspected sockpuppeteer who is vandalizing my talk page as we speak. I've gone through AIV and AN/I, and no response. The vandalism is not ceasing. Please help. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. There were enough reasonable arguments on the "keep" side, presented by wwwwolf for example, that "no consensus" looks like the correct outcome. Perhaps I agree more with Starblind's arguments regarding such "hack" versions, but they are not deal-breaking arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 March 2008

E-Valid – Void incomplete or incoherant request. Please make a new request on the current day's log when you are prepared to fully articulate your reasoning for making the request. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons are ... working on it ... will be added later... Sr2008 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fernando Rodés Vilà – Restored with deleting admin's consent. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A7 Despite a request for justification for this deletion, I received no response. This person is notable; there was no reason to delete the entry within 30 minutes of writing it. Nuj (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion logs:
- 19:40, 5 March 2008 Nancy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted Fernando Rodés Vilà‎ (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance)

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The subject of the deleted article is the CEO of the sixth largest advertising firm in the world, the second largest in France. There are oodles of verifiable sources to support notability easily per WP:N. It is unfortunate that the admin chose to delete an article under construction within its first half hour of existence, apparently without doing any research or communication with the article creator. It is also indeed unfortunate that the admin failed to respond to the very civil and reasonable request for an explanation.
- Bloomberg
- Business Week
- AdWeek
- Reuters
- USA Today
- Times (UK)
- India Times

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Even without the references found by jerry, the links in the original article for the company were enough to indicate some importance. More likely to have just been a simple error than a misuse of speedy.DGG (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleting admin. Having reviewed my decision my view is that it was borderline and on another day I would probably have declined (as I do with many nominations). It did look like yet another CV style bio but I was too hasty with the delete button. I would also like to apologise for not replying in the first instance; it was an oversight and - as evidenced by the rest of my talk page - entirely out of character. nancy ^(talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do you mean overturn? It sounds like you mean overturn the deletion, rather than endorse it, but I want to be clear. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I meant endorse the request to overturn; I've not been here before so I am not clear on the lingo. Not doing very well today am I? nancy ^(talk) 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, per deleting admins request, per no prior deletion discussion, and per sources found by Jerry. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedians by radio series – Endorse deletion. There is nothing wrong with the deletion per say. I would suggest that this discussion not be taken as precedent, however. There was obviously too little discussion to cite this result as a wholesale endorsement that similar categories should not exist. My suspicion is that nobody cares about these categories in particular... but if they do, no prejudice against re-creation/re-population. One of the problems with category deletion is that they cannot really be "improved" in the same ways as articles can. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlike the other subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio (UCfD here), these categories are about specific radio series. I believe that they are comparable to the subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in television and Category:Wikipedians interested in a book series, among others. While User:VegaDark's comment in the discussion may be a valid opinion, I don't believe that it represents consensus in this case. In requesting this DRV, my intent is wanting a restoration and a relisting at UCFD for further discussion. - jc37 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a reference showing the similarity of radio and television "series", see also: Serial (radio and television). - jc37 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Relist - as nominator. - jc37 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Though the debates were open quite a while, I'd like to see a little more discussion over the deletion before closure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - when factoring in the two delete comments here (that applied to the section that is being DRV'd), which I am assuming the closing admin did to come to his decision, the count is 4 to 1 in favor of deletion. While XfD is not a vote, it was a certainly reasonable close, barring anything other than a relisting. These days 5 contributors to any given UCFD is a fairly high number, and all regular contributors had participated, so I don't think relisting would have made much of a difference. The close was reasonable. VegaDark (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closing admin. VegaDark is spot on about the reasoning; I can't really add anything further to his comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist If 5 contributions to a UCfD is considered a high number, the process is broken. that's an inadequate way to gauge the consensus of the community. DGG (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are potentially hundreds of UCFD decisions that would be overturned if we relisted every one that had 5 or less contributors. VegaDark (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well as thousands of decisions reached at AFD, CFD, MFD, TFD, ... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not so much concerned about the number of contributors, as the comparable precedent. (Category:Wikipedians interested in film, being a cat of film series, is another example.) It's not so much that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that we have previous consensus to keep such categories by series. I just don't think we should discriminate by media type. - jc37 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Megalithic geometry – Substantially-revised version of article sent to AfD 2. – Splash - tk 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know who is the administrator who deleted the page. My page was deleted and I would like the decision to be reconsidered please , for I worked hard to create this page, making it as neutral, succinct but precise, and objective as possible, with all the references. Thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted due to being a repost of material that was decided should be removed via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry. And you do know who deleted the article, as is clear from this. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know who deleted the article, I keep writing here and there that it is David Eppstein, I even talked to him. But someone wrote me that I should contact the admin. So again, who is the admin, please? And could you please reconsider the decision of deleting the article, this is not really a repost, the first one was a stub, this one is a full-fledged article (I worked so hard redoing it) with all the references ans so on, and the 'Alan Butler' article as well, he's a well-known, prolific British writer, he's even a professional writer (he's famous enough to live out of his writing, which I think is rare enough to be granted an article in Wiki). I'm looking forward to hearing from you, could you please read the article again ('Megalithic Geometry') and tell me if it is really so badly done that it should be so unfairly deleted in one click? Many thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia jargon, 'adminstrators' are the people who do the deleting. The admin who deleted the article most recently was User:David Eppstein, who you have correctly been in touch with. I think pehaps your confusion on this point is just a question of jargon. Splash - tk 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G4 is for "substantially identical" recreations. A quadrupling of the length of the article, and a sextupling of the reference count clear that hurdle easily enough in this case. David Eppstein's comment on talk that "Re-doing the deletion discussion whenever anyone feels like re-creating the article would be a waste of time for all concerned" is true only to the extent that the article is near enough to being the same that we'd just be re-spinning the same wheel. I do not think the article can be construed as being substantially identical to that previously deleted. The close of the AfD was a tough one, but correct - as the closer indicates a merge might have been possible were the intended target not deleted also (though others were suggested eg pseudoscientific metrology). Since the speedy was to my eyes incorrect, I'm going to undelete it and return the matter to AfD as a substantively different article. User:Little sawyer, you are going to need to make a strong case even for the new article, as this does rather seem to be a 'one man band' kind of theory. Splash - tk 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many thanks!--Little sawyer (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Anti-Pakistani Sentiment – Undeleted and relisted at "Anti-Pakistani sentiment". – Daniel (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, This article which was originally titled "Anti-Pakistani sentiment" as per List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms, However in an act of vandalism this "Anti-Pakistani sentiment" was renamed wrongly and maliciously "Pakistanphobia". The article was deleted because of this new title which was never the original title, The article has 28 sources that make reference to the term Anti-Pakistani sentiment. It is truly tragic that an article which was created to highlight righfully the widespread discrimination against Pakistanis in Asia and the western world has become a victim of discrimination. Best Regards S Seagal (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. Corvus cornix_talk 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and move back to Anti-Pakistani Sentiment. Keep arguements rebutted every delete arguement except the WP:NEO, as the closer stated. However, I don't believe that we delete on the basis of style guidelines. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per above but strongly consider relisting since I'm not completely convinced that all the AfD concerns were adequately addressed. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original AfD voted Keep You can see it here, a year ago a decision was made to keep the article , Yet a year later it is still not viewable.

The AfD is here and it was voted to be kept Afd for Anti-Pakistani sentiment

S Seagal (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Despite the wording of the close, alot of the Delete votes appear to have been influenced by the improper title so a new discussion of the topic seems warranted. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and possibly relist. Tho an admin, I can not figure out a way to make the article visible to me. DGG (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

now that I can see it, it's clear that the article did contain substantial POV content, devoted not to describing anti-Pakistani sentiment but to justifying it. Upon restoration, it will need editing. It's a pity it will have taken all this process to force a NPOV. DGG (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I used some magic pixie dust, so admins should be able to view the deleted content now. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it The original history is now at Anti-Pakistani sentiment. The difference is the lack capitalization in the last word of the title. GRBerry 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Unreleased material by Britney Spears – Speedy Close as wrong venue. We do not consider denied speedy deletions at DRV. The next steps are PROD and AfD. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I can't quite figure out the system for adding to a deletion request I am putting this here and apologize in advance if I misunderstood the process. I am requesting a deletion or challenging the lack of deletion for the article about Unreleased Material by Britney Spears by providing reasons for it's speedy deletion. As the archive of a previous discussion appeared in the place I thought I was supposed to lay out the reasoning (and there is a warning against editing it), I am putting this here on the hopes it will find the right place or that this is a place it can go.

All that said, the article is longer than the article about the singer, fails to meet criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia according to notability, doesn't explain the importance of the article or why it is notable in the article, is not up to Wikipedia standards of encyclopedic writing, and is a list which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. KeeperOTD (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse refusal to speedy. WP:CSD is for use in limited circumstances where articles clearly meet the intentionally narrowly defined criteria. This article does not. There are other processes by which articles can be handled if failing inclusion standards, and User:Orangemike did the right thing in my opinion by changing a speedy deletion nomination that did not meet the criteria to a WP:PROD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Nothing for DRV to do here, this isn't AfD nor a venue for requesting Speedy Deletes. The article has been PRODed. If that fails, AfD is the proper next step. -- Kesh (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Beyond the Red Line – Overturned and relisted due to misuse of CSD A7 – --PeaceNT (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason for deletion was stated to be 'A7 (group)' which in this case was used as far as i understand it against wikipedia's rules for speedy deletion as it clearly states that A7 criteria can not be used for this case as the whole page is about a video game (ie. software), 'not articles on their books, albums, software and so on'. Video game in question has been mentioned in both printed as well as in digital media in several occasions so should more references (ie. increased notablity) been wanted those could have easily been added. Asking the administrator who deleted the page to comment or to explain this i got no responses though the admin himself was active several times on his on talk page. Wanderer602 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AFD ~~I personally think the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being kept via an AFD discussion, however Wanderer is techincally correct.~~ Software itself is specifically exempt from CSD discussions, and should have gone through AFD to be deleted. I fully expect it to be deleted via AFD, but to speedy delete it was against procedure... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Still think it should be listed at AFD, but this looks like a better chance of making it through... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list as Jayron says. It saves time in the end to do it the right way. DGG (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of all "unofficial and free stand-alone total conversions". Fie on the process-wonks, this stands no chance whatsoever and quietly putting it out of its misery was the right thing to do. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list I'm with them, and I would even have to say that from some other articles I have seen, I do not know why this one would have any reason for deletion, and disagree with it being snowballed. What makes an article about a free standalone TC so different from say, the article on Defense of the Ancients, a custom game for Warcraft III? I'd like to carry this discussion further but feel it should wait until it is listed on AFD. Chief1983 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. If there is need to include video games in A7, that should be developed through policy change discussion, not out-of-process deletions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is only one of the ways of chaging policy, generally accepted practice of "the right thing" is another. (And arguably the ultimate source of the bulk of significant policy). Bureaucratic following the exact "letter of the law" over reasonable judgement tends to stifle development of policy --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true in some cases, but I do not believe it should be in terms of deletion. Among other objections, barring the unnecessary drama of deletion review, who is to know if policy should be changed if administrators are enacting their judgment unilaterally rather than discussing it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't apply special standards for policy development in deletion process (WP:PROD may never have happened otherwise) and the WP:DRV drama, looking down this one the general view is that this doesn't hold up, the only reason given for overturning is the desire to follow the letter of the policy, perhaps if people relaxed on the latter then there wouldn't be such drama? I'm certainly not advocating a free for all, and if an admins deletions are frequently showing poor judgement (i.e. overturned here for other reasons), then clearly they aren't in line with the community view. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if admins do not discuss problems with policy but rather go their own way, then policy is not evenly applied, which can only cause confusion. In addition, good faith contributors might justifiably feel bitten if their articles are deleted not according to our stated procedures but just because an admin feels like it. I think if people relax on the desire to follow the letter of the policy, then out-of-process deletions are likely to increase. Conversely, if people agreed on the need to follow the letter of the policy, we might devise a policy that we can all agree works efficiently. If you're frequently having to WP:IAR, there's something wrong with the R. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles have you seen for unofficial free fan mods that were created by single purpose accounts and have survived AfD? Why waste everybody's time on an obviously utterly hopeless case? Guy (Help!) 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems to be a pretty good example, given the sourcing being turned up below, of why articles may benefit from the wider review of AfD. It seems it may not be a waste of time or an utterly hopeless case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that any different for software than people/companies etc. the things explicitly covered under CSD:A7? A person bio deleted for no assertance of significance, may with enough eyes and motivation be developed further etc. Even say a simple attack article "x y is a moron" given enough time someone might research and find that x y is in fact important in some way and worthy of an article, should we AFD all those too on the off chance? Copyvios, well they can always be rewritten in your own words right? So no speedy of them either, list at AFD and hope someone will rewrite in the meantime, really we may as well just make it a huge dumping ground for people hoping someone else will come along and write the article to wikipedia standards. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're attempting a meta-discussion about the need to do away with CSD (or, conversely, to make every article fair game for it), you might want to do it at WP:VP. I don't think it's going to get enough readership here to form any kind of consensus. :) In fact...that's kind of my point. If practical experience is showing a problem with policy, that should be addressed and handled globally rather than by handling individual articles out of process. That's how we arrive at effective policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the point is consensus behind WP:CSD, we delete "unsuitable" content, we don't use AFD as an editing service to try and bring such articles up to scratch. Per WP:BUREAU the intent of CSD is the important part, not the exact letter --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way that's been cleverly hidden behind the words "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion." :) Anyway, this continues to be meta and has nothing to do with this case. If you want to talk meta, I'll meet you in a more appropriate forum. I'm done talking it here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list per DGG and Moon. Joe 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm with Guy here, there ain't no way it's gonna' make it through an AfD like that. (Three cheers for the various incarnations of WP:IAR!) And let's also smack the deleting admin and speedy nominator with some wet trouts while we're at it for the misuse of A7. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is something I don't get, agreeing that the action was correct and stating the admins did the right thing while simultaneously, even humourously, stating that they shouldn't have done it. The problem is the speedy deletion criteria, not the actions of the admin. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete per Guy while I'm at it. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment trouts aren't effective. what does discourage people from doing things wrong is when the acts are overturned. That's what we are here for , to review decisions, not hand out demerits. If slapping is needed, AN/I and RfC are the places for it. DGG (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list. I'm unfamiliar with this wiki reviewing system so as i gathered some additional info on the subject thought it should be posted here. Game was featured prominently in 5/2007 issue of Pelit (Finnish gaming magazine) with 3 page long review/interview [45] and was featured on annual cover disk of Mikrobitti magazine. Game also won ModDB annual mod of the year contest [46] in 'Indie game of the year' category. It has also been reviewed in for example PC World (magazine)& Macworld [47], devs have been interviewed in Shacknews [48], was featured in The Escapist (magazine) [49] etc. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep The sources indicated by Wanderer (particularly the Escapist, Macworld and Shacknews) means this passes notability. AFD is process wonkery in this case, just reinstate the article and I'll reference the bloody thing myself, end of problem. Someoneanother 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- another Macworld source, C&VG article containing some usable reception info. Being rated as ModDB's #1 indie game of 2007 is hardly to be sniffed at either. Someoneanother 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think it should be listed at AFD so these sources can be vetted by many users, where they can decide if they confer notability on this subject. HOWEVER, this goes to show why the speedy deletion criteria MUST be narrowly construed, as stuff like this turns up. Wikipedia is in no rush, and if it takes 5 days, it takes 5 days... No big whoop, but sometimes during those 5 days, sources like above are found... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we were looking at remotely borderline sources then I'd agree, but ShackNews is well established and The Escapist is a bona fide online magazine. C&VG is the reincarnation of one of the UK's oldest videogame magazines (we're talking ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64 coverage).. they're good reliable sources, the interviews are in-depth, I just don't see the point. Someone another 03:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Whatever we think about interpreting speedy deletion criteria to the letter, the deletion has been contested correctly on procedural grounds with the deleting admin, and once that happens (and I don't know how many actually remain unchallenged for better or worse), it is up to them to either undelete and send to AfD or try to convince the author that is a hopeless case. If there is any process wonkery here, it lies in actually forcing this to go through a DRV. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as out-of-process hyperextension of CSD criteria. Software itself is specifically exempt from CSD decisions, and so this should have gone through AFD to be deleted. Consensus has already occurred for the wording of the CSD criteria, and if we think it is process wonkery, we should discuss that as a proposed change to CSD. We have a process to address process wonkery, which must be followed. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Yamanote Halloween Train – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since this page was deleted in 2006 for not having enough verifiable sources it has since gained more sources (such as Boingboing). This is notable enough for a Wikipedia article as it showcases modern culture in Tokyo, weather that be favorable culture or not. Wikipedia being NPOV shouldn't decide that part. Further, there are lots of blogs and videos that name this event but no information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia being a source of knowledge should have something about it. This has been redeleted several times as a "recreation of deleted" material. But doesn't there come a point when someone must realize that it has been recreated several times by different people because it is notable enough people, like me and many others, searched for it here on Wikipedia and couldn't find it? Nesnad (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boingboing
Lonely Planet TV
One of the many blogs with comments regarding this
Discussing about this event in Japanese (Japanese)

Endorse deletion - The given links are 1) a bare mention of the 'event', essentially just showing that it exists; 2) random video from the event, no commentary or news-worthy content at all; 3) a blog, which is not a reliable source; and 4) another blog. Only #1 comes even close to being a source, and it's barely a paragraph long. There's not enough here to satisfy WP:V. -- Kesh (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been deleted several times by different administrators because it doesn't adrress the problems of the AfD nor demonstrate the sources listed above notability. So keep deleted until a better sourced version is created in user space. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bitweaver – Keep deleted. The userspace draft does not address the concerns of the last AfD for independent and reliable sources. Minimal participation in this DRV, however, so no prejudice against relisting. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous deletions undergone some strong misunderstaning and bias. Kozuch (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore First, I'm very annoyed about the process that User:Kozuch is using for restoring this page. It bears reminder that this is WP:NOTAVOTE. So, to Kozuch, a ruler across the wrists. That said, I've read both AfD instances, and it seems they both should have fallen under "no consensus." Further, though, for everything in the discussion and many of my experiences with past AfD articles, this should be restored. Sourceforge shows a high project activity level (though I never figured out QUITE what that measured), and well-known many security sites feel fit to post their vulnerabilities (doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?). Finally, though it seems worthy of an entry, I do offer one last reminder to Kozuch, and many other self-interested authors who have and will come here: Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"both AfD instances"? There are four, all resulting in delete. I'd agree the last one would possibly have been a relist though given the history delete is quite reasonable. That debate had two real delete opiners (the nom and one other), one delete who seems more to be throwing toys out of pram than serious, three keeps, the user who created the article and disappeared a week later, one who has one other edit than AFD comment, and the lister here who stated the reason to keep as "I am a user of bitweaver and want to keep this page". The previous AFD with 3 delete opiners and 1 keep, on strength of argument (failing WP:CORP, WP:V) contrasted against some trivial mentions delete isn't an unreasonable outcome. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for digging up the whole collection of AfD links. I get the gist from all this, though of the following points: The nom for the DRV's arguments have not been sufficient (and yet strongly biased), and that the content of the page has previously read as rather spammy. That said, it appears that the topic itself is notable and can be independently cited. This should be considered separate from a poorly written page for a topic. When reviewing this deletion, I think the metric we really need to glue ourselves to whether this is considered notable. I'll leave this to shake itself out until tomorrow, and then possibly ask for the page to be restored and see if it can't be edited into a decent state. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's rather standard. If an article can be written that substantially addresses the reasons for deletion, then it can be, no WP:DRV required. If someone wants to use an existing deleted article for a basis, then a reasonable admin should be able to userfy it for them to do so (assuming it's not in such a bad state as to be a worthless starting point). Deletion review doesn't need to concern itself if the subject is notable or not, since that is fixible elsewhere. (I'll add a note in the case of articles consistently deleted and thus protected, the normal recommendation is to rewrite in userspace first and then list here to consider, though the latter isn't a formal requirement just sound advice to help with bickering later) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Bitweaver page proposal is here: User:Kozuch/Bitweaver--Kozuch (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Martin_Walker – Recreation based on reliable sources and with attention to NPOV allowed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have no connexion with the original article or MW, but was looking on WP for info on the Health Freedom Movement. MW is singled out twice in that article, referred to as "notable", and his historical bibliography heads the "further reading". I believe the original article significantly mis- (or under-)represented MW's professional importance in two fields, as a writer and as a graphic designer. His secondary occupation of graphic designer was given as his primary designator, but even that was underplayed, since there was no mention that his political poster art from the 70s and 80s is held in 2 British national collections, including the V&A. However, it is as a political and cultural writer that he has earned his main reputation, over the last 25 years. However, the article failed to give publication details of MW's books published by mainstream publishers, including Sidgwick & Jackson, Canary Press, and Fontana, leaving the impression that he was purely self-published. A brief search in the national British Library catalogue gave the following 5 books:

1. Poor man Beggar Man Thief: The story of New Horizon Youth Centre. Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1972.

2. State of Siege; Policing the Miners Strike. Canary Press, London. 1985.

3. A Turn of the Screw: The aftermath of the 1984-85 Miners’ Strike. Canary Press (1985)

4. Frightened for my Life; Deaths in British prisons. Geoff Coggan and Martin Walker. Fontana. (1982)

5. With Extreme Prejudice: Police Vigilantism in Manchester. Canary Press, London (1987)

MW's importance as a political writer can be gauged from this extract from an independent review of "With Extreme Prejudice" (1987) that appeared in the wellknown cultural journal The Edinburgh Review:

"Walker’s method in this book (and his other ones) is to combine field research with searching philosophical critique of the tools at his and our disposal. Unlike many writers of the ‘left’, though, his concern is with citizens as human beings, not ciphers, which means his work is not only easy and exciting to read but also full of sudden insights into the way the arm of the state actually thinks…. It would be nice to go on and on quoting extracts from the book. More practically, every reader of ER should buy a copy, read it, then pass it around as many others as possible. It is quite honestly the most coherent and programmatic analysis of what goes on in this country today, why and what to do about it, ever."

The circumstances surrounding MW's move to self-publishing with his best-known book "Dirty Medicine" (1993) are politically noteworthy in themselves, and explained fully in the many interviews that he has given. An independent critical review of DM from the Marxist journal Capital & Class (1996) is available here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_199610/ai_n8751139 Since that book, MW has written mainly on political aspects of the relations between health providers, government and the corporate pharmaceuticals sector.

The deleted article failed to give adequate references, independent reviews, or supporting evidence, so it is easy to see why it was deleted. IMO it is just as easy to see why a short but better article can be written, containing a brief bio, with a factual account of the two main phases of his publications, including a properly referenced bibliography. A short "Critical opinion" section, citing the two examples above, would be helpful to 'place' MW. And of course, some mention of national collections holding his design works from the earliest part of his career would round out the picture. Sam Weller (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

allow recreation on the basis of the aboveDGG (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to allow recreation given evidence of the subject's notability above, though I think that given the topic matter and related on-wiki/real-life spillover disputes, great care will need to be taken to base the article on reliable, independent secondary sources and avoid having it become a WP:COATRACK. I'd encourage anyone interested to wathclist and assist in improving the article if it is recreated. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation Martin Walker IS notable. A good journalist/researcher (of history and present-status, not a bench scientist)DanaUllman^Talk 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Punkrockdomestics – text of deleted article emailed to user, as requested. – Pegasus «C¦T» 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel as though the recent editing of the article wasn't taken into consideration before deletion. PunkRockDomestics is not only one of the leading sites for all things DIY, but a large group of people dedicating their life to the DIY ethic. This article was not posted with the intention to advertise the site, but rather the intention to inform and educate others of the importance of this group in the DIY world. If anything, I would like a copy of the article to further edit and potentially post elsewhere if it is still unwanted here. PunkRockDomestics is becoming very well known and has been large influence upon the DIY community and I feel as if it should be recognized for this. Pers phne (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse self-deletion. Even if there is no intention to advertise, there was nothing in the article or talk page to indicate that the group met any of the notability guidelines for people and groups. Speedy-deletable in any case. If you want the deleted text for personal editing, I can email to you, if you specify your email address in your user preferences. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Punkrockdomestics Deletion. Alright, thats legit. I would really appreciate a copy of the deleted text, my email address should be there. Pers phne (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 March 2008

Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since when is a KEY ASPECT of the game indiscriminate information? Similar articles for Guitar Hero games got nominated for deletion in August 2007, yet they made it through unharmed with a Keep result. This just proves that song list information is NOT indiscriminate. Sure, I may be invoking WP:ALLORNOTHING a bit here, but make up your minds - your bias to Guitar Hero is just humiliating. Why can't ALL the DDR articles with huge songlists have them seperated out? They're HUGE! Consider this a DRV for any other DDR song list article too. ViperSnake151 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself dissatisfied by an editorial deletion closure. The debate swings very clearly to 'upmerge' these into parental articles, with even the core deleter (Pi)indicating that parts of the content should be retained. Whether this is editorially practical is not really for the closing admin to determine, especially when the point is not discussed in the debate - it is surely at least worth trying, with the efforts eventually returning to AfD if they prove to be unsatisfactory. However, the sheer size and number of these lists does suggest that information is merely being indiscriminately amassed without filtering. I think the outcome of an attempt at merging should have been given a chance given the support for it in the debate, and the fact that neeeding lots of editing is not a reason for deletion (rather standing the closure rationale on its head). So I am minded to overturn and immediately redirect to a central location pending actual merging (to avoid inactivity despite professed good intentions). However, I imagine that a properly filtered article could be constructed from scratch taking advice of the discrimination requirements on such a list. Splash - tk 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sound close based on sound discussion. Martinp (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close. If you want copies of the article to merge, just contact me. --Haemo (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and add WP:ITSHUGE!!!! to WP:ATA. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already tried that At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 I closed a prior deletion review as userfied to experiment on merging the lot. That went nowhere, and in August 2007 the user who was trying to userfy gave up on it. If the last deletion review nominator accomplished nothing in the way of a merge with six months to try ... GRBerry 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Yeah. That was me that tried to merge them. I wasn't able to do anything with the lists (one reason is because they were horribly incomplete and not as well done as they looked). As for outright restoring them, WP:WAX is a poor argument...particularly when you don't mention which articles supposedly got kept when these were deleted a year ago. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Casella Waste Systems – Keep closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has nothing to do with me being the original nom and everything to do with a non-admin close when no sources had been found to prove the company was anything but a local org with no evidence of passing WP:CORP. Vague assertions of 'there must be sources' were made but none were found (because I don't think are any) apart from press releases and earnings statements. I left a message for the person who closed it and s/he's been online since but has not responded. I think this should be re-listed for sources and or deleted if sources cannot be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the spareseness of the debate after a relisting and no additional support for deletion, it was reasonable to close the debate as defaulting to keep. Multiply relisting is not particularly helpful and no in general fair. I don't think that an unexamined Google News Search is adequate basis to justify a keeper, nor for the following editor to rely on it without apparent further thought. Examining them a bit does indeed appear to reveal that they are all mere fiscal results or related to a single minor controversy about waste in a local municipality. However, I'm concerned that a company covering 34 states is likely to be de facto notable. Open to persuasion on whether to overturn to delete or not. Splash - tk 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. Discussion was not extensive and this is a stub at best, but the company is NASDAQ listed and Hoover's tells me annual revenues are in excess of $500MM, confirming the notability alluded to but not documented in the AFD. I have edited the article to include the ticker symbol, remove the notability tag, add a stub tag, and fix the most egregious spelling mistakes. Let's hope someone does more with it in time....Martinp (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...with a supplementary Humph. While the article should have been sourced and notability asserted (and been less of a badly written stub to boot), a simple Google search generates as the 1st hit the company website and notes the NASDAQ stock symbol. Being listed on NASDAQ should provide immediate glimmerings that the company might be notable - maybe not a proof, but a suspicion at least. Clicking through on the company website lets you with one click see a map of locations, where one can see the company is not local. Finally, two more clicks lead to [50] which helpfully lists what external analysts regularly release reports on the company - helpful independent sources even if not everyone has access to them. With all due respect to the good faith efforts of everyone involved in the deletion discussion, couldn't someone had done this check? Couldn't the deletion nominator/DRV nominator have done at least this level of check before concluding that the company was probably nonnotable? Harangue mode off... Martinp (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment when I did the nomination I was looking for reliable independent sources, I don't know that analysts reports indicate notability which could be my error. I never did find the NASDAQ symbol, I'll blame that on snow blindness of the day, I have no excuse. I don't think there was any bad faith, I just felt a re-list was in order when no secondary sources were found, that may have been my error or a mis understanding of WP:CORP I admit, I'm learning TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close; though there is certainly a worrying lack of secondary sources. However, our role is not to substitute our judgement for that of the AfD participants but to determine whether the AfD was properly closed. In this case there was no good basis for closing as delete. BlueValour (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, I was arguing more for a re-list since the sources had not been proved and I have real issues with articles being kept on fuzzy assertions rather than actual sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Raven-Symoné (album) – Moved new content to proper name and restored all old history. --NrDg 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was originally deleted, due to lack reliable sources, But now it has confirmed that Raven-Symoné will in fact an release an album on April 29. This article was recently recreated under the name, Raven Symoné (album). I am asking the deleted article be recreated and the infomation from recently recreated article be merged into it. AfD, Source: http://ravensymonepresents.com/ravensymone/index.html Quasy Boy 13:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 'em, assuming there's anything in the old one that isn't in the new one. I kinda' doubt it, though, given the length. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved new content to proper name and restored all old history. --NrDg 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this oughta' be closed, then. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Puck bunny – Undeleted by original AfD closer – Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original delete decision was very close and also ill-informed. Specifically several votes for delete claimed they had never heard the term and it was a 'neologism', which only proves that they don't live in Canada. The phrase was used in the trailer of a prime time TV show, so everyone should have heard it by now (it is actually well-known and old). We have snow bunny and beach bunny. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the closer of the AfD, I live in Canada. Per WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." I stand by the closing. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I realise that what I wrote above could have been taken the wrong way. When I wrote that the delete decision was ill-informed I meant that some of the people making 'delete' votes were ill informed (not knowing the phrase), not that the closer (User:Until(1 == 2)) was ill-informed. My apologies if you took it that way, Until. No criticism was intended. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understood what you said as to be referring to the arguments for deletion and not referring to me. But I have never heard the term. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn — multiple reliable sources using, or discussing, the term can be demonstrated. In addition to the sources above, I can find the following:
Puck Bunnies [microform]: A Study of Underlying Issues of Puck Bunny Culture in Junior Hockey, W MacEwen - 2004 - National Library of Canada.

It's one of 5,000 new official words added to the recently released Second Edition of the Canadian Oxford dictionary.

In sport and sex, the objective for male teams is conquest; Laura Robinson. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Dec 22, 2006. pg. A.19

Female hockey fans more than puck bunnies; Leah and Joanne Reid. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Apr 23, 2003. pg. A.19

Hockey women: hear us roar: Loyal fans give their all;;Valerie Fortney. Calgary Herald. Calgary, Alta.: Apr 28, 2004. pg. A.3

Selling hockey culture; Greg Mcarthur. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Jul 3, 2004. pg. B.1.Fro

Marketing misogyny; The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Jul 7, 2004. pg. A.16
This is after just a cursory search. --Haemo (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a soft redirect to wikitonary, like pimp slap. --evrik ^(talk)
Seems to be enough to justify a new article, which need not come here first, since there is new information to add. DGG (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one wants to recreate the article in a manner that addresses the issues of the AfD they are welcome to. These sources were not presented in the AfD, nor were they in the article at the time of deletion so I think the closing was valid. I have no prejudice against recreation in line with our standards. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the close here; suffice to say that "there's an article to be written" and this was no demonstrated on at AfD — thus it's being demonstrated now. --Haemo (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering I(the closer) consent and agree to recreation if it corrects the issues that lead to its deletion, then this DRV is not needed if that is indeed what is intended. Just go ahead and re-create it, if you need the old content let me know. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out the first instruction in submitting a DRV is "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look."

This DRV could have been avoided by simply presenting these new sources to me on my talk page. DRV is usually for when the deleting admin has already refused to reverse their decision. No worries though, peace. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again apologies to _(1 == 2)^Until, I should probably have done this through him first. I didn't think of it. Once again, no criticism of him is intended. He did entirely properly based on the AfD submissions. If he's happy to undelete it now, can we close this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have undeleted it with the reason given as "Undeleted to allow recreation in such a way as to deal with AfD issues". I assume this will be brought up to standards sooner rather than later, and will most likely re-delete the article if it is not within a week. This can be closed as far as I am concerned. Peace, and happy editing. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

TF Quasar International – Content emailed to requestor. – Splash - tk 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article of mine was deleted giving the reason that it doesnt have any third party source seemed to be blatant advertising which promotes a company, product, group, service or person , i agree to the person who deleted it that being an inexperienced article creator my article might have violated in someway or the other but my point is that i should have given some time for the article to be fundamentally rewritten , but immediately with the notice for deletion was posted my article was deleted . my request to get the copy of the same so that i may rewrite it according to wikipedia standard . regardsPearllysun (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send 'im the files, can't hurt a thing. Though, Pearlly, you might wanna' just take a whole bunch of time and write out the whole article before sending it through. That'd help avoid A3 empty speedies. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent the content to the email address registered with your Wikipedia account. I hope that helps. I'm sorry you feel rather set upon; the speedy deletion process can be rather harsh sometimes. Splash - tk 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:202.76.162.34 – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article's deletion reason was "user page of nonexistent user". However, this is such a user, just an IP user. If Smashville or anyone else involved in the undeletion discussion of the talk page is seeing this: Don't mistake this for the talk page; this is the user page. Which was deleted because the deleting admin thought this was a nonexistent user. But this is actually an IP user. 124.176.160.139 (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. If this user wants a user page, he should create an account. User pages aren't reserved for anonymous IP's. GreenJoe 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask again after the block's over. —Cryptic 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Essentially all that was on there were denied unblock requests..."I don't want to create an account"... --Smashville^BONK! 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We don't recognize the ownership of IPs, even if someone does own the IP. We treat them as temporary anonymous names that may be a different person from edit to edit. As such you cannot have your own IP userpage, it is not yours. Create a username if you like. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is mine...sort of. It is the IP of my school. And this address is practiacally fixed. It has been my school's IP address since I think late 2005. 124.176.160.139 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it certainly does not need a userpage. A template on the Talk page indicating it's a shared school IP address will suffice. -- Kesh (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I don't agree that IP users don't get a userpage...there's a couple of strong contributors out there that only edit under IP addresses and do have userpages. However, those users use a single dedicated IP, and nobody else uses it. They pretty much own their IP address. That's not the case here. This IP address is registered to a school. Therefore, it's not yours, and you really don't have the right to make a talk page there. Create an account, and I'm pretty sure the page can be restored to your account. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 March 2008

Youth United – Deletion endorsed – Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

it was deleted again giving the reason that it doesnt have any third party source. In spite of the fact that I have changed my article Youth United in terms of the no of third party sources. the problem earlier was referred to as the lack of third party sources in the article Youth United. I have included 4-5 third party sources to justify the notability of the article. these are from National Newspapers online links. Challenging the reliability of these sources are out of question. Extolmonica (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold. I can only see 2 working links, both to the Times of India. That's a decent source, but you need more substantial and widespread coverage in order to satisfy people that this should be overturned. Perhaps the best thing would be to userfy the article for now and bring it back when there's more substantial, widespread, 3rd party coverage. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working links. note nos 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are working links and they belong to different newspapers or other third party sources. they are from different national newspapers so reliability should not be questioned. this organization has a lot more print coverage so I ma arranging some scanned copies of those sources too. I recommend the retention of this article and with graduated coverage, I will keep on quoting more and more third party sources.

Seeking your cooperation.P.S. Note no 12 requires a hindi font to be downloadedExtolmonica (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As currently numbered, (you have 2 '9's) 12 is self-published, so isn't reliable. 11 requires Hindi so I can't verify that; perhaps you can find an independent editor to verify that one. I think we have rough consensus here. Suggest we close this as upheld and consider warning User:Extolmonica about SPAs and harassment. S/he seems to be hijacking the process here as a soapbox for his/her own concern. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case History I recommend everyone to get acquainted with the case history of Youth United. for that
1) Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Youth_United, then
2) read User_talk:Extolmonica#Youth_United_3 and then
3) readUser_talk:Orangemike#Regarding_Youth_United
In spite of providing all what was called for, it was again deleted without even noticing the incorporation of reliable third party sources this time. Despite all this, I affirm the exaggeration of Wikipedia's relaxed and liberal policies by few administrators. Consider reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policies.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, clearly states that:
1) this is a guideline and not policy
2) it should be treated with common sense and OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION
3)reliable sources are required when some facts are to be proven (not to mention i aint proving any fact here.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, clearly states that If a rule prevents from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
I hereby recommend the retention of this article to improve Wikipedia and to use Wikipedia's liberal and flexible policies and usages for the purposes they are meant for. I hereby testify my amenabilty to further provide the third party sources from time to time. Extolmonica (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold myself (if that's not out of order). This is a classic case of failure to meet our standards of notability. Most of the links come back to the same two or three articles, about a demonstration which this new group took the lead in organizing. This s.p.a. is so excited about the wonders of her group, that she wants us to IAR. I've attempted over and over again to explain that the articles must include substantial discussion of the organization; but she feels we should cut them some slack because they are new, and are going to be notable someday (the up-and-coming garage-band argument, I call it). I genuinely sympathise with her, but feel the actions of myself and other deleting admins were in order and in accord with our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold and redelete. Even the latest reliable sources do not follow Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources and do not account for much of the text, and Extolmonica has persisted in reuploading deleted material and asserting ownership. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold The AfD discussion was about whether the sources are enough to show notability or not, and interpreting the result as a consensus to delete was proper. And while the (all added since, I assume) articles about the candle light vigil do indeed mention the group (I assume the Hindi one also was about that event, I could not find an automated translator for it), I don't believe that is enough to meet WP:ORG. WP:IAR does not apply as it's a non-profit organization like any other, so standard guidelines can be used. --Minimaki (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point First, the classic case of failure to meet the standards of notability is the lack of third party sources and not the so called newly formed substantiality issue. The sources cited were from national newspapers, and the coverage cant be that substantial without being advertising in nature, which in turn is a violation of wikipedia policies. Second, I have never said that the organization is new and it is going to be notable someday, instead I have been affirming on the point that this organization is notable, though new, and a few third party sources at this point of time should suffice to this issue, as was told to me earlier. I do have a lot of print third party sources too, which can be produce at ease, if required. If these media mentions in the print can not suffice to the purpose, then what on earth is required now. Something was told to me and we did the same. This article, after having posted and finalized, would not infringe any of the wikipedia policies, nor this is a case of a brand promotion as in other classic cases. Most importantly, if you are to be believed and followed , then I should try posting this article after 50 years or so. None of wikipedia policies are prohibiting any article about a new organization to be posted here. After 50 years also, I testify that I will be getting the coverage in a similar manners in almost same newspapers, so then too this substantiality will be raised. So as per you, I should try forgetting posting my article here. i am acquainted with at least a dozen wikipedia users, who have left wikipedia, just because of exaggeration of comparatively relaxed and flexible wikipedia policies. In the line of the ongoing discussion you may consider reading : Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules, which is a policy, and it is not on your discretion, that you choose to follow it or not. I request you to be flexible and cooperative, using wikipedia policies. Extolmonica (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality you are following the statement if you dont't want to listen, you won't listen.- now three more issues are raised whose justifications are quite implied in the case history, I have posted above. about citing sources, you may consider reading Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources again, where styles are particularly mentioned when referenced from any book and I am citing online sources from official websites of the newspapers, which can only be cited in classic style. further i am not citing any challenged materials like any contentious material or living persons.
Consider reading this too Wikipedia:OWN, and recall what I have written on your talk page. I have never said that I am the owner of this logo. Instead I have said that logo is copyrighted with official website of the organization, which is registered with the president of the organization, and written permission of the same can be mailed to anyone with ease.
Lastly, I want the note no 8 to be checked , which covers altogether different event of the organization.

Extolmonica (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right, note 8 is a mention in connection with a different event. Still, I'm not convinced this meets WP:ORG. --Minimaki (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. DRV is not a second round to attempt to get a more favourable decision than AFD. It is only a check that the deletion process was followed correctly. All the "votes" on the AFD were in favour of deleting, therefore deletion was the decision. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Reading this. consider reading Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates, which says that Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion. Extolmonica (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply She has a good point here, Stifle; seems to me this is the proper venue for her to raise her issues! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And compared to what most SPAs seem to do, which is out of process recreation and talkpage spamming, this is actually refreshing to see the right venue being used. That being said...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But she has engaged in talkpage spamming, see this diff. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I got the same message. However, that has all started after my previous comment above. Seeing as how the message was sent primarily to people who already commented here at DRV, I believe it was an honest misunderstanding of that template (which is meant to invite others here that have contributed to the article or prior deletion discussions (which is allowed and not considered canvassing). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is unchanged. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, the AfD was closed correctly, the subject matter has not been established as being significantly notable per inclusion guidelines. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality: . I also admit that earlier AfD was closed correctly, but it did not mean that I could not resolve the issues and I resolved all the issues now by properly citing the reliable third party sources to justify the notability of the article and hence organization. Kindly check the article and refer to the case history, cited above in this page only. So having resolved the issue of notability, i recommend the retention of this article to all the wiki admins.Thanx Extolmonica (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added more third party sources: I have added 2 more reliable third party sources, from reputed national newspaper Indian Express. now consider reading note nos 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15. Note no 12 is not self created it is from a news website and not from a blog. I still anticipate your cooperation. thanks . Extolmonica (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for renumbering. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the appeal : I dont know why but in spite of having done everything what I was told, there seem to be problem now also. Initially I was asked to supply some reliable third party sources, now I made available links of national newspapers, then too a very abstract issue of subtantiality of the coverage of the newspaper is raised. There are as many as 6 neutral and unique third party reliable sources in the article and then too a very speculative issue is raised. Less substantiality of the article is always at the cost of neutrality or non advertising nature of the article, as should be the case. newspapers always cover incidents in a neutral and informative manner, so the very speculative issue of substantiality should be declined. I have used this portal and all the discussions and talk platforms to the maximum to raise my voice. I also tried to abide by all wikipedia policies and i hereby testify my acquaintance with the concerned wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is all about incorporation of more and more prominent stuffs, be it an article about an organization like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or an article about an organization like Youth United. I agree both are not notable to the same extend, but at the same time I affirm the notability of Youth United, to the extend, which is in accord with wikipedia polices. Let's improve Wikipedia, as should be the case. Please refer to the case history section of Youth United, posted above at this page.
I, assuming, you all having read all the case history and other concerned discussions, hereby appeal, to close the discussion in the favor of the retention of this article. Extolmonica (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to Pegasus: Hi. Don,t you think it is illegitimate to delete the content of the article Youth United, leaving only the undelete template. further you have protected the page too, an action which is not covered by any wikipedia policy. Try contributing to the deletion review and say what you have to say, there only. No intimation on any talk or discussion page, indicates non accordance of wikipedia policies. Please do consider wikipedia policies and guidelines, and behave accordingly. especially when delrev and undelete templates were placed on the article to review the earlier deletion, you haven't said anything on deletion review page and just deleted the page. Undelete template says it can not be deleted until review is not finished. Extolmonica (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality and sensibility is expected from wiki admins: I have restored an article on Youth United, with 9 added reliable third party sources. Lack of third party sources was the only reason to delete the article earlier. 9 reliable third party sources are sufficient enough for the retention of the article as told earlier. In fact more than 2 third party reliable sources were enough as was told to me earlier. So the prerequisite for having the reliable third party sources were met. Furthermore Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that it is a guideline and not the rule or policy so it must be treated with occasional exception. I don't anticipate exception in this regard, but you should at aleast try to consider it as a general case and now this article is in conformance of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, guideline (AND NOT POLICY) then being admin, you should consider the retention of this article.

On the Contrary a wiki admin pegasus has deleted the whole content of the article which was restored by me in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates, which clearly states Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate. I put 2 templates delrev and undelete in this regard,
delrev:-this article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, because a recent decision to retain or delete it on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
in spite of the warning that this template can not be removed and this page can not be left blank the admin pegasus has deleted this template and left the page blank.
furthermore as per second template undelete, which states that an appeal has been made at Wikipedia:Deletion review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, this page has been temporarily restored with this message in place.
in spite of these 2 templates, this wiki admin seemed to have forgotten all the wiki policies, have deleted a template and left the whole page blank. To add on everything this wiki admin has also protected the page, so that no further edits can be done, an action which is not covered by any wiki policy. Being a normal user of wikipedia, I also know that I have appealed against the earlier deletion decision and thats why I am having a deletion review here. I am using the right platform to raise my issues and this wiki admin is just using his admin tools in a very illegitimate manners. I request you to to unprotect this page and use this platform to say what you have to say. this wiki admin is not replying to any of my question and hence not in any justifiable position. Wikipedia now seems to be all meant for this wiki admin, who by using admin tool can do anything he wants, no matter its in accordance with any wikipedia policy or not. Let wikipedia be a website meant for bot admins and users. Users are now getting the feeling that they are being dictated by few of wiki admins' bureaucracy. Wikipedia is a user encyclopedia and try to assist the users and not dictate them. Seeking your cooperation. Extolmonica (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lists of fictional topics – Recreation permitted – Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 08:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to organize the lists on Wikipedia about fictional things. There are many lists of fictional things on Wikipedia, but no list to tie them together in a meaningful way.

The primary list was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things. The participants in that AfD seemed to interpret "Lists of fictional things" as "List of fictional things", the latter being seen as far too large in scope for a single list (and therefore indescriminate), while the former title signified a list of existing lists on Wikipedia and therefore was not indescriminate at all (as it was intended as a navigation aid to fictional things presented in Wikipedia, to provide a "top end" to the list structure that already exists for this subject).

I've come before you to clear up this confusion, and to request that you allow me to create a new list from scratch designed to assist in the navigation of Wikipedia's fiction lists, and by extension the fictional topics they present.

For a comparison of other lists of lists on Wikipedia, see Lists of people, Lists of mathematics topics, Lists of philosophy topics, Lists of countries, Lists of mountains, and Lists of topics. When a subject covered in a list becomes too large to be handled in a single list, its parts are split off and the main list becomes a list of lists. Lists of lists are also created by gathering lists belonging to an overriding topic together, which is what I want to do for fictional topics.

Wikipedia has many Lists of lists, and together they form the Lists of topics system, which serves as a table of contents to Wikipedia.

The new list that I'd like to create would be part of that system.

There is a category for lists of fictional things, but I believe I can do a better job presenting Wikipedia's fiction-related lists than the cateogory does, and the new list would tie Wikipedia's existing lists of fictional topics together so that they can serve as an integrated table of contents to the fictional topics included on Wikipedia.

Please let me do so.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 'navigational aid' point anything other than a nice theory? As in, does anybody know them to be actually used for that purpose? Splash - tk 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I use them for that purpose, and I get praise from time to time from others who find the lists I've created useful. So that's some indication. More relevant to this discussion is that the community intends them to be used in this way, because the community has made navigation one of the purposes of lists as stated in the guideline on lists. As such, creating lists is part of Wikipedia's mission, and lists are undeniably a part of Wikipedia. This is not the place to debate the merit of the guidelines and design philosophies of the encyclopedia, only their applicability to this specific list creation proposal. I hope that you agree that my request is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines and established development goals. The Transhumanist 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. You've presented your rationale well, and I agree with your reasoning. I say permit recreation by Transhumanist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd fall foul pretty instantaneously of CSD G4 given the exactitude of the content and substantial prior AfD. I presume that is why Transhumanist has sought a DRV. Splash - tk 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the last-but-one deleted revision, this was not lists of fictional things, but a list singular of fictional things, from Rudolph to Big Bird. It did not reference a single other list. The version immediately prior to the deletion from the AfD was, however, properly as described in the nomination statement here. I'm not sure yet what to say, but I am concerned that a good number of the deleters in the AfD were mis-reading or misguided about what the article actually was. That itself would be enough to overturn (and revert to 31 July 2007) to have the chance to conduct the AfD with a clearer statement of content. Splash - tk 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation using this excellent rationale by Transhumanist. If the prior list was flawed, it should not impact a new list that is within the scope of the actual title. If as Splash suggests the voted-on article was merely vandalized, we have a flawed AFD and an overturn is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's not what I meant. For Lists of fictional things, it was like this: (article proper to its title) -> AfD -> Deleted -> Recreated as list of fictional creatures -> G4 speedied. The article was in its correct state during the AfD. Aaaaand, as I set out below, that's not even the AfD being considered; the nomination here is rather indirect in that sense. Splash - tk 10:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah hang on. The nomination here is slightly misleading. The AfD that is talked about was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things, where there may have been some problems of perception. The AfD for this article was different: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional topics, unanimously deleted the article, even collecting deletes from some notable inclusionists. The AfD for Things was endorsed at DRV here, with minimal dissent. We appear to be being asked to reverse a repeatedly-expressed consensus of many different editors on at least two different articles on at least three separate occasions (AfD, AfD, DRV), not to mention the talk pages of the various articles. Why should we do so? Splash - tk 10:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable inclusionists? Isn't that a reason to have an article on them? - Bobet 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, consensus at the AfD is clear that such a list is too wide in scope, I don't think that has changed. The issues brought up in the AfD still apply. I see no reason to overturn this unanimous consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. DRV is not a venue to try and get a more sympathetic result than AFD, rather it is a venue to check that the deletion process has been followed. There is a consensus that the article should be deleted, why should we change that? Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we change that? Er, I think that's what he explained in his opening paragraph. He's not trying to recreate what was deleted, persay, but make it what it was supposed to be in the first place. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not really. When it was deleted it was indeed a list of lists. That is exactly how it would return, as I mentioned above. The question is whether the deleters in the first place had correctly understood the article. Splash - tk 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - this has been covered ad infinitum, and consensus remains clear. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation in userspace and see how that goes Since this has been covered many times, why not make it in userspace and then have this DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a userfied version, pre-DRV. Good suggestion, JoshuaZ. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

allow recreation if it will be an improved article over what was deleted. DGG (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Allow recreation. As TT points out, this is part of the navigational system:
- I've tried to get people to discuss them as a group, but they seem to constantly get argued over individually (see the just-ended Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of films (overwhelming keep)).
- There are at least 3 possible options for these "navigational" style lists, that I've suggested before.
1. accept their existence and leave them as they are. (with the aim of developing them to the quality of Lists of mathematics topics)
2. tag them as being "disambiguation" pages. (as Lists of languages was for a few months)
3. move them to portalspace. (complicated and currently consensusless option, but a possibility)
- See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index lists, and current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Move navigational lists to portal namespace, and other places linked from those 2.
- Finally, lists are not redundant to categories, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates for details. Futhermore, most of the previous AfD responses did seem to argue based on idontlikeit, or a misunderstanding of the page's intended purpose.
- I'd suggest undeleting both lists (fictional topics and fictional things), if they both have relevant content, to allow any useful content to be merged into a single list. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of Lists of fictional topics (not "things") - lists and categories complement each other, they do not necessarily replace each other. Though I personally often dislike using lists for navigation (generally because so many lists are of poor quality), it is a valid option and is one that many find to be intuitively easier and more logical. Plus, a list of fictional topics would be a part of the existing "lists of topics" series. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Klondike Kalamity – This one is fairly tight, just like the original AFD (which perhaps might have been closed as no consensus rather than a second relisting). Four overturn requests and six endorses came out of this DRV, and I think the correct result is endorse closure, but based on the comments it should be clear that it is without any prejudice against recreating the article with improved sources and notability details. – Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 08:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was relisted twice, ostensibly to seek a "more thorough discussion", after the initial period produced no consensus either way--and there were no further contributions during the first relisting period. It was closed less than 12 hours after the second relisting, when the consensus was momentarily in favor of deletion. Folks, this looks really really bad. The closing admin closed it after a momentary shift in consensus, shortly after it was re-listed, when that shift just happened to be in the direction that he indicated he already agreed with. If, after 20 whole days, no consensus is reached, it's horribly bad form to close it a mere 12 hours after re-listing when a momentary shift in consensus just happens to agree with the closing admin's own prejudices. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To increase the bar of accuracy somewhat here (as the closing Admin) I comment as follows. The article has had 20 days to find consensus. I did not have a prejudice towards deletion or to the article itself but I did form the opinion that it had reached a consensus for delete (after 10 days of first AfD and it reaching the Old Backlog) prior to putting it back up for relisting at the reasonable request of Metropolitan90. It was again relisted, correctly IMO by Master of Puppets because no other comments had been received. I did not canvass for votes or have anything else to do with the article. The article immediately received further comments that formed an even greater consensus towards delete based on lack of notability - even after Kurt put up some rather unhelpful comments such as Frankly, why is "notability" even relevant?; and in response to a request by another editor for him to read WP:EVERYTHING he wrote Read it; it's bullshit--it runs counter to the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. Relisting does not guarantee a further 5 days but seeks to generate further discussion so that consensus can be reached. Further in the 20 days of AfD - despite some valiant attempts by Metropolitan90, and no further return by the originating author (even though some suggestions directly to him/her had been placed in the AfD) the article still does not appear provide notability to the standards required - and this is the consensus that was formed by nominating users.--VS ^talk 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To increase the bar of accuracy here (sorry, couldn't resist) I'll point out that by my reading (including one "Comment") it looks like 4 to 5 in favor of deleting. That is a squeaker of a majority, and not consensus by any means. Avruch^T 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahmm are we reading the same AfD - I read 6 deletes and 2 keeps (plus probably one from the original author)--VS ^talk 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are, but I counted the author and forgot the nom, plus I included a "Comment" that was mostly a keep. Ah... higher math.Avruch^T 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahhh - the old count the comment as required routine - that would be the comment from Dhartung which he later turned into a Delete? - good come back Max . I like it - made me smile. Cheers!--VS ^talk 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC) PS Does that at all make you want to change your comment below on consensus point?--VS ^talk 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. Mvuijlst (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure After something has been relisted, it is always eligible for closure. The timing argument above is just plain wrong. The only keep argument presented after relisting was that the article can be kept simply because we can verify the existence of the play. That is also wrong; we keep articles where we can write policy compliant articles - including WP:NPOV and WP:V. The community consensus on this is captured at Wikipedia:Notability; we need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject of the article. This community consensus is reflected in the consensus of opinions in the AFD - that such sources were not presented. Should they be found and an article created that uses them, there will not be difficulty in recreating. But consensus was clear and in line with community consensus and no procedural flaws exist. GRBerry 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So-called "policy compliance" is irrelevant, since on Wikipedia, what is termed "policy" is non-binding. It merely describes what has happened in the past; there is absolutely no obligation to abide by it in the present. Bureaucratic rules and policies are not relevant; all that matters is whether keeping it around helps or hurts the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nom, and:

- [58]
- [59]
- [60]
- [61]

Not exactly definitive sources, but in the absence of a clear consensus to delete, it should have been kept. Avruch^T 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally sound closure, but probably the wrong result. Google books shows at least one useful seeming source, news shows an LA Times review. Given the rather poor coverage those tools provide, there's likely more out there in a major library. The tedious implications of conspiracy and bad faith are not helpful. Endorse closure, lament deletion, encourage recreation, happy to userfy the deleted article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and return to article space once it has sufficient sources. The Transhumanist 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have since been approached by Toglmer to userfy to his pages. Now done to here.--VS ^talk 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Shouldn't the edit history have been maintained upon userfication? It doesn't seem to have been. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure is not a rigid rules book for us to use to nuke content. There's enough here to convince me that the play existed and still is playing on and off - the notability concerns given seem relatively weak. Deleting this was a mistake, and it should be recreated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore This looks like a perfectly valid article on a perfectly legitimate play. Eclecticology (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, obviously per my !vote, but without prejudice against a sourced article. The accusations, hand-waving, and attacks on procedure (and just barely not on editors) by Kurt Weber were not helpful, and I would hope he would realize that. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I can't find anything wrong with the closure. I also agree with the deletion decision. This just looks like a not (yet) notable play to me that got reviewed a couple of times and (though not a reason for deletion) it was written by a person who purports to be the playwright. Just because a play is written, performed and reviewed does not make it notable and I'm seeing nothing in the sources cited so far that makes me think this is a notable play. Sarah 03:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer me two questions, please: (1) What makes a play "notable", and (2) Why is being "notable" even relevant here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 06:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Our guideline WP:N is relevant because the community has reached consensus that it is a valid way to evaluate whether a topic should be covered by Wikipedia. The sub-guidelines WP:BK (for books) and WP:MOVIE (for movies) may be considered analogous to a hypothetical one for plays, although the criteria are essentially the same. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - and wish to point out that Kurt Weber has taken a position (here and elsewhere) that WP:N is bad policy and must be ignored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kurt is not the only person coming to that conclusion. This has probably gone too far. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure without prejudice to re-creation if better sources can be found. Even though I supported keeping the article during the AfD, the consensus after the second relisting was in favor of deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. If consensus was not reached for that long, a sudden change in consensus immediately before closure simply looks fishy, regardless of the intention of the closing admin.--Dycedarg ж 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure As was explained above, the consensus was to delete at any given point in time of the AfD discussion (in the eyes of the closing admin), so most of the points raised concerning procedure are moot. And with or without this review, once better sources for notability can be found, nothing speaks against re-creation. --Minimaki (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

National High School Center – Now known to be a copyright violation, so can't be restored. Guidance on possible recreation within. – GRBerry 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am hoping to receive some guidance from Wikipedia administrators on the exact protocol regarding the deletion of an article. In mid-December I posted an article entitled “National High School Center”. For background, the National High School Center is an educational organization funded by the U.S. Department of Education that provides information and free-of-charge resources on high school improvement issues. As of now, Wikipedia has a category for “Educational organization” which lists 183 other educational organizations similar to the National High School Center.

A couple weeks after my article was posted, it was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven:

14:57, 19 January 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) deleted "National High School Center" ‎ (not an article)

Per Wikipedia’s protocol, I contacted DragonflySixtyseven on February 12, 2008 on his/her talk page to discuss in detail the deletion of our article but have not yet heard back from the user. Is there any way I can get more information regarding the deletion of our article from Wikipedia administrators? Further, what are the next steps for re-posting the article or editing it so that it can be re-posted? I was hoping to receive guidance on how exactly to modify it and re-post the article so users can benefit from our information. Highschoolimprovement (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deleted version, it was a copyright violation of [62], with many sentenecs lifted straight or near-straight from that page. So, without commenting on possible other problems, the first thing to change would be to create a version which is not so firmly based on another text (website), but consists of your own words. Furthermore, it is best that articles are based on different sources, to provide a balanced, neutral view of the subject. Fram (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed statement you have provided here. I'm sorry you've not heard back from the deleting administrator. As identified by Fram above, the article is an infringement of the copyright at the identified website. Perhaps you work for that organisation, but even so the language an organisation uses to talk about itself is not in general suitable for re-deployment in an encyclopedia (see here and here for example). For content guidance as to appropriateness and standards of inclusion as you consider re-writing the article, see specifically WP:ORG and more generally WP:NOTABILITY, along with the need for reliable, third-party sources to back things up. Splash - tk 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against what Splash and Fram said about how to write a great one. Unfortunately, we cannot accept copyrighted (copywrit?) material here per our license. Write a great article about NHSC in your "userspace" (and please ask anyone here if you don't know what that means or how to create something in your sandbox) and bring your draft here for review. I'd be happy to help you recreate a neutral and sourced article in mainspace at that time. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a free web host. Also copyright issues. A better deletion summary by D67 would have helped. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 March 2008

Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada – Relist on CfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think enough debate was given to this topic. I can't accept the organizational reason. Articles can be in many categories. It's far more apporpiate than a list. Reopen CfD discussion. GreenJoe 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to relisting ~~Endorse deletion as closer~~ - The nomination had been open for 12 days and was uncontested, so the only procedural issue is the limited amount of participation, which is a fair objection. However, in this case, I felt that a lack of participation was an indication of implied consent, for the reason that while articles can be in many categories, they should only be in categories that are defining for the subject (see Wikipedia:Categorization). I saw no fault with the rationale that "institutions by accrediting organisation"-type categories are overcategorisation on the basis of a non-defining characteristic (a comparison could also be drawn to WP:OCAT#Award recipients), and so felt that it was not necessary to relist the discussion or to voice a personal objection. I think the argument for relisting would be stronger if an argument was offered that being accredited by the ATS is a defining characteristic of the various institutions categorised (see here for a complete list). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen CfD discussion - I don't have strong feelings about this particular category, but it appears to me that the lack of discussion on the CfD page is evidence that no one with an interest in the category was aware of the CfD discussion. CfD is not a high-traffic area and thus is likely to be overlooked, and there is no evidence that the nominator posted notifications on any user-talk pages. Furthermore, the nominator's reasons for deletion deserve broader discussion. Specifically:
- It is not true that "many universities are accredited by multiple associations"; most have just one source of institutional accreditation, although programs within the university may have programmatic accreditation.
- This is just one of many Wikipedia categories that list the schools accredited by a particular accreditor. For others, see Category:School accreditors. If there is a desire to eliminate all such categories, they should be discussed as a group, rather than starting with the category for a relatively small and noncontroversial accreditor.
- There is no basis for the nominator's suggestion that the category membership is unstable. (The nom said "I don't know how often they accredit, and it may not be a good idea to store this kind of periodic and changeable information in an article that is not guaranteed of regular updates.") This is a very stable topic: New institutions potentially eligible for accreditation by Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (i.e., graduate schools of theology) don't exactly spring up overnight, and accreditation is generally awarded (and renewed) for a term of 5 years.

--Orlady (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You articulated it better than I could. I'm also worried about the precedent this could set, and yes, those who care about this issue didn't know it was on CFD. GreenJoe 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reopen/relist per Orlady- I edit conflicted with Orlady given somewhat similar rationales but Orlady's description above is more thorough and well-written than mine. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the CFD discussion is reopened, something to which I don't object too much, I would ask that the category itself not be ~~restored and~~ repopulated unless the CFD discussion ends with a consensus to recreate. The reason for my request is to avoid unnecessary edits should deletion be subsequently endorsed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The discussion should be informed by information about the category membership, however. There's a list of accredited institutions on the association's website, and from skimming your contributions log I estimate that there were somewhat more than 200 articles and categories in the category at the time of deletion. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 212 articles and 3 categories were affected. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the reverse of how everything on WP works. The debate should proceed in the usual way, but with the cat left empty, and if, at the end of it, there is no consensus to delete the category it can be re-populated. To insist that consensus must be shown to re-create it requires a double hurdle of succeeding at DRV and a reverse CfD. But certainly, there is no need to re-populate in advance of the CfD being re-run, except to undelete the category page itself, if there was one. Splash - tk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I miscommunicated my intent. I did not mean to suggest that the CFD should develop a consensus to recreate -- after all, that's the purpose of this DRV. Rather, I meant that the category should not be repopulated prior to the conclusion of the 2nd CFD - if it takes place, that is. I have stricken the part about restoration for clarity. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen/Relist per Orlady, whose arguments are well thought out, articulated, and compelling. Only one participant (other than nom) is hardly consensus to do anything and seems to support the contention that the CfD was below the radar screen for those that would have participated. Therefore, even if there were no compelling arguments to keep, it should be reopened on a procedural basis alone. I agree with not recreating/repopulating the cat unless the reopened CfD is closed with consensus to keep as fair. — Becksguy (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close CFD is not a vote, and no quorum is required. Dozens of people saw the debate in progress over its 12 days, dozens edited the page and not a single one saw fit to state any reason why the cat ought be retained. Unlike AFD's which are transcluded on the daily page and there is a possibility that someone can see only the single article being debated, CFD's daily debates is for all to see, even if one only arrives at that page through the category tagged with the notice. Overturning this is bad precedent to require a "quorum" in any of these debates as many people don't add a comment when it appears to be unanimously going one direction or another. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, yes, there is no quorum and silence can be taken as consent on CfD. However, oftentimes a deletion nomination only gets noticed when it is eventually acted upon, and suddenly 200-odd articles make watchlists go ping. In such a situation, when someone does eventually present a well-argued case for re-consideration, I think it is incumbent to re-run the debate with the newly-aware people now ready to join in. Keeping it deleted only because no-one noticed, when someone has now noticed, does not go the way of setting a quorum precedent. Splash - tk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen/Relist ATS accredidation is reconginzed by CHEA and Department of Education as a legitimate accrediting agency. Though this category might seem trival, any accredidiation takes time for the school to be recognized, and last a significant amount of time (ie 5-10+ yrs). Accrediting bodies recognized by CHEA and DoE should be evidence enough for these kind of categories to remain. I second GreenJoe on what kind of precident this might make. Normal users don't check CFD logs, as I am a case. I only knew about the CFD once the deletion happened on one of my watchlists. — PikePlace (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist since it seems there's additional information to be provided in the discussion.DGG (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dante's Cove images – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn - no consensus for deletion, comments were 2-2 and the licensing tag for DVD cover images specifically states that DVD cover images are allowable to illustrate the DVDs in question, which these images were doing. Otto4711 (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The images described were deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_29#Dante.27s_Cove_DVD_covers. John254 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion -- Template:Non-free DVD cover is neither a policy nor a guideline. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, "cover art" may be used "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." As there was clearly no "critical commentary" associated with the usage of these images in Dante's Cove, the deletion was proper. John254 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Their sole use was in a gallery, which fails WP:NFCC#8. The close was proper. ➪HiDrNick! 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, decorative unfree image use, no thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse per John, Guy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per John254. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg – I am undeleting this image. Decisions by Commons are not binding upon us and the image was deleted from English Wikipedia under completely uncontroversial circumstances (CSD I8). It is my firm belief that the image has no creative input and is ineligible for copyright (after reviewing the discussion on Commons). I will not list the image for deletion, but I encourage other editors to do so (most likely at WP:PUI) if they feel this image is indeed eligible for copyright. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(restore|cache|AfD)

It's always a sad day for Wikipedia when a featured picture is deleted. This particular image was featured pursuant to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High Resolution Solar Spectrum, deleted as it was copied to the Wikimedia Commons, then deleted there, as the conditions under which it was licensed preclude commercial use, while permitting non-commercial use, such as on websites operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Our own policies prohibit the uploading of images with non-commercial only licenses after May 19, 2005, and permit the speedy deletion of non-commercial images uploaded after this date pursuant to CSD I3. However, this particular image was clearly uploaded before May 19, 2005, and can thus be retained under a non-commercial only license -- see, for example, the use of this image in the May 17, 2005 revision of Sun. John254 03:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So at some point it was moved to commons and then deleted from here? and now deleted from commons for incompatible license? So we should now restore it here? (I assume that is the situation). Not sure what the speedy crtieria has to do with this. It's a speedy criteria, it in itself governs speedy deletion, it doesn't create an inalienable right regarding images. The intent of the criteria is clear, non-commercial only shouldn't be here except within the came bounds as other non-free content, the date was to prevent mass deletions occurring under the speedy criteria. I guess the questions I'd have are (1) Was it in use on any articles here when removed from commons, then we'd probably delete it as non-free and orphaned. (2) Featured pictures are always free, so this suggests the image was tagged incorrectly when here, so it would lose it's featured picture status anyway? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image was used in Spectroscopy at the time of its deletion from the commons (see [63]), and thus would not have been deleted as orphaned had it remained on Wikipedia. While CSD I3 does not completely define our policies with regard to non-commercial only images, it is representative of our policy that the uploading of non-commercial images was permissible prior to May 19, 2005, and that such images uploaded preceding this date are exempted from the blanket prohibition on non-commercial only licensed material. However, it is conceded that the licensing of this image may be incompatible with featured status. John254 12:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, since it was in use I'd tend to adopt an approach with these that it would be down to someone to find a replacement before deletion. The basic principle of the "free" encyclopedia stands, so finding such a replacement is of course desirable to meet the deadline. I do hope at sometime we put a time limit on these images for replacement or deletion, but we've a hell of a lot more pressing image issues before we get to that. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. GreenJoe 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted The image has a non-commercial license, and by current policies, we do not want to use such images on Wikipedia. One requirement for featured images is for them to be free - so this one was improperly tagged. That a version of it was already uploaded before May 17, 2005 is splitting hairs to me - it is non-free, and so should only be used under fair-use. --Minimaki (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as contrary to the purpose and aims of the project. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and if it really bothers people that much, tag it w/ fair use -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mike Matas – G4 was not applicable to a contested PROD. Undeleted. – Splash - tk 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rewritten and cleaned up article, with OT removed and added special notability section. I.e. not substantially the same which was the reason for the re-deletion. Henriok (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. I have reviewed the article history. The content is new and the old AfD vote is no longer applicable. Therefore, the speedy deletion was out of order. — David Remahl (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so. The AfD was not a delete, it was a redirect. This rules out deletion as G4, since the previous actual deletion was in fact a PROD which is not subject to G4 and where recreation constitutes contest. I'm therefore going to directly restore the article, and leave it to other processes to determine its eventual fate. Splash - tk 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2008

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg – Overturn deletion and keep image (it has already been restored by others). Although an impassioned debate with well-intentioned editors on both sides clearly arguing for what they think is the best interests of the encyclopedia, this one does come down to numbers. I know, I know... it's not a vote. Okay, but having said that, we have to acknowledge that there are valid points on both sides of this discussion, and there is a clear supermajority in favor of keep. Some editors have used arguments akin to if we allow this speedbump we might as well fill the oceans, or if we delete this image we might as well delete all images that use a pseudonym..... such grandiose exaggerations do not really help us reach consensus; this really is just about one image. And a rather unimportant one at that. If we delete this image, the encyclopedia will not collapse-in on itself. If we keep it and some rights-holder someday contests it, we can just oversight it out; we will not all spontaneously combust. Everyone should just take a deep breath, get some good sleep, and move on. Decision is overturn/keep. An editor asked that the closing decision include whether the image may be retagged for speedy deletion: I do not know that as closing administrator of a DRV that I can make such a preemptive decision, but it seems to me that an image that has received such discussion and process consideration, that it would be an unlikely condidate for speedy, and it's speedy deletion would likely land us back here, so I am inclined to say "no". – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was recently retained at a result of an IFD discussion, at which there was a consensus that the image was acceptable pursuant to our fair use policy and guidelines, an outcome which there was no consensus to overturn at the previous deletion review discussion. Wasting no time, Xaosflux removed the image from Anonymous (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) less than an hour after the closure of the prior deletion review discussion, then deleted it scarcely one minute later as an "orphaned fair-use" image. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, not unilateral deletionism. John254 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn/undelete Yeah, that's not good. Appears to be a direct attempt to get around the consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow... Nice to know anyone even bothered to mention this to me... </sarcasm>. Some admins I had a great deal of respect for lost a whole lot of that respect in my book today. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was done by Xaosflux was wrong. I restored the image per the Mar. 1 deletion review. If the discussion needs to be taken further, it needs to go through the proper dispute resolution process. -Nv8200p talk 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Xaosflux was misled by a (IMO) bogus CSD tag that was placed on the image Mar. 8 and dated Mar. 3 -Nv8200p talk 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the deletion by Xaoflux (which was done) and seek furthur consensus through discussion. Without commenting on the image, I am, quite frankly, disappointed by Xaoflux's conduct orphaning and immediately deleting the image after an XFD just concluded on it. It certainly didn't fall under any criteria for CSD. CSD does not trump XFD. If an XFD takes place and it is kept, then a discussion must take place to delete the image, not judgement by a single user. — Κaiba 12:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is not a !vote of endorsement to keep the image, but simply an overturn !vote because I believe the process which it was deleted was improper. I have no opinion on the image itself and that is why my above comment also reflects to continue discussing it until a consensus is formed. — Κaiba 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - in big letters: will perpetually fail WP:NFCC#10a because we can never know who holds the copyright. I seriously can't believe people want to keep images that are blatant violations of our Non-free content criteria. Will ^(talk) 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the administrator who closed the prior deletion review discussion found that the image was compliant with WP:NFCC#10a:
NFCC10a demands source and copyright holder. A source was found (seemingly midway through the debate). Please note that WP:NFCC does not require that this source be linked to. A specific description of where this source can be found in some other media may be acceptable as well (although this is not relevant as a source was found that could be linked to...again, the undercurrent and implication of where the first source for the image was, has likely colored the discussion). The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous).[64]
John254 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, without prejudice on whether the image should actually be retained or not. I was not aware of this review, although I have contested the deletion separately at ~~an ANI discussion~~ an ANI discussion ~~(permanent link)~~. The issue, as has been correctly observed by several editors above, is that the system should not be gamed to suppress consensus because of a single editor's agenda. Ayla (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep. After re-reading the relevant policies and discussions, I have come to agree that the WP:NFCC#10a issue is addressed by the fact that the copyright holder of the image is either Anonymous (the group) or anonymous (undisclosed). Given the nature of the group, it is more than likely that such would also be the "copyright holder" for any alternative logos. Ayla (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#10a. Our non-free content criteria are not up for debate here. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again. As I clarified on my page (to which Sceptre has decided to conspicuously ignore, uncivilly shout down opposition, and use blatantly misleading speedy deletion tags to game the system--all due to his conflict of interest), works that are explicitly created anonymously are copyrighted--this is clear to most parties I'm sure. As such, for explicitly anonymous works, that anonymous individual (or group) is explicitly the copyright holder (and we don't know who they are any better or worse than any of the many pseudonymous editors of Wikipedia). It's not that we don't know the provenance of the image (cf. some random picture without source on the internet). It was quite obviously created by a member of Anonymous. A little good faith and common sense on that point would be excellent. There's a difference between "we don't know" and "it was deliberate that we not know". If there is to be further discussion on this point, fine. I welcome it. There was no consensus in the discussion, and no irrefutable policy points, and that's why I closed it as such. The discussion was languishing for days. I wonder if it was such an open-and-shut case why no one speedy-closed it as delete before me. If there emerges a consensus that the policy points are irrefutable, then delete the image. But there needs to be a clarification in the NFCC for cases where an explicitly anyonymous copyright holder cannot be identified as the given copyright holder of a given image. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, with Wikipedia, we can know who uploaded it (example, we can differentiate between you and I with uploads). With 4chan, you can't. Nearly everyone, especially on /b/, posts as "Anonymous". We don't know which "Anonymous" uploaded it, whether it was 123.45.67.89 or 98.76.124.3. Will ^(talk) 17:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - who owns the copyright is unclear, and I'm still not convinced this is a logo. Addhoc (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this is abserd, and at least the 5th dispute I have seen that is WP:GAME against the Anonymous/Project C (I really can't spell it) that has occured since the wiki creation...Involving editors whos interests in the project are apperant disruption of the articles themselves and a complete contempt of consesus. it also is in direct conflict with the spirit of the rules that are beeing quoted. The Non-Free image rules are created to keep from stealing someones work without giving them credit. If it is imposable to find a spicific individual, and no one will be able to validly claim that it is her/his work, no one has any actual claim on the image (orgonizational or otherwise)...?!?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. The image has no copyright source given, and will be eligible for WP:CSD#I4 in a week. What? Apparently some administrator unfamiliar with our image copyright policies closed an IfD for this image as no consensus, making it ineligible for speedy. In that case, delete. There is no copyright source given, plain and simple. "It can be obtained from Anonymous" does not a copyright source make. I can "obtain" pictures from Flikr, but that doesn't make Flikr the copyright holder. It is impossible to identify the copyright holder for this image. Administrators should familiarize themselves with our most basic image use guidelines before closing discussions at IfD. ➪HiDrNick! 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- **Cough** I hardly think that Nv8200p would qualify as unexperienced when it comes to image guidelines. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No. The IfD was closed as keep; the review was closed as no consensus. Given the discussion at the image talk page, I believe HiDrNick was addressing the "inexperienced admin" comment at you, IronGargoyle. Just to clarify. Ayla (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, I know perfectly well who he was addressing it to. But if hasty comments with mistakes illustrate that the commenters have failed to examine all the facts and discussion in the case (including my expanded reasoning above), well then that says something about the arguments. I read and re-read the DRV, IfD, and NFCC 10a before closing the discussion, and I stand by my interpretation. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if people are calling IG an inexperienced admin... I mean, just wow. I don't know what to say about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought the same thing, especially since I'd seen this closure. But, considering that an editor on this thread suggested that Shii should have been banned, I'm not being surprised anymore. Ayla (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, I did not say anything about an "inexperienced admin" that people keep brandishing about in quotation marks, so please don't misquote me. I said the closers involved to date were "unfamiliar with our image copyright policies", which a statement I can stand behind given that this image hasn't been deleted already for lacking a source. The basis of confusion here seems to be the idea that "The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous)". This is bogus. Some person, somewhere created this image. It has a copyright and we cannot reproduce it freely. No one is making PD claims here. We do not host unfree images unless we identify the copyright holder on the image description page. Plain and simple. Anonymous (the group) does not hold copyright to the image, the copyright is held by the person who created the image. It's unclear that it's even possible for a nebulous group of people to hold the copyright of image at all; even still, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the copyright to the image is owned by its creator, who cannot possibibly be identified. This is like trying to find the copyright owner of "mustard man" or "special olympics kid running" type images. It's just some crap that someone posted to a forum somewhere, and unless you yourself made the image and can prove it, you shouldn't be uploading it to Wikipedia. The image source (where you found the image) and the image copyright holder (who owns the copyright to the image) are sometimes different things, which is why we have different CSD templates to identify the problems. Until someone identifies the copyright source of this image it cannot be used under our WP:NFCC. ➪HiDrNick! 21:30, 9 March 2008

If the claim that we must identify the copyright holder of all fair use images by his/her real name were actually true, then we would need to delete Image:Anonymous Scientology 9 by David Shankbone.JPG as a non-free content policy violation as well, because it depicts copyrighted posters created by unidentifiable protesters -- indeed the policy violation would be made even more egregious by the fact that David Shankbone has uploaded the image under the GFDL despite the fact that it contains fair use components. For that matter, we would need to delete Image:Nice body art.jpg, because we cannot identify the artist who applied the paint to the model. Extensive wikilawyering over our non-free content policy is likely to lead to highly objectionable fair use enforcement that many contributors will find worthy of the shortcut WP:FU. Instead, I suggest that we recognize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy:

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

John254 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, with the unilateral deletion of this image is not so much that it was procedurally bad, as that it was done in blatant disregard for consensus. After the image was retained as a result of an IFD discussion and the prior deletion review, to unilaterally seek the speedy deletion of the image without so much as notifying IronGargoyle, the administrator who closed the prior DRV discussion, is downright insulting to IronGargoyle, and, more generally, to the community as a whole, whose wishes were thwarted. John254 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, John254, I agree perfectly. Ayla (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless clear, unambiguous information on the source and license can be found, which I seriously doubt it will be. This is a free-content encyclopedia. krimpet ✽ 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[65] is the source of the image. While the image is not freely licensed, the argument that the image must therefore be deleted to protect Wikipedia's status as a free-content encyclopedia proves too much: the deletion of any fair use image could be justified on these grounds, as fair use images are, by definition, not licensed for Wikipedia's use. Since, per our current fair use policy and guidelines, at least some fair use images are acceptable, the proper response to a disagreement with all fair use images would be to discuss an amendment to the policy, not to seek to delete any fair use image which lacks "clear, unambiguous information on the... license". John254 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I stated in the first IfD, which was improperly closed. No obtainable copyright source. HiDrNick pretty well explains it. Lara❤Love 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source of this image is [66]. John254 21:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to copyright source. Lara❤Love 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC criteria 1 (if it illustrates a concept related to the group and not a logo, a free equivelent may be produced), criteria 8 (the image does not add significanty to the article, promotional material of this sort doesn't really help the reader understand the group), criteria 10a (no source is given and the source is not likely to be found), criteria 4 (no evidence that the image has been legally published outside of Wikipedia). Guest9999 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is irreplaceable, as it is necessary to describe the type of propaganda employed by Anonymous. To quote from the image caption, the image depicts

A satirical motivational poster, displaying a tagline highlighting the pervasive black comedy of the Anonymous subculture:
"Anonymous: Because none of us are as cruel as all of us".

Any free alternative produced by Wikipedia contributors in an attempt to represent this phenomenon would necessarily be inauthentic. Furthermore, [67] provides evidence of both legal publication outside of Wikipedia and of the source of the image. John254 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how it passes criteria 4 and 10a, then. Will ^(talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered -- please see my comments above. John254 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This demotivator pretty much perfectly describes the personality of the *chan boards.Stormfin (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This shows the massive gaping flaw in Wikipedia policy. This is an image produced by a loose group that falls under the vague ideology of anonymous. Anything produced by this community will and indeed is expected to be edited, changed, saved and redistributed. To me, this is obviously the same as having no copyright license attached. Of course, to the blinkered view fostered by WP Policy 'it *must* have a copyright. Which it doesn't. So we end up here. Again and again and again.

The online world plays by a different set of rules to the real one, and if Wikipedia doesn't realise this soon then it might as well give up covering online communities and websites.

My vote would be KEEP. It is a fairly used image with NO copyright conditions reasonably attatched to it, reasonably used for the illustration of the group in question. 82.32.195.193 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it's according to the law that work has automatic copyright protection, without the need for copyright notices or such like. Perhaps you'd like to get copyright law changed to suit your view of the way the world should be. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFCC#10a - the copyright holder cannot be identified. WP:NFCC isn't randomly optional for some images, and as the creator of the image cannot be identified, it doesn't matter what it's of. Ale_Jrb ^talk 07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep This image is irreplacable and fair use, as per John254, IronGargoyle's comments in the previous DRV closure, and my comments in the IfD and previous DRV. The community has spoken - twice - and this bureaucratic silliness needs to stop here. Z00r (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; from what I've been reading on this whole situation the deletion was out-of-process. Note that I am not going to say anything about the picture's viability as 4chan and I are antagonistic towards each other on Wikipedia (largely due to SIHULM). At the very least Relist the IfD or reinstate any applicable CSD tags if necessary on the slim chance that someone can trace the creator, then delete it after those criterion if a source has not been found. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 07:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and whack those who think we need the real name of the creator with a trout. Pen names, stage names and art-names are perfectly acceptable for identifying copyright holders. In fact, many artists use them precisely because they do not want their real name identified or associated with the work in question. GRBerry 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was trying to explain in my close. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said we needed the real name of the creator, we need to be able to identify the creator. For example, if I uploaded a wholly new picture, and released it under the GFDL, "Sceptre on en.wikipedia.org" would be enough for attribution. But you can't say "Anonymous on 4chan", because 99% of posters there are anonymous. If you can show the precise post where the author says "I created this image to represent us" (not any upload, but the first one - the "fucking peppers" and "longcat fight" ones normally get a few uploads per week), then that's enough for the "copyright holder" portion of 10a. That's the problem with memes - it's very hard to see where they started. Will ^(talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You actually said "because we can never know who holds the copyright" [emphasis in original]. That is a demand to know the real name. GRBerry 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/b/ has a record of over 100,000 per day. There is at least 50,000,000 posts to sort through to find that image. If you checked two images per second, with no breaks, it would take a person eleven months to find the source. That's without factoring in bandwidth costs, electricity costs, and the possibility it was originally posted on 7chan. I'm pretty sure that falls in the region of "never". Will ^(talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Most of the stuff on 4chan falls under the "we don't know" type of anonymity. The present case, however, is the more deliberate type of "we were meant not to know" anonymity. Common sense says that it was made by a deliberately anonymous member of the group. Akin to the stage name that GRBerry refers to. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for a single pseudonym to be used by many different authors. For example, the federalist papers were written by several authors all under the pseudonym publius. Z00r (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. If we delete this because the exact author cannot be found, we would be obliged to delete a lot of important material released under art names, pen names, etc. Such a massive project of deletion would damage WP considerably. Z00r (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to stay away from this, not wanting drama, but here's my $0.02 on it. I ran in to this on CSD for the first time ever, and agreed that it should be speedily deleted. Not wanting to leave a redlink, I cleaned it out of the article, with editorial comments that I didn't think it really belonged there at all. After that, I deleted it, noting that it was an orphan because I cleaned it up; the CSD I used was fair-use vio. I did notice that there was a talk page, and noted the deletion reason on it at that time [68]. I do NOT in any way contest the reversal of my speedy, and had there been any sort of {{Oldifdfull}} tag on the talk page, would have delisted the CSD and referred the nominator to other channels, or more likely skipped it. As far as a DRV !vote goes, relist, but for those that are inclined to use DRV as IFD2, then delete (This group doesn't appear to have an official organization, much less an official logo, and if they do then the group should be asserting the copyright status of their work (the logo).) — xaosflux ^Talk 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification requested: You mention the lack of "officialness" as a reason for deletion. Are you saying this in terms of fair use considerations, or in terms of importance to the article? Thanks. Z00r (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of both, the group does not appear to be organized in such a manner as to have selected any logo, if the logo is the work of the group and/or licensed to the group then they should be able to assert the copyright status of it. You can't just take someone else's copyrighted work, use it as the logo for your entity and assert fair use. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use status of the image is a complicated issue since this is such an unusual situation. However, the importance to the article is straightforward. Anonymous underwent considerable demographic changes during Project Chanology - a substantial portion of the Chanology Anonymous protesters were not associated with Anonymous before Chanology started, and probably won't be involved after Chanology ends. They only joined to protest Scientology and don't represent the general Anonymous group. This is one of the main reasons why a separate article was created for Anonymous (group) instead of making it a subsection in the Project Chanology article. To use images of Chanology protesters in place of this image would severely misrepresent the group. Specifically, Anonymous has a history and culture of black humor, and those who have watched Anonymous evolve over the years agree that this image nearly perfectly represents the "spirit" of the original group. That is why this image is so closely associated with Anonymous, both by outsiders and within the group itself. This image is used by members of Anonymous to identify the group in a wide variety of settings including posters, fliers, picket signs, forums, and so forth. While the "officialness" of the logo is intentionally unknowable, it is their de facto flag/banner/logo, as judged by how much it is used, and the way in which it is used. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to see how an article could accurately represent Anonymous without including the image. Z00r (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention how often it is used in videos. Some examples: [69] (Chanology related) [70] (Non-chanology related). Also, this is further used in websites.--Cast (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/overturn deletion. Valid fair use - the source is clearly "Anonymous (group)". Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is an anonymous "cultural phenomenon" (pro-article-ers' words, not mine) a source? Will ^(talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm detecting a bit of cherry picking in terms of how you describe the group. I have also referred to Anonymous as a cultural phenomenon, but I also recognize that is partially that and partially a subculture, a tactic, and a group, depending on context. In the case of who could be a source and copyright holder for this logo, it is clearly referring to Anonymous as a group. You have yourself long referred to them as a group (of "17 year old virgins", was it?) so why are you changing your tune now?--Cast (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I'm trying to make. "Not a group" was used to get the article kept, but the opposite is being used to get the image kept. You can only have one of the other. Will ^(talk) 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's obvious that's the point your making, and I was myself pointing out the fallacy of it. You can have it both ways, and given the nature of the group/culture/social phenomenon, you should. Anonymous is a lot more nuanced than you're giving it credit. A website created by Anonymous has recently been made, in which is noted a description of what Anonymous is, listing at least two of several of the descriptions I've been applying to it. "Anonymous is a cultural phenomenon which began on internet image boards. [...] We are a collection of individuals united by ideas" – Anonymous, Who is Anonymous? whyweprotest.net

Note the added emphasis. Anonymous itself recognizes the multiple aspects of its existence. Yes, this is a group, yes, this is a logo for this group, and yes, this is also a cultural phenomenon on the internet which has created its own subculture within a greater internet culture.--Cast (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If the closure is no consensus, please specify whether the image may be tagged for speedy deletion (again) in consideration of this image talk page discussion. Thanks. Ayla (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is my vote; this image is quite famous, I suppose, it's been widely used on the web in reference to Anonymous and their recent anti-CoS protests; so, whether or not the author is known, I believe it falls in the range of fair use, since it is used for informative purposes only. -- Stormwatch (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: How about replacing the image with the new logo from the Insurgency Wiki? The Insurgency Wiki releases all content under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0, which is still considered as a non-free license on Wikipedia. However, since the image is explicitly marked as a logo, it would qualify as fair use per WP:LOGO and, additionally, as an image with iconic status (consider its pervasion on several Anon wikis and press coverages). Opinions? Ayla (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable that information can be when taking into considerion that their main page symbol is a copyrighted pokemon character. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding, it still qualifies as fair use under WP:LOGO. Several other wikis (for example, Anonymous Lobby Against Scientology Campaign and Anonymous Toronto) use the said image as the official site logo. Ayla (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, the proposed new image would still be susceptible to the opposition given in this review. Ayla (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This was way out of line, and GRBerry is absolutely right in his comments above. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Overturn Deletion. Fair Use must not be erroded. Someone owns the copyright, but that doesn't matter. Fair use exists, and this is CLEARLY an example of fair use. Pro-Copyright Extremists would have us believe that anything copyrighted is unusable. This simply isn't true. Fieari (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who's the "someone", then? The NFCC makes it clear s/he needs to be identified (as I've said, a link to the original post in 4chan's archives will suffice) Will ^(talk) 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did it occur to you that the group is named "Anonymous" for a reason? There are compelling arguments to believe that the creator intentionally made it impossible for himself/herself to be ever identified. Ayla (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, find the original post and I'm okay with using that as a copyright source. Will ^(talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#10a does not demand the original post, only the copyright holder. The original post, even if found, would serve no purpose in identifying the copyright holder since posts are made anonymously, not pseudonymously; thus, the poster has no "identity" beyond that single post. Ayla (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... If you go by the logic of needing to find the "original" post to satisfy NFCC 10a, you'd need to find the first McDonalds ad from 1940 to use their logo as fair use. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above and fair-use rationale. The Myotis (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ and list at XfD. I believe it is replaceable, since the anon suit symbol isn't actually standardized, it's just a general concept. However, since so many people feel that it isn't replaceable, while I disagree with them, that's a situation that should be handled in an XfD. We do so because there might be things we haven't considered, or heck, I might be wrong in my own evaluation completely (thought I highly doubt it). -- Ned Scott 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a free-license replica would be "authentic", too. There's more /b/tards around Wikipedia than you might think ;) -- Ned Scott 08:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll just change to neutral for now. Policy is pretty clear about having a source and about stating who owns the copyright. Then again, it's likely that we will have (and might already have) images from unknown sources that are notable in themselves, that would justify a fair-use claim. I wouldn't call this close incorrect, in that case, but I would still recommend another IfD. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any free-license replica created by a /b/tard would quite likely be posted anonymously, leaving us in the same situation. "Policy is pretty clear about having a source and about stating who owns the copyright": Do you mean that works intentionally posted anonymously can never be used? Ayla (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the author chooses to contribute the image under a free licensee, but does not wish to identify themselves, they are able to do so. We've been doing this for text contributions for years. However, my point was that a Wikipedian could make the image, since a good number of us are also "anonymous" (zomg, broke rules 1 and 2). -- Ned Scott 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple retracing would not constitute a new copyright, as discussed here: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images, so such a work would face the same challenges as the current image. Z00r (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good thing I didn't suggest that. Obviously, the image would be different, but contain the typical suit/mannequin/no-image-available theme. This particular suit is no more an icon/logo for anonymous than the thousands of other suit icons that have been posted in the past. -- Ned Scott 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is true. The current suit is pretty distinctive and widely used in its particular form. Also, if one of us made it, then it would be inauthentic. It would be just something that a random wikipedian made up, as opposed to the actual logo being used. Z00r (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of many images used. None of them are official or really a "logo" for anonymous. All that is important is the basic theme. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fair use rationale. --Sjappé (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per aboves and fair use rationale. Spencer^T♦^C 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would submit that the majority of images on Wikipedia which list a copyright holder and permission to use it have never been scrutinized. Only in the case of a copyright holder stepping up and claiming violation would eyes turn to it. Therefore could not any anonymous person, such as myself, step up and state, "I created this. I give full permission to do so." As for the claim that the image is not related to understanding the story, that's near patent nonsense. 71.110.137.60 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that someone isn't going to call us out on their copyright violation doesn't make something ok. Furthermore, the point of our strict copyright policy isn't due to concern about copyright infringements as much as it is because we want the end result to be as free-use as possible. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Working Class Rock Star (film) – Deletion endorsed, but permit recreation with the sources listed below. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Listed on official wire services - Yahoo!, New York Times, Variety, Fancast - links available - http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/452606/Working-Class-Rock-Star/overview, http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=chart_film_prod_d&dept=Film&recordid=1117786664, http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809990129/info, http://www.fancast.com/movies/Working-Class-Rock-Star/141279/main, trailer/one sheet available on homepage - www.workingclassrockstar.com clearly prove existence - release date pending, but in 2008 Unstableground 18:20, 8 March 2008

Pretty old debate here. And the AfD allows for recreation if it now meets WP:N standards. From what the links above, it looks like there's plenty to show notability. Endorse deletion, since the previous version is a year old and was crystal ballery, but feel free to create a new one. If an admin speedies it under WP:CSD#G4, then it'd be a good idea to bring it back here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Write a new article using the new sources (nothing is stopping you) and history can be restored. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 March 2008

Ric Dalby – I'd love to say that DRV could overrule arbcom (notably because I regularly close DRVs and am not a member of arbcom :)), that being said the question is no longer relevant given that the injunction is over. Deletion endorsed. Please return with an improved draft in userspace. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I realise there's an injunction in place here but a lot of these pages were deleted because they had been copied wholesale from other sites and there really should be a facility available for the creation of original articles.See also Matilda Hunter, Peter Baker (Home and Away) and Dan Baker(Home and Away). Skteosk (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the injunction as I read it doesn't prevent creation of original articles, so I'm not entirely sure what's being asked here. Sure you'd need to be careful that any article isn't substantially the same as the deleted article which could be seen as an un-delete, but that'd fall under speedy criteria G4 anyway. Even if that's not how it's supposed to be interpreted, WP:DRV cannot overrule arbcom, if you want arbcom to clarify their injunction, ask on the arbcom pages not here. I would guess the case is coming to an end fairly soon anyway. I would also note some of those were deleted for essentially being able to create a substantial article on the character given available sources, rather than being an copy from elsewhere --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I believe that DRV can overrule the Arbcom, since the community always can as a matter of right. This is particularly the case since DRV and AfD are consensual content venues, the two golden lines the committee is not empowered to cross. I've raised this matter with the committee, and Newyorkbrad has indicated that, if the case does not close imminently, he will seek to alter or remove the injunction. In the meantime, if that does not happen, I'd suggest we start ignoring it as out-of-date and out-of-place. Splash - tk 13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say there was a broader consensus for putting such decisions with the remit of arbcom than you are likely to muster here. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions. Create original articles in userspace that satisfy WP:FICT and come back here for review. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These have been through the mill so many times each and at each stage have failed to survive as standalone articles, or have been deleted outright. Only one(ish) of the rounds of deletion was due to copyright problems, the others were straightforward. Endorse since the nominator is not making a case that anything has changed since the articles were last considered (and indeed, nothing has changed). Splash - tk 13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ace of Base's fifth studio album – Keep closure overturned, article now deleted – Davewild (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin opted to keep the article on the grounds that since the article was sourced (from the band's website and fansites) it was not crystal ballism, ignoring that there was no independant coverage of the album to demonstrate notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The two keep opinions by article contributors merely assert that it is "useful information" and one source being "approved by the band as official". The five deletes (including the nom) are at least partly based on sound arguments such as the lack of independent sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete, unverifiable from reliable independent sources, might never happen. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete - No independant, reliable sources provided. None found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Tikiwont and Hellow Control who both said it well. Closer seems to have closed with an opinion of what he wanted the result to have been, not what the discussion acutally said. Should have participated, not closed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independently verified information, no evidence of notability through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough gents, go ahead and delete. I merely thought that the notability was strong enough to transfer over in this particular case, especially given this album seems to have a greater chance of actually surfacing than most of the non-notable future albums we get. GlassCobra 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Orgelbau Hey – Userfied to User:Vox Humana 8'/Orgelbau Hey, not that there was much content, though. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was working on the article to improve it and address the notability concerns which caused it to be deleted per CSD A7: could it please be restored to my userspace so I can work on it and make a decent article out of it, please? Vox Humana 8' 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Longmont Potion Castle – Deletion endorsed. Show me a reasonable userspace draft (using the sources mentioned below) that differs from the versions deleted in history and I will speedy unsalt. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable Sayitaintjoe (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Tikiwont (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse, valid deletion, no rationale for undeletion, requester is a WP:SPA and almost certainly the subject. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost certainly the subject"? I can assure you I'm not. LPC is an anonymous comedian with a huge underground fanbase and 20+ years of recordings to his name. I'm just a fan. Sayitaintjoe (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion(s), (there were several manifestations/related unsourced articles listed in the AfD). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question? - notability (per WP:NN) is established by a topic having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - can the nominator provide evidence of such coverage (not trivial mentions such as in [71]). Guest9999 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here is an interview with LPC from The Nerve magazine. Another interview with Mark Prindle. An interview in the LA Record. His Allmusic page. And here's a link to the record label that sells his albums along with the Longmont page on another record label that carries one of his releases. Sorry if you're looking for a Newsweek article or something, but I doubt he's ever had that kind of coverage. I'll be the first to admit Longmont doesn't exactly appeal to the mainstream. But there are plenty of Wikipedia pages that cover less notable artists. Google "Longmont Potion Castle" and you'll see a lot of support for this guy. Sayitaintjoe (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with interviews is that whilst thye may be published by a reliable source the factual content is usually largely provided by the subject (not independent and not a reliable source) so is not always verifiable. Have there been any reviews or other features in reliable, independent publications? Guest9999 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I still see interviews used as sources all the time on Wikipedia. But here's what I could find in terms of features and reviews: A capsule review in The Denver Westword, a short article on Longmont's live show in the LA Record, and reviews of nearly all of LPC's records at author Mark Prindle's website here. Like I said, there isn't a whole lot of coverage out there, but it seems like enough attention to warrant the small wiki that I had set up. Sayitaintjoe (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation per the above interviews and articles. Wouldn't create individual articles for every single album though. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - totally fails notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 March 2008

Zooped – Endorse deletions and protect both variants until somebody comes up with a decent user space draft. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zooped is a social networking similar to Orkut or Myspace.I first added images which where actually advetisements and then found out that it was against the rules of Wikipedia.Then i deleted the images and created the artciles on the basis of how other articles on social networking sites where created.Can anyone tell me the procedure to add Zooped on Wikipedia again and also the changes to be made in the article i posted

The last version of the article created just goes through the features of the website. Having an article that just covers its features makes the article basically an advert for the website. In order for an article on Zooped to be accepted would suggest that a user space version of the article be created (for instance at User:The Ruler496/Zooped) which is written in a neutral point of view and has reliable secondary sources establishing notability (suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (web) to show our notability guidelines for websites). So endorse deletion until a user space version has been produced. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Looking at the last version it was pretty clearly an ad, with no particular notbility stated, adlike tone, and lots and lots of links to the Zooped site. If undeleted, it would probably last a minute or two before being G11 speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion written like an advertisement (G11) and contained no assertion of significance (A7). Should not be undeleted until we can see a decent draft. Hut 8.5 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.zooped.com, Multiple accounts to re spam this advert, it is apparent that the accounts and IP are only using Wikipedia for Advertising and for self-promotion. --Hu12 (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Usual G11 junk, and has no assertion of notability. Jmlk 1 7 09:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Spam is still spam...Cleo123 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Starblind. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dr. Bjarne Berg – Speedy undelete and send to AfD. Clear consensus below that A7 did not apply to the article as written. – Eluchil404 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable

Overturn and list Article was speedy deleted as a bio that does not assert importance (A7). However the intro stated 'is a professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at Lenoir Rhyne College in North Carolina and is an internationally recognized expert in SAP Data Warehousing and Business Intelligence.' This seems to me to be a clear assertion of importance. Now there are conflict of interest problems (User:Bberg009 created the article) and the article is pretty poor (but it was only about 10 minutes after creation when it was deleted) but there is enough there to suggest having an AFD to see if the article can be improved and reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Davewild. In all likelihood articles like this are a lost cause, but any particular instance might be an exception, and A7 was not met. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD (where it will almost certainly be deleted). Speedy was not intended for cases like this, and anyway a single reasonable objection should generally be sufficient for moving an article from speedy to AfD. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list leaving aside the question of notability, and the quality of the article, it did assert significance. No harm in sending this to AfD. Hut 8.5 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Notability is asserted. Given a chance, the article might be properly developed and sourced. Cleo123 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Notability is quite clearly asserted in the intro. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Encyclopedia Dramatica – The result of the discussion was keep deleted. After carefully reviewing the discussion, I have been remarkably impressed with the (mostly) civil tone and assumptions of good faith maintained throughout. Despite the volume of the discussion, the issues raised here were reasonably simple (although that did not make the decision easy). Barring a few unhelpful comments from editors determined never to have an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica--regardless of the notability--there were largely two camps I felt were the most important: Those who viewed the references as trivial coverage and those who did not. I must admit from my own inspection it was a very close call. Barring a front page article in the NY Times, the determination of triviality is best left to editorial consensus. I did not fully discount those raising concerns about the existence of similar articles (i.e. 4chan), nor did I discount those pointing out that this was an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Both comments have merit, but do not pull the weight of the important guidelines regarding non-trivial coverage. The NPOV concerns are important, but only insomuch as they refute the "NEVER NEVER NEVER!" argument. This leaves us with no consensus to overturn what has been many, many, many, community decisions on this matter. I would like to note in closing, however, that the sources are getting close, and this closure does not in any way preclude another draft that is created in good faith (as this one clearly was) existing at some point in the future. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

USERSPACE DRAFT HERE

Two months ago this article underwent a deletion review that was speedy closed for having "insufficient new information". In this deletion review I will prove that ED is as notable if not more than 4chan, which is certainly notable enough to survive deletion.

The 4chan article and the ED article I rewrote which was speedy deleted are remarkably similar in sources. Both rely on sources which do not focus on the website in question but mention it in passing. Nevertheless, the fact that 4chan has not gained itself a special feature in some magazine does not make it non-notable. The same goes for ED.

Ignoring the references which source 4chan itself or blog comments, here are the sources which mention 4chan in passing as an Internet community:

Toronto Star (lolcats)
Daily Pennsylvanian (lolcats)
Wired (lolcats)
InternetNews.com (bomb threat)
Interview with Tay Zonday on HHNLive.com
CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. (Tay Zonday)
HeraldSun (bomb threat)
National Post (calls it an "underground hacking website")
2 YouTube videos of national news which mention it by name

In contrast, here are the sources in the ED article I wrote which reference ED in passing as an Internet community:

San Francisco Chronicle
Warren's Washington Internet Daily
Chicago Tribune
North Adams Transcript
New York Times Magazine
The Observer
Maclean's
Wired
Nu.nl
2 YouTube videos of national news which mention it by name

In addition to all this, an article on Gawker, an oft-cited blog, puts 4chan, ED, and Something Awful side-by-side.

Based only on these references, and not making wishy-washy personal judgments, ED is clearly as notable as 4chan if not more. Any attempts to disprove this should be based on outside sources and not on your personal opinion. Shii (tock) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit Recreation. This article is being forced into sourcing much more rigorous than most of what already passes WP:WEB. It's time to give it a new chance. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What new non trivial third party coverage has ED received since the last time we reviewed its deletion? WjBscribe 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was mentioned on television and on several notable blogs (blogs with their own Wikipedia articles) in connection with Project Chanology. Shii (tock) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Mentioned"? I'm not convinced with can write an article about something that has simply been mentioned, no matter how frequently. Has any reliable third part source every written about Encyclopedia Dramatica? WjBscribe 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources are not just mentioned. See the Gawker article for example which is about ED. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is Gawker.com a reliable source? I confess I've never heard about it before and reading our article about it - a blog based in New York City that bills itself as "The source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip" - I'm not sure its really what I'm looking. From quickly perusing the site, it seems to me that if we had article about everything they write about our inclusion criteria would be rather stretched. WjBscribe 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Gawker is a major website with editorial oversight; that makes it a reliable source. As to the stretching content... there's nothing wrong with articles about pop culture topics. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, sources do not equate to notability. If you search my name in Google, you'll find sources. Doesn't make me notable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is not a valid argument and should be discounted. Have you been mentioned in as many print sources as another deletion-tested article on Wikipedia? Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, can we get links to all of these sources? I can't evaluate them without it. And before you ask, if 4chan was up for deletion for the same reasons, yes, I would be in favor of its removal. However, as others have mentioned, the existence of one article does not beg for the existence of another. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted It needs more than references "in passing." It needs to be the subject of sources. Mr.Z-man 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote to delete 4chan? Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If no one could produce a couple reliable sources that it was the subject of? Yes. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existnce of similar articles is irrelvant to this discussion. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation There is now enough . the Gawker item cited is a usable source for notability for websites. I think shii is correct that we would accept this for anything else. DGG (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Every supposed ED "source" I've ever seen has been either a blog (or similar unreliable source), or just a trivial/passing mention... indeed some of them didn't mention it at all. Come back when you have genuine non-trivial reliable sources, and preferably a workable userspace draft to show us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote to delete 4chan? Here is my userspace draft: User:Shii/ED Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
permit recreation with given draft We finally have a version of this that is well-sourced and decently written. We will of course need to watch the article carefully but this does at this point appear to meet WP:WEB. The Gawker cite pushes it over. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse deletion. This has been requested a billion times. You're not getting on the billion-and-first. You are very lucky you haven't been banned. Will ^(talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it has been requested many times. However, they now have content that seems to me at least to meet WP:WEB. The reason we've repeatedly rejected it was because it didn't meet our content policies. Now it does. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly. Running around in a mask yelling "Hail Xenu!" does not make notability. Besides, I'm not convinced any of the sources are significant coverage. Will ^(talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability isn't determined by what we personally think should be notable. It is determined by the presence of multiple, independent reliable sources. So let's take a look at those. Why for example is the Gawker reference not significant coverage? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not covering ED, it's covering the protests. It's a gossip rag by admission anyway, and since when have we allowed those to be used as sources? Will ^(talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, did you read the same article I read? the article doesn't talk about the protests at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. It's primarily about the protests (or rather, the people behind them), not ED. By that line of reasoning, should /b/ have their own article? Will ^(talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Help me out here. The article 1) doesn't mention the protests and 2) doesn't mention scientology and 3) discussed ED in detail. How is that an article about the protests? Under that logic we can't have an article on Jimbo Wales since any article about him is really just about Wikipedia and Wikimedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If Jimbo wasn't one of the world's most influential people (Time 2006), then yes. In actual fact, if he wasn't voted into that list, I would get it merged in a heartbeat. Will ^(talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "You are very lucky you haven't been banned." Uh, hello random dude. I have been editing Wikipedia in 2002 and I became an admin in 2004. Now, note that no argument against recreation has yet addressed my original post. My post clearly demonstrates that ED is as notable as 4chan. The responses have judged the 4chan references to be better than the ED references, without explaining why, or call for the debate to be closed without even explaining why. This knee-jerk reaction is absolutely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone who has requested ED at DRV has been banned. As I said, you're very lucky, even if you are an admin. Will ^(talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a very interesting idea of yours. Someone should be banned for pointing out a double standard? Maybe you should ban User:Floaterfluss, he is the most recent to propose and does not seem to have met your invented rule yet. Shii (tock) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Will, your instinctive assumption of bad faith is disruptive, please chill. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's trolling. Pure and simple. Will ^(talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It isn't trolling.Shii is a well-respected editor who has made a good-faith attempt to write an article about a subject which now appears to meet our notability standards. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It normally is, though. Shii's reputation is the only thing that's stopping him from getting banned. Will ^(talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that and the fact that he's done nothing wrong. I might offer a discussion of AGF, our blocking policy (which, umm, doesn't quite call for a ban in situations as this), and the definitions of disruption and trolling, but you, as a longtime editor, are surely acquainted with each of those, and so I would instead suggest that, since you, in view of your relationship with ED, are (rightly or wrongly) rather passionate about the issue and have in the past had some difficulty remaining civil in discussions about ED, you, having made your views on the matter clear, might do well to take a few steps back from the situation whilst others in the community weigh in. Joe 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Unlike Will I will lay my biases out on the table. I am an admin for ED. I also edit Wikipedia from time to time in a serious manner under various sockpuppets, ie: not vandalism. The only reason I use multiple socks is due to the obvious and unprofessional bias shown towards anyone having anything to do with ED on wikipedia, and the quick manner in which they are handed out perma bans as a matter of course. I think the ideal of the wiki format is an amazing concept, and something that has by in large greatly improved the quality of the internet in general. The thing is, Wikipedia is in its ultimate conception is supposed to be a repository for general knowledge, and the fact that the internal politics of this Wiki is interfering with the creation of a legitimate article that is properly sourced only because you personally dislike it is a betrayal of the very founding principals Wikipedia is based on. Will has an obvious bias in regards to the creation of this article due to his treatment at ED with the creation of his own article (search for Sceptre), and should recuse himself from any arbitration matters concerning this article if he wishes to maintain the neutrality that we all try and maintain within the Wikipedia project. Doing otherwise would be dishonest. This is not something that is going to go away simply because you wish it would, whatever your feelings towards ED are (even my own as a sysop sometimes oscillate between admiration and disgust), the fact that it has become and is notable with legitimate references makes it a valid candidate for its own article. I would like to point out that Will's nomination for a user space article for deletion was in flagrant violation of good faith, it's only a sandbox man. I would not be surprised if this IP gets the ol' perma-ban treatment, and that's fine, I'm not trying to hide or unduly influence anything. I am as a matter of course and good faith recusing myself from any votes that come up for the deletion or keeping of this article. In any case, evading a ban on Wikipedia is hardly the most difficult thing in the world. So knock yourself out Will if you really believe that banning everyone who has anything to do with ED will make Wikipedia a better place. I came here to comment on this issue in good faith, and at least let the rest of the Wikipedia community hear another view point, from which I hope they can draw an informed opinion whether it be for or against my personal viewpoint. I am not here to troll anyone, so please do not take this comment as such. Regards, DLB (I tried to direct link to my user page on ED for my sig but apparently ED is blacklisted as a spam site for links, go figure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.212.107 (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the article over there about Sceptre, who is a minor, says all that needs to be said about ED. Corvus cornix_talk 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While you may find it in bad taste, that does not discount ED as being a legitimate subject for an article. --71.135.168.43 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it may be worthwhile to point out that Will has been described as "regularaly disrupting the progress of closely-related" Anonymous (group) (per GA-assessment of Project Chanology. As stated there, there may be a COI. DigitalC (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, GNAA's record will soon fall! Keep deleted, all sources are quite trivial. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote to delete 4chan? Shii (tock) 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And this is not a vote. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is against false analogies, not genuine ones, which are perfectly logical. If there is, in fact, other crap -- which is crap -- then compares this to that, means both articles are still crap. So, it is logical to argue that if WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies, either Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are both crap or neither are. If not, why do you dispute this analogy? Please cite an actual argument. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - WP:NOTAGAIN. I'm not making a fallacious argument. These are the same kind of website and we follow the same WP:WEB rules for both. Clearly both sites have the same level of notability. You have not addressed my point and neither has anyone else arguing against recreation. Shii (tock) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "These are the same kind of website" - Did you not read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Unless they are the same website, the existence of other articles is irrelevant. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Other crap exists" is not the same as "other equivalent crap was kept in AFDs" though.Zocky | picture popups 07:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it is, we DO NOT evaluate the merits of an article based on other articles. Why is this so hard to understand? Mr.Z-man 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not according to official policy, Mr Z-Man, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so such analogies are fairly logical, if they work. Uncyclopedia, Conservapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikiality, and various wikis on Wikia are all about the same in terms of content and notability. If the analogy makes sense, then who cares about the policy? Wikipedia policy doesn't trump reason. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Try actually reading what the page you're linking to all the time says. "We DO NOT evaluate the merits of an article based on other articles" ain't it. Zocky | picture popups 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know how to respond to that except, yes it does. To copy a chunk of it:

“

Examples:

- - - - Keep There's an article on x, and that's just as famous as this. –KingOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

”

- - - - How is that not the same as suggesting this should get an article because 4chan et al have articles? @Zenwhat: Wikipedia isn't a bureacracy, but I've seen no compelling reason to ignore the rules in this case. I should also note that Wikiality is a redirect to a section of another article and very few Wikia wikis have articles. Looking at Uncyclopedia's references, there is at least two articles that are written solely about the site. The only thing Conservapedia really has in common is the wiki software but its been written about in numerous articles. ED's references are all, by the nominator's statement, only passing mentions, that's never been enough for WP:N. I (under my real name, and possibly under my wiki pseudonym) have passing mentions in reliable sources (a newspaper and an academic journal), do I get an article? Mr.Z-man 04:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Quoting from there: "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used." So, caution should be used even for that argument, but the argument itself can be effective. As the page says, "other crap exists" is a weak argument because creating other crap is trivial. Similar articles being kept at AfD is a completely different thing. The AfD debates on the create standard practice and therefore policy, and using them in debates about articles of the same kind is a perfectly legitimate argument. Zocky | picture popups 05:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation per JoshuaZ. Of course, it's possible that he and I, et al., are falling for an individual who, having edited regularly for nearly four years and having, for one, started nearly 100 articles, has elected to spend time aggregating sources and setting forth a reasonable argument for our permitting recreation in an effort to troll us, but I think I'll take my chances. Joe 21:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. Canonical "crap off teh internets", notwithstanding the good faith of the requester. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, if Wikipedia does not describe this website accurately, Internet users will be forced to go to other sites which describe it inaccurately. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: it can cover pioneering and difficult to understand topics such as Internet culture as long as we follow the basic verification requirement, which my userspace article clearly passes. Shii (tock) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas? Feh. If they want to know about ED, they can find it trivially easily via Google and the About page will tell them all they need to know. According to The Economist what Wikipedia actually needs is articles on the leaders of the Solidarity movement, not this septic tank of a website. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation - appears to finally have the coverage required for WP:WEB Viridae ^Talk 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per demon. --Kbdank71 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Demon did not address my point and neither did you. Shii (tock) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation per Shii. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not enthusiastic about the whole idea of recreation. I think it's unwise to ignore the fact that ED is essentially a trolling site, which is why WP hates it, whereas 4chan actually contains some substantive content. That being said, I can't refute the notability claims put forth by Shii. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I can see lots of sources which mention ED in passing - "such-and-such was posted at ED", "look at ED for more information" - but no substantial content about the site itself. WP:N requires that coverage should address the subject in detail. Hut 8.5 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote to delete 4chan? Shii (tock) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - that's irrelevant. Hut 8.5 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That piece of text explicitly says that "other crap exists" is not an argument because it's easy to create other crap, and then goes on to discuss how previous AfDs on similar articles are a valid argument (which still needs to be taken with caution). In this case, the argument is previous AfDs on similar articles, not mere existence of other articles, so your reply doesn't apply. Zocky | picture popups 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation with given draft - vulgar, often childish, pointed and rude to Wikipedia does not equate to an argument on notability, and this site seems well attested as notable; I'd buy notability for it. However it must be neutral to a high standard (and focussing on the site more than its "gags"), since there will be the obvious incentive to some on the net to "improve" it to a list of funnies. But then again they try that with politics, sexuality and many other topics, which we handle. One thing on your draft - lose the sentence Wiki articles at Encyclopedia Dramatica criticize Myspace as well as Wikipedia and its administrators... a site that citicizes 1000 things should not have "us" highlighted as the "they criticize us!", as if thats special, unless it really is notable. They criticize other things more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- in regard to just that sentence yes but the reliable sources seem to care about their criticism of us not as much other things. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"X says Y" then..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per Z-Man. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I don't see a reliable source in the bunch:
- sfgate - trivial mention.
- Warren's Washington Internet Daily - I don't know what this is, but there's no link to it, so I can't judge its usefulness.
- MyCrimeSpace - a blog
- Gawker.com - one brief paragragph, not enough to build an article about.
- Chicago Tribune - no link, so I can't judge the usefulness of the article.
- North Adams Transcript - no link, so I can't judge the usefulness of the article.
- New York Times magazine - one sentence.
- The Observer - not about ED, but about a meme.
- Alternet - one sentence.
- Austinist - not an article, just a link to ED's site.
- Londonist - one sentence which links to ED's site.
- Youtube is not a reliable source.
- Nu.nl - in Dutch, but there's only one sentence there.
- Wired - one sentence, a phrase defined, not about ED.
- Washington Post - one sentence, mentioned in a comment, not in the article.
- Maclean's - about Jason Fortuny, the only mention of ED is a link to their site.
  - Come up with some reliable sources in which ED is the main focus of the article (multiple sources, not just one), and we can talk again. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you can't follow a link to a source doesn't mean it's not a useful source. Ask your academic institution how to use NewsBank. Shii (tock) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Provide a reliable source and we won't have this discussion. If the unlinked "sources" are as unreliable as the linked ones, we're not getting anywhere. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm having trouble understanding the above. The Gawker source is substantial (it may be short but it gives lots of details). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's three sentences, none of them useful for creating an article. What does The Wikipedia of obscure Internet memes, particularly those on the sites that follow. ED is run like Wikipedia, but its style is the opposite; most of its information is biased and opinionated, not to mention racist, homophobic and spiteful, but on the upside its snide attitude makes it spot-on about most Internet memes it covers. However net-savvy you are, ED is edgier, and it will perform 2 girls 1 cup on you to prove it say that is article-worthy? Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't by itself but it is one source among a variety. The totality is what matters. Look at the stub itself. It is well-written, discusses ED in depth and does so with no OR. I agree that that one sentence isn't very substantive content overall. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Washington Post - one sentence, mentioned in a comment, not in the article." --You either didn't take a very close look at the links in the article or you are attempting to deliberately mislead people. Follow the "their site" link to ED. Your fallacious "youtube is not a valid source" argument is ridiculous. Youtube maybe isn't a valid source, but the two national news broadcasts are. The MSNBC one leaves [REDACTED] up in gigantic bold letters on the screen. I'm trying to AGF here but you appear to be being intellectually dishonest. --Truthseeq (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does a site link which isn't even named rate as a source? Youtube is not allowed as a reference because almost all of its videos are copyright violations, and Wikipedia policy is not to link to pages which violate copyright. If you can find links to the original broadcasts, I would re-evaluate their usefulness, but since it's to Youtbue, there's no point, thus my comment. I suggest you moderate your tone, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to give ED any acknowledgment. I'm more inclined to go with Corvus cornix's rationale and vote Keep Deleted. And yes, before you ask, I would vote to delete 4chan too. JuJube (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted I'd get rid of 4chan as well. What crap. Eusebeus (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - There's not going to be very many reliable sources, it is not notable enough to meet WP:WEB, and yes, I would support the deletion of 4chan. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and thanks to Corvus Cornix for doing the research on those listed sources. Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Gawker article gives actual coverage, and numerous mentions in other sources give it enough additional notability for me to support recreation with the said draft. But keep a very close eye on it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is a blog a reliable source? Mr.Z-man 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well-known blogs can be considered reliable if evaluated on a case-by-case basis. WP:RS Chubbles (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit Re-creation It's true that there are a lot of ridiculous internet memes that need to be nuked (i.e., Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)). This isn't one of them, though. This website is pretty well-known which is, I think, the reason why it was deleted and blacklisted to begin with. Uncyclopedia is up. Why not this one? It's basically the same thing. Wikipedia is not censored. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit Re-creation - I came to this via the suspended discussion at MfD regarding the userspace article, I read the discussions before reading the article draft or reviewing WP:WEB; after reviewing both discussions I was convinced that this one should stay deleted (and that the other should be kept), then I read the article, checked some of the references, and changed my mind. I reviewed WP:WEB and the sources seem non-trivial in context of what we are talking about. I found it particularly relevant that The Observer saw fit to reference it - the reference is minor but not trivial. I've never been to the website and I have no idea what 4chan is (that article is not relevant to this discussion - I did not read it); I generally reject any reference to a blog - so I consider myself a tough sell when it comes to web material - I'm convinced it should be allowed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit Re-creation - Or delete Uncyclopedia. --Watchman Rorschach (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation. The proposed article meets our three core content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. As for notability guidelines, keep in mind that policy on Wikipedia flows from what we actually do, not what is written on a policy page somewhere (with the exception of NPOV, which is a Foundation policy that must be adhered to). Based on the de facto standards that we use for websites, this one qualifies. The primary reason it's been kept deleted until now is that it personally attacked some of Wikipedia's contributors. But taking that into account when deciding whether to keep or delete the article would violate our mandate of neutral point of view. Consider that Wikinfo has been kept at AFD about a half dozen times despite the exact same notability argument (passing references only). Also consider that 3 passing references were apparently enough sourcing to keep MeatballWiki (see this AFD discussion that I started in December 2007). There's also 4chan and Uncyclopedia as mentioned above. One example is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; multiple examples start to show a trend, and indicate that maybe our guideline pages should be updated to reflect how Wikipedia actually works. *** Crotalus *** 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation per Crotalus. Madame Sosostris (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation controversy and WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't make an article less notable which is what most of the keep deleted votes are based on. It may infact make it more notable. According to Alexa.com, it is considerably more popular than Uncyclopedia and Veropedia in all forms (page views,rank etc). The reliable sources are there to proove it and to create a good article.--91.121.88.13 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED Break 1

Keep deleted per Corvus cornix. sho y 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation Would be a keep if it was a site on another subject. If we want to keep our npov high-ground we should treat this the same as other sites.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation. Whether we like them and whether they like us has nothing to do with it. We allow articles on other websites of similar stature, no reason to single this one out for suppression. Zocky | picture popups 04:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation. The statement, from an administrator no less, that "there will never be an ED article" is a blatant example of the problems endemic to the administration of Wikipedia today. Currently, NPOV is a joke. When it's selectively enforced only on normal editors and on articles that the admins don't favor/despise, it becomes a hollow and laughable sham. --Neurophyre^(talk) 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation, finally, this site has of course been the subject of endless disruption and countless DRV requests (at least one of which I have speedy closed myself, I'm pretty sure), but the userspace draft is of a standard of sourcing which I believe would be considered acceptable for a website without ED's history of controversy. --Stormie (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation draft article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace/permit recreation per Crotalus. There are some non-policy issues with this article - it does a poor job describing/identifying the subject and does a poor job explaining the importance of the subject - but from a policy standpoint, it looks good enough. --- RockMFR 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted...none of the "references" establish notability.--MONGO 06:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to vote one way or the other on this issue due to my obvious bias, but I would like to point out that you have a long documented history of antagonism with ED on a personal level that would interfere with your ability to vote on this issue in a dispassionate way. Regards, DLB --24.23.212.107 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, haha...it's surely that they seem to have had a beef with me to start with...they shouldn't have started somthing they couldn't finish successfully, IP.--MONGO 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's completely sidestepping the issue at hand. --71.135.168.43 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, with thanks for reopening this pointless drama. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - taking away riding on 4chan's coattails, how notable is ED (as it's barely notable as it is)? If it stretches any thinner, a section in 4chan should be all that we have in that case. Will ^(talk) 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How notable is Uncyclopedia and conservapedia then? I would refer you to my above statement posted earlier as to my objection over your obviously personal investment in the issue regarding this article. --24.23.212.107 (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. Uncyclopedia is notable outside Wikipedia per "most articles mentioning Uncyclopedia are specific to the site", and Conservapedia is notable outside Wikipedia for the Lipson affair (it's inevitable that, as using the same software, and specifically created as forks, that they'll get compared). Will ^(talk) 09:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Alexa before, Will.

[An Alexa URL was posted here which contained as a dynamic value the Encyclopedia Dramatica URL, which is the website's name plus .com. This URL can also be found on Google. Please do not assume people could figure this URL out on their own; <personal attack removed - Corvus cornix_talk 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)> . Shii (tock) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]

I'd like to point out that Encyclopedia Dramatica has a drastically higher traffic rank than both Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia, as well as twenty or so times the daily page views of Conservapedia and anywhere from 2 to 5 times the daily page views on Uncyclopedia on any given day. Comparitived to ED these two other wikis are non-notable cruft. But that would be nonsense. The fact is, all three are notable and pass WP:WEB. You have a personal POV bias against ED. --Truthseeq (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added the response after Will reverted it for no apparent reason[72].--91.121.88.13 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not. People just think they are. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will people quit it with the "X has an article" arguments?! WE DO NOT BASE DETERMINATION OF NOTABILITY OF ONE SUBJECT BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER ARTICLES OF A SIMILAR NATURE Full Stop. (Conservapedia isn't even that similar). Mr.Z-man 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Alexa is a very weak way of checking popularity of a website below the top 100. The fact you have to install a toolbar excludes Firefox users, Mac users, Linux users, etc. Will ^(talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you do realize that there is an alexa toolbar for Firefox and there are versions of Firefox for Linux and Apple. So apple owners and linux users arent left out of the loop. I am using a linuxbox right now and I have 3 Macs in the other room. In order to surf the net on a Mac you do know that you don't have to use safari? Wiseblood1 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that there's many people (like myself) who don't install Alexa because we don't care. Skews the results as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - "which reference ED in passing" doesn't equal notability, per WP:N. Need significant coverage. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Hasn't changed at all. Jmlk 1 7 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED Break 2

Keep deleted as per Corvus cornix, this website at best borderline notable, so no reason to move a stub about it to mainspace. --Minimaki (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation in an extremely, extremely tentative fashion, or at very least, allow the current draft exist and review later. Yes, the site has offended some of our editors, but in the name of neutrality we cannot subject the site to any stricter scrutiny than articles about any other sites. "It annoys us, let me grab my wikilaw book so we can figure out how to kill it" has gone altogether too far. Yet, now that the notability-confirming evidence is rolling in (one way or another), I am a little bit apprehensive: it'd still appear to me that the site is only approaching notability threshold. Peeking from behind the fence. "Uh oh, we have a new radar contact." Yet, I've seen many times that almost-notable articles had to be recreated anyway later on when the notability is more definite, and we've wasted tons of Wikipedia: space on this site as is, so I'm starting to wear out and just give it a benefit of doubt for the time being. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After reconsidering the sources a bit, I'd say neutral - I'm not entirely convinced the sources are strong enough yet. However, I will say the sources are definitely improving. It is possible the site will be notable in future. The article will undoubtedly be a great hit in DRV for years to come (we can't live without perennial proposals, it seems). All I can do about it is to just express my hope that next time this gets dragged to DRV, there's impressive sources. After all, tis time was a little bit better than the last time. Maybe they manage to actually inspire mainstream media somehow. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - on review of the material I find myself unpersuaded that ED meets our inclusion criteria. I think Corvus cornix's analysis of the references is correct. These are trivial mentions, not writing about ED. The closest that comes to doing so is Gawker, but I do not think that blog is sufficiently significant that its coverage indicates notability. Whether an article on ED should be here has been reviewed many times, the case for it has been found lacking. I do not think enough has changed since the last reviews to warrant coming to a different conclusion today. WjBscribe 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - to reiterate what many others have said, I see a lot of mentions of the website's name, but mentions aren't enough. There still are not sufficient sources that actually discuss the wesite. To forestall the threaded comments coming up underneath here: 1. It doesn't matter whether I'd want to delete 4chan, because this isn't about 4chan 2. This particular topic gets held to stringent standards specifically because it's been a source of badness before, and becuase the nature of the website encourages such badness, making it likely that renominations are crap. It isn't a double standard, it's a standard. It happens that this discussion is in good faith, but there's still not enough material for an article. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An AN case has been opened in regards to this DRV. Chubbles (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted: We need more encyclopaedic articles, not about a cesspool that is a "parody" web-site that hosts "raids" on legitimate games and Wikipedia articles such as Habbo and others. Let's focus on real content. seicer | talk | contribs 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Trivial mentions, including the one paragraph mention on a blog which provides little in the way of source material for an encyclopedic article to be written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Mr.Z-man and Corvus cornix. GlassCobra 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. When something is vulgar and full of personal attacks and hate, we need a higher level of notability, such as multiple reputable mainstream references. Crum375 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation As notable as 4chan, higher Alexa rank than Uncyclopedia, and we have articles about completely unimportant things (e.g. Prussian Blue (duo)), which makes me wonder why we consider this so unimprotant. 4.152.6.245 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per all common sense. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation per Shii and Crotalus. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation. Anything else would have the appearance of major WP:NPOV violations: we don't like them so we refuse to talk about them. That's not appropriate for a serious encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now, per Corvus cornix's detailed explanation. In the future, it may certainly be notable enough for an article, but, as of right now, it's not quite there. нмŵוτн τ 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This almost makes me want to cut my fingers off, but weakly permit recreation. The stub is okay, and while I don't think the sources are really that spectacular (Corvus' work is similar to what I did during one of these in the past and found similar results: noise, but little signal), the substantial number of them available and placed in the article edge it towards a reasonable article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I am sure I will be told this is a violation of NPOV, but there is such a thing as an extreme situation. No website or publication that includes me and several other administrators on a list of persons who should be "rounded up and gassed like Jews," on the ground that we intervened to protect an editor here who is a minor from harassment, is worthy of our continued attention. No other issue need be reached. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, that's disappointing coming from you. Surely you realize how that stance is indefensible? We have articles about thieves, murderers, rapists, war criminals, etc. Our feelings towards ED and ED's feelings about us simply don't come into the picture when deciding this. Zocky | picture popups 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thieves and murderers aren't thieving and murdering for the purpose of intentionally causing emotional distress to Wikipedia participants, and presumably their notability is less borderline than this site's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Border-line notability" is a valid argument, but that's not what you argued. Your !vote has the "us vs. them" tone, to the extent that you say "no website ... that includes me..." I say that's quite an improper argument, and coming from the person who recently got voted onto the ArbCom in a landslide, it makes me mildly embarassed. Zocky | picture popups 00:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have a COI on the argument you might be right, and others may discount it accordingly. I don't expect my point to sway the decision. On the other hand, the point wasn't "me" per se but that many Wikipedians are targeted in that fashion (some far, far worse than I am), and so I don't think I'm the only one to have those feelings, and understandably so. Incidentally, since I am sure this thread will be picked up externally, this sort of thing is also another reason that many of us choose not to edit under our real names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually commend you NYB and wish more would follow your lead. Let's be honest. If we want to exclude ED despite our core NPOV policy just say so. End this charade of pretending we're examining the site with the same policy we use for other web sites.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not visit ED, and was not aware that the site carried content this deplorable. Nonetheless, as difficult as it may be (and I fully understand your position here), I don't think that their attacks on our contributors should play a role in this deliberation. I'm in favor of keeping this article for the same reason that the ACLU was in favor of permitting the Skokie march by Nazis — it's the thin end of the wedge, the top of a slippery slope. We must stand by our principles (in this case, NPOV when applied to inclusion), even when it is difficult to do so.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose that Stormfront — a website of at least equal vileness and much greater notability — started personally attacking Wikipedians, trying to out their identities, and doing all of the other things ED is or was doing. Would you then advocate that the Stormfront article should be deleted? How far do we bend the inclusion principles to keep out offensive material? How does this fit at all with WP:NOT#CENSORED? ED is not an appealing cause in any way, and I'm not 100% sure that my arguments are on the right side. But I ask you to consider the broader implication of your arguments here. *** Crotalus *** 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The only sources provided are not really about ED, with the possible exception of Gawker. However, I don't think Gawker is worthy of being considered a reliable source. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation per Shii and Croaltus. I want to say go away per Brad, but if you give an inch on principles like NPOV here, whats to stop us from giving ground later on something else controversial? Lawrence § t/e 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as per Corvis Cornix, Newyorkbrad, Gavia Immer, Seicer, One Night in Hackney, WjBscribe, Dihydrogen Monoxide, and others. Don't ask me about 4chan, Uncyclopedia, or any other article. If you want to know how I'd !vote on them at AfD, nominate them. Horologium (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Corvis Cornix. Avruch^T 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hopefully never —DerHexer (Talk) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even thinking about restoring it is a really bad idea - Most articles on ED are how you say "crap" and basically 'personal attacks and Grudges' against admins and editors so its more of a Soapbox looking for drama and feeding of it rather than a real Encyclopedia dedicated to helping users learn...it is one of those 'Badsites', 'Attacksites' which should never have exist let alone have their own article on Wikipedia...--Comet styles 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's not an accurate depiction of the site. Most articles there have nothing at all to do with WP - we're the focus of less than 1% of their content. It's a satirical wiki, done in what many take to be extremely poor taste. That has nothing to do with whether or not it meets our ordinary notability guidelines. If you make arguments that sounds so much like "IDONTLIKEIT", you actually weaken your position. This is why it took so many attempts to delete the article: Every time someone talks about how morally repugnant they find the site, it gets harder to delete the article, because such comments contribute to the perception that we're making decisions for personal reasons rather than encyclopedic ones. If we don't have articles on things that we deem "should never have existed," then we've got a lot of deletions coming. (I don't think the Vietnam War ever should have existed, and it did more damage than ED. Can we delete its article?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation-If this were anything else with a comparable level of sourcing, we'd allow it. If we're going to hold an article to a higher standard because of our opinions about or history with its subject, we might as well just get rid of WP:NPOV. There's one standard, that's it: not one for nice sites and another for not-so-nice ones.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation per Shii, Crotalus, Fyre2387. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Corvus cornix. The only novel thing about this latest attempt to shoehorn in an ED article is using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a tactic. And I DO mean "tactic", not "argument". --Calton | Talk 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation or bring in userspace version. Passes WP:WEB. The strong opposition here shows exactly what's wrong with trolling: it annoys the whole community, then no one will actually want to undelete it even when you have the right to claim it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted - ED is a borderline notability case according to WP:WEB. That means arguments can be made in both directions as to whether or not it hacks the standard. So we can yell ourselves hoarse over whether or not policy supports it and we'll never get anywhere. Wikipedia runs on community consensus. We need to decide as a community whether or not we want the page here. People are talking about ED like we're suppressing some sort of massive underground community movement. I urge you not to be confused in the slightest as to what ED is about; ED is, by their own description, "...made by a**holes who got kicked out of editing at Wikipedia so they made their own Wiki where standards of good taste, common decency, and the avoidance of NSFW pictures do not exist."(.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica) A large portion of the site is dedicated to insanely vitriolic attack pages (including personal info) on a number of Wikipedia editors. And as the saying goes, you can't polish a turd. As for the argument that every ED editor isn't necessarily a disruptive troll, I'd like to point out that everyone who lives under a bridge isn't necessarily a hobo, an alcoholic, or a homeless drug-addict; but they still can't say that they don't live under a bridge. I realize damnatio memoriae is not an option, but we also sure as hell don't have to invite them to come in and draw mustaches on the paintings and put their feet on the sofa. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a discussion about ED, it's the discussion about the Wikipedia article about ED. Them being assholes has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should have an article on them or not. Zocky | picture popups 03:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope Bullzeye realizes that the personal attacks about WP on ED only popped up after personal attacks about ED were not removed, but page protected on WP. WP set themselves up for their attacks by not removing them in-kind. Your own vitriol about trolls, right here, is bordering on a personal attack against anyone who has an account on both sites. You can state your opinion on stay or go without commenting on other contributors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  - It is indeed personally offensive to me. --Neurophyre^(talk) 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete clearly notable, this ridiculous censorship has got to stop. Grue 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing that's "clear" is that it's not clear whether or not the site is notable enough, by our usual standard of WP:WEB. It's clearly borderline. Characterizing other Wikipedians' good-faith doubts about the site's notability as "ridiculous censorship" is not helpful. Thanks for understanding, and do please expand on why you find the notability clear. Personally, I don't see it as clear, and if you wish to accuse me of anti-ED bias... then you don't know what you're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted Not "notable" to anyone other than WIkipedians. Inclusion of an ED article is asking for trouble and disruption. The long term best interests of the project must be protected. Cleo123 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED Break 3

ARBCOM ruling There is an arbcom ruling on ED that should be noted, it is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_ED and says "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it". — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Useful to note, but keep in mind that the ArbCom ruling has to do with using ED as a reference or including content from ED here, not having an article about ED. It seems the question we're not asking regarding notability is what are the chances someone would stumble across references to ED and come to Wikipedia to find out what it is. I think that is the defining point of notability.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per Corvus cornix. Garion96 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted Not notable. All references provided mention ED only briefly in passing at best (as far as they can even be considered as sources of notability). Charon X/talk 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - I disagree with the "never ever" mentality expressed by many above, since if a respected publication or two writes a thorough article on ED someday demonstrating it's notable for something we should probably include it - this is a neutral encyclopedia. But as is, I still really don't see any evidence that the site is actually notable - as others mentioned above, the sources in this draft only mention ED in passing - and it may appear more notable than it really is to Wikipedians, due to their prominent rabble-rousing here, as well as the general inflated self-importance of the "Anonymous" crowd. krimpet ✽ 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Z-man, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (referring to the 4chan comment in the nomination) and every comment Sceptre has made. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 01:20 9 March, 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Out of curiosity, if this article were re-created, we couldn't even link to ED, per the ArbCom ruling, right? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we surely could. It is generally understood, I think, that the ArbCom ruling would not restrict the use of a link to ED in an article about ED (consistent with our practice with respect to other websites), and, in any event, the discretion of the ArbCom to construe our policies with respect to harassment, etc., does not extend to their foreclosing on editorial decisions taken per common practice and policy. It would, of course, be nonsensical for us to have an article about ED without a link to the site, and I cannot imagine that the community (or the arbs, for that matter) would understand it as within the province of the ArbCom to bar constructive (that is, within mainspace and toward no disruptive end) linking. Joe 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Attack sites decision. Basically, here ArbCom has stated for the record that it doesn't have the teeth that people think it has, and MONGO case should in no circumstance be over-interpreted. ArbCom has the authority to proclaim whatever they deem necessary to curb user harassment (linking to nasty ED pages about our editors or copying content from there is not nice, of course), but they don't have the authority to censor verifiable encyclopaedic content; careful people also note that MONGO case remedy says (external/iw) links may be removed, not that creating an article would be forbidden without ArbCom's approval. I seem to remember someone also stating that if the community feels ED is notable enough for an article, they would clarify this position further. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation very notable, what ArbCom says is bullshit anyway. Trialeagh (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor has made little to no contributions outside this deletion review. — Κaiba 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the draft article and the provided references, and there simply isn't enough reliable secondary information to write a full-length article without original research. At best, this merits a short mention within another article. Many people have pointed out that the sources are trivial and mention the subject of the article only in passing; what no one has brought up is that an unacceptably large portion of the draft article merely points out that "This web site has been mentioned in passing in an article about something else. ^[ref]" I echo Krimpet's remarks that "never never never, go away, you worthless trolls" is unproductive, and that neutrality requires us to treat concerted outside campaigns to include information with more caution, not less. That they're hostile to us instead being the usual horde of socks begging for their pet website to have an article is immaterial. Keep deleted for now. —Cryptic 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Unnotable as established above. Although technically not a reason for a deletion, I am also very wary of adding links to ED on Wikipedia, as their content on Wikipedia very much defines an attack site. It has personally attacked me before, it continues to attack other contributors here, and for that, WP:COI as it may be, I will never support an article of this website. — Κaiba 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now. Finding eighteen sources that mention a site without properly discussing it does not mean that it qualifies for an article here. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted Alternatively we can create a permanently protected stub as this is all the encyclopedia space this subject merits. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay deleted per Corvus. Still no significant third party coverage. At least sites like Conservapedia have references that have full length articles on the site instead of passing mentions. Spellcast (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and salt by transclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per WjBscribe, Stifle, and others. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and add 12 jumbo bags of salt. All sources are trivial mentions and do not provide the context required for establishing notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted Not convinced. MBisanz ^talk 08:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Place sourced information in a paragraph in a suitable article and recreate redirect - I think there is enough sourced information now for a paragraph in a relevant article (but not enough for a separate article), and for the link Encyclopedia Dramatica to be recreated as a redirect to that paragraph. If such a paragraph already exists, could someone point me to it please? Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest I could find was the following at Criticism of Wikipedia#Humorous_criticism: "Satire also exists in the form of parody encyclopedias such as Uncyclopedia[148] and Encyclopedia Dramatica.[149]" Is this the minimum that is acceptable at the moment on this topic? It actually seems rather misleading to have the only mention I can find (so far) on Wikipedia (in mainspace) to be in a section titled "Humorous criticism". I think the Wikipedia criticism article should mention ED (but in a more rigorously sourced way), and that attention should be paid to references to ED in other Wikipedia articles, not just whether it has its own article or not. Carcharoth (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked through the history of Criticism of Wikipedia, and the mention of ED in that sentence seems to have originated from this edit on 27 August 2007, and has been present ever-since over the past 5.5 months. I hope that anyone who is deeply involved in the ED discussion on Wikipedia (I've only just got involved now) and who objects to this sentence thinks long and hard about how they missed it before. There was some discussion on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, but I haven't fully read that (rather long) page yet. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation there seems to be quite a bit of moving the goalposts in relation to this specific article whenever it comes up. First it was a "bad site", which caused a legion of problems on its basis, then when that was repealed it was because it wasn't sourced, when that was fixed it was declared it wasn't reliably sourced, and after about forty tries we've reached a point where it's being moved to keep deleted because "it's trolling" to have it exist with the person who created the draft being personally attacked for "restarting the drama". To me that says a lot more about the "keep deleted" proponents than the re-creators. Arguing against an article because it hurt your feelings is not quite neutral. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a few of us, myself included, who haven't been hurt by ED. Personally, I don't care about them as a website one way or the other (trying to drag BADSITES back up into this is just opening a can of worms I don't think anyone wants to revisit...again). I, along with quite a few others above, have said there's a certain lack of non-trivial coverage. That being said, it warrants deletion, as does any article that is unsourced and of borderline notability to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 March 2008

It can not warrant deletion as it does not currently exist. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics, I mean it shouldn't be created. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation. If ED isn't notable, not much is on the intertubes. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct. There's millions of websites. Only a few thousand are really notable. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does anyone have opinions on whether a paragraph in a relevant article is acceptable, and whether a redirect can point at that? Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that Wikipedia Review is (since December 2007 and an AfD debate) a protected redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia (although there is no mention in that article of WR). I wonder if something similar can be done here. A protected redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia? Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be an invalid redirect as ED isn't simply an anti-wikipedia website. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any idea for an article where a minimal sourced paragraph could be merged, or where a redirect could be pointed at? (Parent company, genre of websites, list of websites)? Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it must exist, then 4chan. Will ^(talk) 15:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. None of the sources cited in the draft is both a non-trivial mention, and from a reliable source. The subject is not notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite my personal opinions about ED and my comments about the provided sources, if multiple reliable sources could be found, I would not object to a recreation based on those sources. But I have yet to see any that meet our WP:RS guidelines. Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm editing the right subsection... I'm looking at the sources used in the draft rewrite, and they fall into a few categories
1. Articles about the Jason Fortuny, which mention ED as the site where Mr. Fortuny posted all those emails. [73] [74] [75] [76]
2. Articles about Project Chanology, mentioning ED as a place to learn more. (Aspects of their coverage are much more thorough than ours, it turns out.) [77] [78] [79]
3. Articles about trolling. There are a couple of specific instances of internet trolling in which ED receives some tangential mention [80] [81]. One is about trolling in general [82]. Also, there's one Washington Post article [83] about some LiveJournal attack where ED is linked to in the article (identified, inaccurately, as "Bantown"'s official website), and mentioned in the public comments below the article.
4. One New York Times article [84] about Wikipedia in which ED is mentioned as a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite" that "pillories" WP admins.
5. Two articles that are primarily, or in large part about ED [85] [86]. One is at Gawker.com, a blog, and the other is at News & Review, an alternative weekly out of Chico, California.
The first four don't really contribute anything to notability, so it's down to the blog and the alternative weekly. I don't think that's enough to satisfy WP:WEB. I recommend the article remain deleted for now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown so far: My rough and unscientific and probably slightly inaccurate count shows that so far, there are 50 keep deleted votes vs. 32 permit recreation votes. (Yes, I know it isn't a straight vote, its a discussion, etc. The breakout is handy anyway). 32/82 is 39.0% to permit recreation vs 60.9% to keep deleted. Avruch^T 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers – Overturn deletion as no consensus. No prejudice against relisting. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as delete when the results were no consensus. I know it's not numbers alone, but when you have a three on two debate for something that isn't violating anything, and where no one really can prove if it actually is useful or not, and good arguments on both sides, that's not a consensus. No hard feelings on anyone, and I know a lot of people will feel this is a boring topic, but it is what it is, and I'm bringing it to DRV. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Since the focus of an XFD closure should be arguments, rather than numbers, I feel that the closure was appropriate. (Disclosure: I'm the original nominator and a member of this category.) The "keep" reasons asserted the usefulness of the activity of random page patrolling, but did not specify how the category helped in the improvement of articles or was otherwise useful. One does not need a template-populated category to click the "random article" link and then to click "edit this page". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very weak argument for deletion. No one needs a template or category to do recent changes patrol either, or a large number of other tasks which we give user categories. Some users wish to see how many other users are using or encouraging such methods, and is just as valid as Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this category is just as valid as the recent changes category (in any case, that's an "other stuff" argument). Recent changes patrol requires/involves some specific expertise (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use), whereas random page patrol does not - it's just a general form of browsing and editing. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise? Are you joking? I have no doubt there are levels of expertise in recent changes patrolling, but the same can be said for any form of patrolling, including one's own watchlist. Even if you were correct, how does Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers help editors when any editor can add themselves, not necessarily an expert or anyone who's good at helping other users? Do users add themselves to this category/userbox with the intention on helping other users, or just telling people that they do RC patrolling? It's perfectly comparable, because recent changes patrolling, with all the mad skillz "required", doesn't need a category to help people anymore than random patrolling. Nor is this an "other stuff" argument, since the example is explained. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "the same can be said for any form of patrolling". If that is the case, then please identify what type of expertise is involved in random page patrolling? As for the fact that the members of Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers are not necessarily expert RC patrollers ... well, so what? Using user categories for collaboration is always a probability game; however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher.
With regard to your question about the intent of users in this category ... I don't know, nor do I feel it's particularly relevant in this instance. I may add myself to a category just to tell others I do RC patrol, but if someone asks me for advice or clarification regarding RC patrol because of my membership in the category, I will do my best to help. You emphasize the question of "need", but I prefer to look at things in terms of utility (technically, there is no "need" to do anything except eat, breathe, and sleep). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same type of "expertise" in any given form of page patrolling (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use).
however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher. And how are you coming to this conclusion? You've only asserted that you feel it won't facilitate collaboration. Nor have you explained how having a user category for RC patrollers does facilitate collaboration. Personally I think both categories are appropriate because they help other editors see who's using such methods. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random page (RP) patrolling only rarely involves identifying problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, or issuing warning notices. It just involves clicking "Random article" and making small or large improvements to some random article. I come to the conclusion that the collaborative potential of this category is virtually zero based on my previous comment: RP patrolling is not a standard form of page patrolling, but rather a very general method of browsing and editing. Also, I have explained how the RC category could (not necessarily does) faciliate collaboration: someone wanting to become involved in RC patrolling could ask a current RC patroller for information or advice. (e.g. What should I do if I come across an edit that's questionable but not obvious vandalism?)
As for your justification for "appropriateness", why is it important to know who's using such methods? I could understand wanting to know whether a specific editor is a RP patroller, but then your port of call would be the editor's user page, not a directory of RP patrollers. As a statistical tool, categories are completely useless, since one can draw virtually no valid conclusions from them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Random page patrol:
Random page patrol refers to the process of regularly and frequently checking randomly selected pages through Special:Random.
The patrol is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation.
The guidelines for the Recent changes and New pages patrols apply, merely the search method is different.
It seems to me that you misunderstand what RPP is. People click on the random links and check the page history, the talk page, the past, present, and future. At least that's how I always did it, and that's how it is described on Wikipedia:Random page patrol.-- Ned Scott 04:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general guidelines do apply, but the specific techniques do not. For instance, a RP patroller often cannot simply revert or rollback edits. In addition, an RP patroller generally should not issue standard template-warnings to users for questionable edits made several months ago. Moreover, RP patrol also involves checking the current status of the page, instead of just checking the the status of the most recent edit(s). The "skills" required for RP patrol are not significantly different from the skills required for regular editing, which is not the case with "recent changes" and "new pages" patrol. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The discussion did not produce a consensus and so it should have been closed as No consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify why you feel that the discussion failed to produce a consensus? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion failed to produce a consensus because the contributing editors failed to agree. One camp saw this as "trivial...no need...what purpose". The other camp said "perfectly good...will encourage others...certainly does help". The balance seemed to be evenly divided and there were no pressing policy reasons to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Do you not think that one should also consider whether each camp stated why the category is useful or useless, in light of the fact that a claim of utility that is unaccompanied by an explanation is not necessarily informative? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per BF. Valid close. --Kbdank71 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus Two policy based keeps, three deletes--including 34 or 5 comments from thee d. who proposed the deletion. That's not consensus for a fairly widely used category. the closer closed according to personal opinion, & shoudl rather have joined the debate and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per Black Falcon. Just because the category is widely used does not indicate that it is useful; the userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment. There is no reason why someone would need to identify random page patrollers, and in fact the category is totally useless for collaboration due to its random nature. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The closure was not wrong. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion No particularly strong feelings about the issue, but we need to encourage closures that, as noted by BF above, focus on arguments, rather than numbers. And the rationale provided in the debate & close is legit. Eusebeus (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This close didn't focus on the arguments, it focused on what arguments the closer agreed with. Part of establishing a consensus means that even if you disagree with someone else, you at least acknowledge a reasonable argument. I don't see that in this discussion, at all. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - IMO, strength of arguments to delete outweighed that of keep reasoning. VegaDark (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would anyone object to a relisting, to help clarify consensus? -- Ned Scott 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - over a 100 editors added themselves to this category, which probably means that they thought it's a category that should exist. I'm guessing that at least some of them have good reasons for believing so. Seeing how there are no pressing policy issues with the category, I don't think that the deletion discussion as it was was enough to establish the consensus that the category should be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, over 100 people added the userbox to their page, which automatically puts users in the category. Only 4 individual users specifically placed this category on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is still more than the three people who voted to delete it. Plus, I think we can assume that at least some of the 100+ people at least noticed after the fact that they were in that category and didn't bring it to CFD. Zocky | picture popups 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that one of them did; Black Falcon, the nominator, noted above that he was a member of the category. I didn't contribute to the original discussion because a) I didn't feel terribly strongly about it, and b) It didn't appear to be a controversial decision. If I had !voted, would that have made a difference to you? UCFD is not based on numbers, but on strength of argument, and IMO the stronger argument fell to those who advocated deleting the cat. Horologium (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, out of 100+ users that were aware of the existence of the category, 1 thought it should be brought to CfD, and 99+ didn't. I'm not saying that this is a number game. I'm saying that the 3 people who !voted delete probably don't know all the arguments that the 99+ people who thought the category was OK would have brought up. Zocky | picture popups 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't know that 100+ users were aware of the category. 100+ users were aware of the userbox, but it took only one editor to make the category a part of the userbox. There were no "99+ people who thought the category was OK"; there were 2. As for the nomination itself ... practically all deletion nominations are started by just one person, but that doesn't mean that everyone else who knew about the page should be assumed to support its retention (case in point: someone else recently started an AFD on an article I had edited and watchlisted and I supported deletion). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not assume that those editors are stupid and didn't notice the category. Otherwise, It's a matter of scale. An article edited by a hundred people shouldn't be deleted by votes of 3 people, and likewise, a user category with a hundred members (and no pressing policy issues) shouldn't be deleted by votes of 3 people. Zocky | picture popups 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't have to be stupid to not notice one category out of 10 or 20 or 50 at the bottom of a user page; one may just not pay attention to the bottom of one's userpage. As for the issue of scale, articles edited by 100+ people are deleted by discussions that involve 5 or 10 people on a daily basis. Editing an article does not imply support for its retention, just as being in a category does not imply support for its retention. More importantly, consensus is not a complex numbers game that involves evaluations of the ratio of participants to members, or of member-participants to non-member-participants. Five people are just as capable of discussing two sides of an issue and evaluating relevant arguments as are 100 (in fact, with 100 people, discussions tend to become chaotic). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - no rationale provided by the closing administrator, and there's no clear consensus from the debate. Editors were clearly divided over the utility of the category and userbox. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overtun deletion and reclose as no consensus. The length of this post combined with the CfD, in my mind, indicate that there really is no consensus as to whether this category should be here or not, which should default to keeping the category. For what it's worth, any user category, (again my opinion), that is based on a user process (be it new pages, recent changes, vandalism, disambiguating, whatever) is perfectly valid, perfectly harmless, and if it means that even one or two editors, at some point, having noticed the other in the category, collaborate on something because of the introduction through the category, then it has served Wikipedia well. There, I've successfully argued WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIG, WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:HARMLESS, and WP:USEFUL. A simpler solution perhaps, could maybe Black Falcon, and anyone else, just remove x-self from the category if xe doesn't like it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn In addition to being baffled as to why anyone would take a second of their time to propose deletion, neither the nomination nor a single one of those jumping on the deletion bandwagon offered any valid justification for why Wikipedia policy would require deletion of this category. As such, I see no choice but to overturn the result. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I think the nomination rationale of "this category does not facilitate collaboration" is in the eye of the beholder, and consensus was weak (different arguments) compared to the opposition. WP:USEFUL is certainly a valid argument for a user category, and I believe Ned Scott correctly argued that while this may not spur direct collaboration on a particular article, it certainly encourages indirectly broader collaboration on Wikipedia generally. Have a thought for the part-time Wikipedians, in other words. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the category do this in a way that is substantially different from the userbox which extensively populates this category? While WP:USEFUL may be a valid argument, the utility of the category has not been demonstrated here. As I noted above, due to the random nature of the category, collaboration is not possible, which is supposed to be the purpose of the categorization system. The userbox is a great idea, but it doesn't need the category appended to it to serve its purpose. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus in that debate. There's no real consensus on Wikipedia about what to do with user categories. The best thing to do would be to politely ignore the whole mess, but that would be too easy. Ultimately it doesn't really matter if the category exists or not, let's at least all be honest with each other. What bothers everyone is the impression that some people are telling other people what the rules are, especially on an encyclopedia where we pretty much make the rules up as we go along. Rather than relive the deletion debate, rather than wait for whatever admin decides to close this in an impartial manner, can the two sides follow WP:CONSENSUS and actually find common ground? What's more important here, holding on to our divisions or trying to do the best by each other? I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy mixed up world. Someday you'll understand that. No real preference either way. Hiding T 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,it was a premature attempt to force consensus where there really isn't any, just as Hiding says. My own view on the category is that all forms of page patrolling are so essential to the quality of WP that they are to be encouraged, that people engaged in them need to help and teach one another how to do it right, and that all ways of assisting it, such as this category, are positively helpful and beneficial to the encyclopedia. We removed the Rouge administrators category because it might give people the wrong idea (& in fact I agree with that view)--but is random page patrolling also a potentially dangerous idea? Is this peripheral to the encyclopedia? Has it been used in a harmful way? is it likely to? Why then remove things that might encourage a feeling of cooperation in doing it? that is exactly the intended purpose of user categories. DGG (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - administrator did not establish consensus, whereas keep arguments were clearly according to policy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG, Dhartung, Alansohn, Mackensen and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Cube lurker et al Cleo123 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the excellent arguments provided above. John254 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Harmless, and not in article space. Cowardly Lion (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn — That there are many editors choosing to associate and organize themselves with this category for the purpose of random page patrolling seems to me completely harmless and extremely beneficial to the encyclopedia. - Neparis (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion per DGG and because this was a poor call. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus to delete was achieved. Arguments that random page patrolling is a helpful activity miss the mark since it is the category and not the activity that is under discussion. Comments here that the existence of the category facilitates the activity are out of place (since this is not CfD round2) and more importantly not convincing (to me). Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Santogold – Allow recreation and unsalt. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting Unsalting based on this user draft. Chubbles (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation Sources in the draft article establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate, now it's a good stub that establishes notability. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate. Very nice looking article, well sourced, therefore, I agree with MaxSem, Chubbles, and Davewild. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate. Draft looks good, and I'm just aching to work on it too :). --Kakofonous (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate I'm excited to work on it too! In time, the notability will be obvious. As it is, it's a requested article and picked as one of the top albums of 2008. [87][88][89]--travisthurston+ 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse recreation Looks a lot better now. Great job! Jmlk 1 7 09:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Recreation Clearly notable. Cleo123 (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per the above arguments. Cowardly Lion (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation; there are now multiple non-trivial sources about the artist. Horologium (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of a Speedy Close on this? Chubbles (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 March 2008

OpenStore for File Servers – Speedy Closed as wrong venue. Defer to WP:AN/I. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable

User:MisterWiki seems to be on a speedy deletion rampage as is evident by his talk page User Talk:MisterWiki. I'm not sure if this shouldg be a deletion review, or an admin intervention, so I thought I'd start here. Xaminmo (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be more appropriate for WP:ANI. -- Kesh (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as no action required here. If the page is deleted then a review here would then be in order if requested. BlueValour (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Changeling (Eberron) – Challenged PROD restored; notice given to original PROD nominator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

PRODed under "no evidence of notability; multiple issues". It appears to be notable and it is difficult to discern or correct the other reasons for deletion without access the article. Hazel77 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Traganje za rentom – The result was fie on process wonkery and fie on not following process. I think it would have been generally more agreeable for the deleting admin to have used Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English in this first place, but what this DRV can accomplish at the present juncture is not clear. A good admonishment to the deleting admin perhaps for being uncommunicative and deleting out of process--but this would have to be tempered by the fact that DragonflySixtyseven did in fact userfy the article and didn't leave it deleted. A userfication does not employ deletion tools (only the redirect was deleted), nor is this an outcome of an XfD, so it is not reviewable here (to add in a little bit more process wonkery). Any editor can, of course, move the articles back to mainspace. But, I think that would be rather silly since userspace is not owned (and this can be linked to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and/or edited at its current location). – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also included in this review:

Rawlsova teorija blagostanja (userfied to User:Kubek15/Rawlsova teorija blagostanja)
Teorija drugog najboljeg rješenja (userfied to User:Kubek15/Teorija drugog najboljeg rješenja)

Foreign language articles improperly speedy deleted before could be given the chance to be translated. When confronted about it, admin moved articles into another user's userspace rather than restore the articles and allow them to be listed for the proper two weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Putting articles in userspace only really allows that user to work on translation of the articles rather than any user who speaks the language. I want to see the articles restored in article space and relisted at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, giving them the proper two weeks for anyone on the translation team to translate them. Redfarmer (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While that is procedure and I would hope that future articles are treated that way since WP:CSD#A2 specifies the circumstances under which foreign language articles are to be deleted, all three articles have been userfied as indicated here. Other editors may work on the articles in userspace, so I'm not sure if there's compelling reason to move them to article space for that work to take place. I can't endorse the deletion, since it was done out of process, but I don't see that there's anything to overturn specifically, since the articles have been undeleted already. I haven't really encountered the deleting admin very often (that I remember; names are not my strong point :D), but based on the note left about the deletion here, I'd assume s/he is a reasonable, cordial person. I wonder if refreshing his (or her) memory on the appropriate section of CSD would have been just as beneficial; I think it's possible that she (or he) would have returned them to article space with the {{notenglish}} tags if it was explained that there was some concern about access for the translation team. (Who, yes, do fabulous work. I've turned to them often.) (For responders who are, like me, new to the conversation, I'll link the current ANI thread for convenience. I'll also note this there and inform the admin in question of this conversation.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I only brought it here because this is where I should have brought it to begin with I realized. The ANI thread was closed abrubtly by an admin who accused me of being "out for blood" and seemed to imply I was making frivolous complaints. I'm not asking for much. I don't care if the admin in question is reprimanded or reviewed. I just want to make sure these articles are translated and I'd feel better about their chances if they were in main space and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Redfarmer (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't doubt that you're operating in good faith here. :) I know that the admin had been approached about this already, and obviously you weren't satisfied with the outcome of that conversation, but it is possible that additional conversation could have brought you into accord without the need for outside intervention. In principle, I agree with you; it's great the first editor has access to the material, but if he or she should choose not to pursue it, then they are as good as deleted as long as they languish in userspace. It's probably better to let the translation team have a crack at them and tag them with the appropriate deletion criterion if the articles don't measure up. In reference to your note below, I wouldn't feel that comfortable listing an article in userspace at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English myself, particularly since that page says that it is for listing articles and these three are now in a different space. My point is primarily that, reminded of policy, the deleting administrator might very well repair this him or herself (and could still). That's why this page is for situations "where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question". It's just a more congenial approach when possible and can save a lot of unintended drama. :) Maybe when the deleting admin notes this conversation, he or she can weigh in. If I were in your position (rather than in my own effectively monolingual one (dead languages excluded)), I'd wait to see what the deleting admin does and possibly ask the user in whose space they are userfied if he minds them being listed. If not, I'd list them with a note as to why the procedure is irregular in these cases. While I'm running on, let me point out that in the ANI thread, 6SJ7 is suggesting proposing in village pump a new system for processing foreign language articles for translation that sounds like a good idea to me. I hope s/he will decide to follow through and that it will prove viable. You might want to keep an eye open in case a conversation occurs there to which you can contribute on the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I didn't realize someone had reopened the AN/I thread. Thanks for linking! Redfarmer (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fie on this absurd process-wonkery. These three articles had foreign-language titles, foreign language text, no links, no references, no formatting and no hint of what they were about. The deleting admin was approached by the original author and, as far as I can see immediately undeleted and userfied them. How much time, precisely, is the community expected to waste in order to keep something that an English-speaking audience has no hope of understanding? It's not as if it were in Spanish or Italian or some other language which is understood by large numbers of English speakers - in fact, it doesn't even give us the most basic information, the language in which it's written! As far as utility to the English Wikipedia goes, these articles score a big fat zero. Wrong language, wrong format, wrong title. No credible reason has been advanced for demanding that we let this unintelligible (to an English audience) material sit in mainspace. We can't even validate that it's not an attack of some kind. It's not that we've failed to meet the creator halfway, we have been particularly helpful and userfied the content to prevent wasted effort. Does the person who requested this review understand the content, at all? I could not find an online translator that rendered it as anything other than gibberish. At the very least before we insist on moving userfied content back to mainspace you would think we might be entitled to know what it's about, hmm? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's beside the point. The point is it should have not been taken out of main space for two weeks. One of the articles has something to do with the philosopher John Rawls, an area which I may have an interest in. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say it should not have been taken out of mainspace, but the only argument you've provided so far is that it somehow prevents others fomr working on it, which it doesn't. If one of the articles is about John Rawls, then the content should have been placed at John Rawls, the English title - except we already have a much larger article on John Rawls. So, if you know for certain it's about Rawls, link it from talk:John Rawls. We have not deleted John Rawls, we have userfied something that none of us can understand and which you now tell us is about someone on whom we already have a decent-looking article. So I return to the basic question I have had right from the beginning: what purpose is served by leaving this unintelligible (to an English-speaking audience), context free (to an English-speaking audience) text in mainspace that can't be served every bit as well by leaving it where it is? Guy (Help!) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you really feel this way, that no good can come out of translating foreign language articles, then why don't you advocate the elimination of translation? The fact is, there's no way to tell if there is context or not until it is translated, and this is best served if it is listed at articles for translation, which normally does not happen unless the article is in the main space. Are you saying the Rawls article is perfect and there's nothing which can possibly be gained from allowing the translation team to translate the article? Redfarmer (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that at all. You seem to think that mainspace is the only place these things can ever be. Why? There is no practical or technical reason why they need to be there. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are in main space, they can be linked to from articles for translation. I have no doubt that the user who received the userfication has the best of intentions of translating the articles. However, if their real life gets in the way of it (as mine often does), it could be months before it is determined if the articles have any useful content. If they are in main space and linked to from articles needing translation, more editors will be aware of the existence of these articles and be able to assess them independently. Let's face it: if I hadn't tagged one of the articles {{notenglish}} and watched the pages to see what happened, I would have never known this issue existed. The only people who would have been aware would have been the original admin and the user who received userficiation, which would have meant no community say on the articles and no awareness on the part of other translators they existed. Redfarmer (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be linked to articles for translation from userspace as well. But do tell me: why should a user expect to be able to dump unformatted foreign language text at a foreign language title, give no links or clues what the subject is, and then have someone else translate it? If the user understands the content, then he should at least put it at the English title. You've advanced no credible explanation of what utility these articles serve in mainspace. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we have the translation page for: to determine what foreign language articles are about. As I've said on the AN/I discussion, if you assume good faith, the least we can do is help the user, who, in these cases, are almost always new editors and are probably confused about the Wiki they're creating their article on, to transwiki their articles to the proper Wiki. If we can translate them and find there is something useful we can use in our articles, all the better. I've seen Arabic articles with no trace of what they're about be translated and we get a useful stub about a Middle Eastern village out of it. The point is you don't have any clue what we're getting until we translate it. Redfarmer (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the editor who objected to the deletion and in whose userspace these articles now sit doesn't seem to be the creator; they are attributed in history to this user. I've left a message asking the admin if there's any objection to moving these to article space where they might be tagged {{notenglish}} and processed through Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Seems like a meta discussion on handling foreign language articles prior to translation is due. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the articles are in userspace does not mean that only the user can work on them. Anyone can. And what does the location have to do with being able to list it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English? Mr.Z-man 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying I should list a page from another user's userspace? Seems like an invasion of their work to me. No one else can work on it if no one else knows it exists. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't see the issue here. If someone has them in their userspace and is actively working on them (as would be required to be an invasion of their work) then there is no need to list, if they aren't working on them, then where is the invasion? Userspace is not private space, it is intended for further use in building the encyclopedia, working together with someone in "their" userspace seems an excellent example of that. Regardless a quick note on the user talk page asking if they mind it being listed to possibnly get further resource looking at it, I would suspect be generally quite fruitful and certainly eliminate any appearance of impoliteness --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These seem to be foreign-language (Croatian?) forks of Rent-seeking, A Theory of Justice, and Theory of the Second Best. It's hard to imagine how they are useful as articles here. They don't appear to have articles on Croatian or Serbian Wikipedia, so if anything they should be moved there. --Reuben (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case I'll accept that. Really, that's all I've wanted all along is for these articles to have a fair shake. Redfarmer (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn if we have rules, we should follow them until there is consensus to change them. Trying to have a regular way of doing routine things is not process wonkery. Discussing the merits of a potential article here is not the purpose of Deletion review. Deleting things contrary to process produces confusion, engenders unnecessary disruption, & is therefore harmful to the encyclopedia. We have enough problems discussing real issues. DGG (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG. The deleting administrator has been editing but evidently does not see the need to respond further to my request that s/he consent to the restoration of these articles to article space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I suspected, userfication has not solved the problem. The user whose userspace the articles were moved to, Kubek15, is now looking for someone who speaks Croatian to translate one of the articles, as evidenced by the comment he left at the bottom of the page here. As I said before, I'm sure Kubek15 has the best of intentions, but it's really not solved the issue. Redfarmer (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fie on this absurd process-wonkery who says that a userfied article can't be worked on by others? To leave an article in mainspace that we do not even know what it is about or what it says or what language it is in, is unacceptable. If somebody told us what it was about and gave us some assertion that is was notable and gave us reference surces, then we could allow it to remain there for two weeks or more. But for all we know this is copyrighted material, attack material, objectionable material or a hoax. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should change the policy, because this is the standard way we handle foreign language material and this particular material is no more likely to be copyrighted, attack, objectionable or hoax than any other foreign language article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, like DGG said, deletion review is not for discussing the merits of an article; it's for assuring that deletion policy is followed, and it was not in this case. Foreign language articles are not speediable in and of themselves. They must fall under one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The deleting admin has never asserted that they fall under one of the criteria and, in fact, his deletion summary indicates that he deleted them solely because they were foreign language articles, contrary to policy. Redfarmer (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

R. J. Danvers – Keep closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD was closed as a keep, but I did not see how the subject of the article met the general WP:BIO or the WP:PORNBIO criteria. I contacted the closing admin to find out what criteria were met, they stated "I believe that WP:PORNBIO was satisfied; specifically, he starred in a blockbuster feature, acknowledged by those awards the film won and also because there are a few sources stating his participation in the film." By the closer own admission the sources in the article only support that the subject appeared in the film, not that he starred which is what the guideline calls for. It seems to me that a reliable source would be needed to support that he starred in the film, especially considering the claim was originally made by the subject of the article. By the closer's reasoning, definitive proof would need to be provided that he did not star in the film for the article to be deleted. I'm not sure how that could be provided and it would seem to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. BlueAzure (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for now. It looks to me that the subject squeeked by on notability and verifiability. There were other arguments supporting notability than "starred in film". As much as I regret these articles being here at all, not for me to say. Dloh cierekim 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, because I really want to understand want I am missing. BlueAzure (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When RJ appeared in mainstream media, Genre Magazine. That constitutes notability as well. Appearing in the groundbreaking, award winning film. Basically all you want is an article from a reliable source that says that RJ STARRED in Grunts. I think at least one of the sources claims he starred.--71.196.38.47 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One magazine appearance is not enough to meet WP:BIO or the third criteria of WP:PORNBIO. None of the reliable sources in the article support that the film was groundbreaking or a blockbuster. BlueAzure (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMDB indicates that Grunts won 10 awards and received an additional 14 noniminations. Sounds like a blockbuster to me. This fellow has third billing, which would suggest a starring role. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That IMDB listing appears to be alphabetical by last name. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That's a good point. Not being used to IMDB standards on porn listings, I didn't even think to look for that. :) Danvers does, um, feature on the back of the box, I note, for what that's worth. (See here, but oh so NSFW.) He's in the second row, if that makes a difference. I wonder just how many happy military men this movie features. Looking below, it seems Fleshbot claims he has a starring role, and while the use of blogs is questionable by WP:V, this particular entry was contributed by Rod McCollum, aka Rod Mac (note that the personal website is the same), who is an official contributor according to their "about". This certainly implies editorial oversight. I wouldn't regard it as sufficient sourcing to prove that somebody is killing puppies or for other BLP violating controversial information, but it seems sufficient to me to verify the claim of "starring". Whatever that means in the context of porn. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this. Blockbuster (entertainment) refers to financial success of a film. The film is award-winning, but that is not one of the criteria. The Fleshbot article does not claim the he starred or had a starring role, but that he "gets star billing". According to billing (film), star billing refers to a name being listed before name of the film in the credits. Therefore, the article is not making a judgment on the importance of his role in the film but mentioning where the maker of the film placed his name in the credits. The box art you linked to is for one of the parts of the film, the box art for the whole film (See here, but again oh so NSFW.) has 21 people on the back. Its entirely possible that all 21 people received star billing, would they all be considered a star of the film and therefore met WP:PORNBIO? BlueAzure (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you taking this a bit too far? Everyone else sees that RJ met the requirements. As a Raging Stallion Exclusive, he becomes one of the STARS of the film. During the credits, it claims : Starring.... and lists the exclusives. Following the title of the film, it then details the rest of the cast. Like another person pointed out, I think you just don't agree with the decision, and are trying desperately to get everyone else to see this issue your way, when clearly, they don't. Numerous sources show his notability, he appeared in three award nominated films, one including best picture, and if you want to claim that BLOCKBUSTER means financial success, then the film BROKE RECORDS by being the MOST PROFITABLE film of the past five years. Tell me, what needs to be established for you to leave this issue alone? Seems to me the consensus is to keep the article, and you are the only one to disagree. You opened the first article for deletion thread, it was labeled keep. You open a deletion review. Everyone endorses the original decision. Am I the only one seeing this??--71.196.38.47 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV will be closed by an uninvolved admin based on policy and consensus. No offense please, but even if BlueAzure is still not satisfied, as long as the admin is the keep will stand.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are notability guidelines and requirements for reliable sources. Appearing in award winning films is not a criteria for WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. No reliable source is provided for "film BROKE RECORDS by being the MOST PROFITABLE film of the past five years". No reliable source is provided that he was a star of grunts. I do not doubt he received star billing, but from your message it appears that everybody that is exclusive with the films production company receives that credit no matter the extent of their role. I really don't think that meets the WP:PORNBIO criteria of starring. BlueAzure (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Well, it seems to me that BlueAzure has a vendetta against this article. I added a source from Fleshbot, a very reliable porn news website, in which they state RJ received star billing in Grunts. Not sure what else needs to be done to satisfy BlueAzure, short of deleting the article. Maybe he should consider just letting it go???--Rockstars721 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a blog, blogs are generally not considered a reliable source. BlueAzure (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshbot has long been considered a reliable porn news website, comparable to AVN. --71.196.38.47 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source has been added, claiming star billing. Let's see if this one is acceptable to BlueAzure's super strict standards.--71.196.38.47 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source, it some sort of shopping search engine. BlueAzure (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best to satisfy you. Can we cite the movie itself? It states in the credits... STARRING RJ DANVERS.--98.203.125.219 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close seems well within process. Keep looks reasonable, if it had gone no consensus I probably couldn't argue with that either. Going further seems like we're turning this into AFD part 2.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It seems that the DR requester simply disagreed with a deletion debate's outcome, which is against policy. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think this subject meets all guidelines. Trying to split hairs over a "starring" role in a porn flick is a little silly - what guidelines do you use? Speaking lines? I'll stop now before I devolve further. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Brooke Skye – Relist at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was salted after being repeatedly speedied (A7). Page has been recreated as "Brooke Skye", with better sourcing than before. I hesitate to speedy a page with halfway decent sources, but if "Brooke Skye" sticks around it should be moved to an unsalted Brooke Skye. (I'm not convinced the page should stay.) Deleting admin and salting admin recommended DRV. Fabrictramp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article about the lawsuit and melissa midwest incident at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/bubba-the-love-expunger/ . I don't know much about the New Times to gauge it as a RS but I recommend undeleting and unsalting the article. Vinh1313 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the adult and regular press have are running the story too. (AVN, XBiz, Lincoln Journal Star, Tampa Bay Tribune, Court TV) I'm not quite convinced she's notable, but she certainly has WP:RS coverage now. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that definitely seems to satisfy the WP:BIO general criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. This isn't a CSD#G4 anymore. I'd call notability premature to borderline, but I suggest taking the improved article and the new evidence back to to the editors for consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and unsalt. I believe there has been enough coverage (listed by Gene93k) to establish the subject's notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted and Keep Salted No real grounds for establishing notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and unsalt - As recreated it wasn't a speedy deletion qualifier. --Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Previously discussed at AfD here. Unless something has significantly changed with the actress since then, I see no reason to have another AfD discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been new sourcing subsequent to that AfD in 2006. --Oakshade (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern before I vote overturn would be whether the new sourcing satisfies WP:PORNBIO or not. I'm afraid both versions of the article have been speedily deleted so I can't tell. Redfarmer (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 March 2008

Category:Rouge admins – Speedy endorse per WP:ROUGE. – Guy (Help!) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have removed from the category several users who did not choose for themselves to have the category after the UCFD. FCYTravis, Daniel, regardless of anything else you do not have the right to make this decision for them. —Random832 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because people are ignoring the consensus anyway, and no-one has the balls to do anything about it. —Random832 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable for users to add themselves to a category that has been deleted at UCFD. If the consensus is (as some have claimed) that it is acceptable for users to add themselves to this category, then that consensus is the basis for overturning the deletion entirely. —Random832 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest creation with __HIDDENCAT__ - that'll show 'em (just kidding really) —Random832 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, I do think it should be overturned as no consensus from the original discussion (and no hiddencat nonsense), but I stand by my original vote from that discussion, speedy rename to "Wikipedian Rouge admins". —Random832 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and make it policy to disallow users re-adding UCFD'd or DRV-endorsed user categories to their user page, as this disrupts the function of Special:Wantedcategories by making people think such categories should be recreated. VegaDark (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if the category remains deleted or not, but such a policy seems a bit extreme. A red-linked category causes zero disruption, and being included on Special:Wantedcategories is accurate. It's a wanted category, even if it shouldn't be recreated. The talk page for Special:Wantedcategories specifically says some redlinked categories should not be recreated. - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a bit extreme, and I wish it wouldn't have to come to that, but I have had to delete several recreations of such categories due to the mistaken belief that categories with users in them means to create them. In that sense, it is causing some disruption. VegaDark (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we have different definitions of disruption, but as I said, I don't care either way. - auburnpilot talk 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A red-linked category causes precisely as much disruption as the same category caused as a blue link. If there wasn't a problem with it, the UCfD wouldn't have been closed as delete. —Random832 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Before it was deleted, the category page was included within other categories, and could be found using the category tree. Now, it is an orphaned category that does precisely nothing, and can only be found on the pages categorized within it. What disruption is being caused? This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. - auburnpilot talk 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It causes a rather pointy disruption in a way of thumbing your nose at the trust and consensus of the community. Rather than work with the community via DRV or maybe to discuss a way of dealing with the concerns brought up in the UCFD, the deliberate adding (or reverting) oneself into the category is a short and sweet way of saying you don't care about the views of the community. In addition to being disruptive, it is also rather disheartening behavior coming from folks that are suppose to be in a position of trust. The fact that the functionality of the category is still present, still providing a list of "Rouge admins" when you click on the red link, means that deleting it is useless. The fact that consensus can be circumnavigated so easily, much to the abandonment of discussion and consensus building, means that the views of the community (in contrast to the views of a few "rouge") are rather useless as well. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then a policy discussion is what you want, not DRV. - auburnpilot talk 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if overturning the deletion will lessen the disruption to the community, then that is something to discuss in the DRV. In a bit of irony, consensus in DRV could determine that consensus means very little and lessening the disruption from a small group of admins will be in the better interest of the community. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion not because of people adding themselves back in deleted cats but, staying on subject here of why it was deleted in the first place, it was a joke cat that became disuptive and nolonger a joke. So endorse it for the same reasons it was deleted in the first place. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is absolutely no policy which says users cannot have redlinked categories on their page. DRV is not for creation of new policy. The only "disruption" I see here are the repeated attempts to exterminate any sense of humor and fun from a few rouge admins. FCYTravis (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but disruption and WP:POINT are rather vaguely define with not every possible WP:BEANS-like exhibit being detailed. However, a potentially valid reason for considering overturning the category deletion is whether or not it will lessen the disruption and unbecoming behavior by a group of admin who seem to have little regard for consensus and community. If discussion steers towards that being in the best interest of the community, then the DRV is serving its intended purpose. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment assumes facts not in evidence; viz, that "Rouge admins" is somehow disruptive. You have yet to explain what is disruptive about having the words "Category:Rouge admins" on my userpage. You are making a circular argument; "We have to delete the category because it's causing disruption because people don't like that we're trying to delete the category!" FCYTravis (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good faith concerns expressed in the original deletion discussion says alot but probably most troubling is the complete disregard of community and consensus by people that are in a position of trust. As I mention below, there are real life parallels to this type of circumstance. In some respects admins are kinda like "HR Managers" (especially with their use of blocks, page protections and other responses to vandalism, edit war & civility) in that the well being of the community should be (without any doubt) their number one priority. In cases like this and my "restaurant joke" example below, there are clear and definitive actions that people in positions of trust should take. The benefits of having a red link on your userpage, just like the fun and "benefit" of having a lewd inside joke among co-workers, are FAR out weighed by benefits of consensus building and maintaining community trust that admins will work for the community's interest and not their own. Please think about that and think what benefit to the community your red link serves. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Your reference to a "circular argument" has a broken link in that circle. If you review my comment above, I start out by saying "a potentially valid reason for considering overturning the category deletion" is potentially the amount of disruption that a few admins are causing. I was essentially saying that it may be better not to have the cat deleted if the discussion determines that consensus essentially means nothing and maintaining "functional" but deleted category is fine. While I don't wholeheartedly endorse that view, I do recognize that it is a potentially valid reason for having the deletion overturn. I suppose it is more of a polygon argument. :) Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Here's a question. This blew up because non-admins were adding themselves to this category. What happens (is it the same problem) if a non-admin adds themselves to the cat as a red link? Avruch^T 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (e.c. X 2) on the general principle of WP:WDYC and the fact that the WP:UCFD discussion had, in fact, failed to obtain consensus. Strongest possible wish ~~oppose~~ ~~on the proposed rule prohibiting adding to a red-linked category in userspace, as a blatant instance of WP:CREEP.~~ that people would stop caring so much about what other people do in their own userspace. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there's not a written rule against it doesn't mean you're allowed to do it. And just because a written rule would be WP:CREEP doesn't mean that someone telling you you're not allowed to do it is guilty of WP:CREEP. It has always been the long-standing practice that, well, delete means delete. —Random832 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(general reply but relevant to IG comment) The WDYC essay is interesting. While I didn't really participate much in the original deletion discussion, I will note here what I probably would have said. The reason to care is community with every "fun page", signature and user cat being considered on the merit of how it helps or hurts the community. There were valid arguments for how the category originally helped the community but there were also valid arguments for how it can hurt--promoting an aura of exclusivity, creating confusion on whether adminship is "no big deal"/a "joke" or something else, etc. As I read the original discussion a "Real World" parallel sprung to mind about a work environment that I was in many moons ago. At this restaurant, the male servers developed a "system" to gauge the "hotness" of the patrons or how many beers they would need to want to sleep with them. Even though I'm a woman, I actually thought it was pretty funny and when my "gaydar" spotted a fellow lesbian, I would chime into the boys how many beers I think the woman would need in order to sleep with them. It was very much an "inside joke" that never spread beyond words and comments. However, some of the other female co-workers heard about the joke and the rating system and began to feel uncomfortable at work. Even though they weren't being "rated" or "commented upon", the atmosphere that the "joke" created was (at least to them), unwelcoming and not very conducive to a pleasant work environment. Anyone that knows a little about HR can probably guess what happened after that. "Joke" or no joke, the community of the work environment was the most important consideration and if a "joke" makes your fellow workers uncomfortable (regardless of intent), then it is not appropriate and is actually harmful. THIS is a similar circumstance. Fellow Wikipedians have "good faith" concerns about the detrimental effects that this "joke" can have on the community. It is fostering an environment that is not conducive or pleasant to create an encyclopedia in--even if that is not the intent of ANYONE in that cat (which I truly believe is the case). Despite its original innocence and well meaning existence, it is having an adverse affect on the community and therefore it is in the best interest to just let it go. Holding steadfast to keeping a redlink cat, despite consensus and good faith concerns, is actually more harmful and more of a reason to care about this discussion. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong cough, what the hell is being reviewed here? Deletion of category-including wikitext from userpages or something? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a DRV on the category itself, to either reaffirm or overturn the original delete closure of the UCfD. The specific circumstances are just background to why I brought it here. —Random832 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Overturn" Along with the proxied consensus for its existance, and in the words of EVula.. its "still fun" . --Hu12 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the category itself humorous? (If anything, I'd think it be more humorous as a redlink.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the deletion there were 17 pages remaining in the cat, I attempted to help de-populate those remaining links by removing them, they were all of course reverted back and an additional Admin was added. Thats humorous!. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Thermonuclear Deletion. WTF is wrong with you people who keep at this category? An allegedly "humorous" category, it ceased being humorous quite some time ago, the moment a user got blocked for adding it to his page. Salt it, and delete all of its pointless sibling categories (Category:Eguor admins, Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping, and Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks). All the "rouge" admins who keep this category after it has been deleted should be blocked for violating WP:POINT; you know very well that if a regular user had violated POINT in a similar manner, it is likely he'd have been forced to take an involuntary wikibreak. All of you are admins; you're supposed to be setting the standard for the rest of the editors. If you blatantly ignore community standards, how can you expect other editors to adhere to them? Horologium (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that this stupid insistence on keeping redlinked categories not only trashes the wanted categories function, but a related occurrence resulted in yet another round of pointless drama over BetacommandBot, which was blocked for (ZOMG) deleting redlinked categories from a user page. It was another stupid block of that bot for accomplishing a task for which it was approved. Horologium (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot was blocked for removing categories that had _not_ had deletion discussions from _articles_, which is not part of its approved task. Someone else decided to use this as an opportunity to bitch at him for removing this category as part of its approved task. —Random832 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Sorry to interrupt the discussion like this, but I think this is an important point. This idea that people are allowed to add themselves to categories that have been deleted is a novel one. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this were Category:Fascist Wikipedians or *picks a UCfD at random* Category:Wikipedians who use dual boot configurations or Category:RickK Fans, or any of hundreds of other categories that have been deleted. The user would simply be told that they can't be in that category and pointed to the discussion where it was deleted. To say otherwise is to say UCfD is a dead letter. watch this space! —Random832 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - consensus was judged correctly, since none of the arguments (primarily "It's funny" and "It's harmless") for retention stand up to scrutiny. The project page is humorous, not the context-less category (directory of users). As for the category's supposed harmlessness, a category that is the source of so much drama and wasted time and effort is most definitely not harmless. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sacré merde! Does this mean I have to take down my userbox? Do people not understand the difference between a Rouge admin"" and a rogue admin? I think it's funny and frankly do not understand the urge to delete the thing. I had no idea the category was being considered for deletion. Dloh cierekim 03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep the userbox. The userbox is fine. This is only about the category. Horologium (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - There is a rather large glaring box at the top of the WP:UCFD page making it clear (I would hope) that userboxes and user catgories are not the same thing. categories are not in userspace or in mainspace. They are in category space. That said, I "think" we're well aware that this can confuse those who casually read this encyclopedia. So we attempt to tag the top of categories which are not directly used for mainspace.
Second, categories are a dual construct. They are both a page and a grouping of pages (enacted through technical action). At WP:CFD (note that I'm not saying WP:UCFD) the current consensus which has been going on as long as that page has existed is that when a category discussion is closed as "delete", that means the category is to be depopulated too.

UCFD follows the same rules

I suppose this current set of nonsense (Yes, I said nonsense), is because I am getting tired of all the drama concerning some admins who, in their strong sense of IWANTIT are choosing to ignore a CFD closure in any way they can. As Horologium notes above, if these were general editors, they would immediately get bitten, likely by these selfsame ROUGE ADMINS. A double standard? yes. Ridiculous? yes. Do I really care much anymore? I don't know. So I haven't been reverting these redlinks, though I probably should have.

I do think there should be a consistancy. Either we open up the category system to anything, or we follow the current convention to not. And "humourous" categories currently are not. The userbox, and the Wikipedia-space page should be enough for the humour. - jc37 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - No need for UCFD Act 2. I can't see why anyone would want to restore this category, to be honest, other than as a protest exercise.--WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - and excommunicate anyone who recreates this confounded category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion As much as I disagree, consensus was reached. And we still have WP:Rouge admin. Still don't see what the fuss is about. Someone got blocked over this? And I'm sorry if others don't get the humor of basically describing oneself as radical or extreme for upholding consensus driven policies. I haven't taken as much abuse as some for my "unreasonableness" in deleting such rubbish as Dalmatian theory. Others have gotten more than I. One need only read the edit summaries here to appreciate the irony of the thing. <<sigh>> Dloh cierekim 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a sensible closure based on a sound evaluation of all arguments. Everything beyond the deletion and initial removal of the category isn't really an issue for DRV, but rather for other venues such as RfC.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cavalcade (parade) – Article history has been restored as requested – Davewild (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

now start class; can we recover history prior to deletion? Una Smith (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was AFDed back in December as a dictionary definition. The new version is far from a dic def, so the old AFD IMHO does not apply. That said, I would consider restoring the older history to be a minor thing, and have just done so myself. Not really much of value there, but no real harm in having it in the active history when we now have a fairly nice article in place. Anyway, I see no need to drag this DRV out unless someone wants to object to my action of restoring the history. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Josh_Golder – See User:Aarondreams/Josh Golder, and WP:BIO. – Splash - tk 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporarily review. The article was deleted for being blatant advertising (G11) and for G2. Would it be possible to get the article restored to my userspace with lines that are considered to be violations of G11 bolded? I'd be more than happy to resubmit in a G2-friendly format, but I'd like to correct the G11 violations first. 64.61.53.130 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first edit from this IP, so I'm not too keen on userfying to that userspace since someone else presumably will have the IP soon. Also, I'm not terribly keen on putting it in an 'anon' userspace because it'll get lost and/or forgotten. Did you mean to log in? Splash - tk 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the mistake, I did forget to login. Aarondreams ^Talk 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See User:Aarondreams/Josh Golder, and WP:BIO. Splash - tk 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Vita-Nanoha.JPG – undeleted – —Random832 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was deleted per WP:CSD#I7, however the uploader has been inactive, and it would be useful to have the image back so that the problems may be corrected. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have simply asked me about the image on my talkpage. Do you wish I restore the image for yo to fix it? Maxim_(talk) 12:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but yes. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I don't know how to close DRVs, so could some helpful user help me out, plz? Maxim_(talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 March 2008

Foundation for Rational Economics and Education – history restored by JzG – GRBerry 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deleted on Feb 3 as advertising by Eliz81 (now on wikibreak); immediately recreated as stub by JLMadrigal; requesting history-only undeletion so that history of prior article (to which I contributed) can be used for unstubbing current article without an ad-style bias. Should be noncontroversial. There may be potential controversy over whether the current article (with or without history restoration) would be subject to deletion, but that's not the scope of this request. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no objection to this that I can see. DGG (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, we need to rationalise the present situation where the article has been recreated without the previous history. BlueValour (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Leo J. Meyer – Keep undeleted. There are certainly concerns with original research in this article, and the commenters below are correct that these policy concerns are paramount. However, removal of original research through editing is always preferable to removal through deletion. After a careful examination of the sources in the article (many of which do not seem to be relevant to the subject), I noted references that verify the three badges, some of the military history (treating the Green Barret article image as a reference), and the work as an artist. Consensus seems to exist that the three badges are important enough to satisfy notability requirements. Article should probably be turned into a stub unless footnoted references can be added to verify much of the detail in the article as a whole. – IronGargoyle (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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}}.

~~I have not spoken to the administrator who deleted this article, because she is on an indefinite WikiBreak.~~ I have a few reasons for contesting this delete. 1. There was no consensus for deletion. 2. The subject is referenced in third party sources incl. the National Infantry Museum, Smithsonian, and numerous military publications through out the years. These will obviously need to be properly cited but there are too many of them to delete based on verifiability. 3. The only criterion for notability is that the subject is referenced in third party publications, which he clearly is. If we address any of the various sub-guidelines, we could infer that his 3rd award of the Combat Infantry Badge and his status as a Parachute and Special Forces expert made him the subject of the articles over the years, along with his artistry in scrimshaw. These are three separate accomplishments, all of which are supported by second and third party sources. User:Meyerj has a copy of the article in his user page. This article should be rescued from deletion and improved. MrPrada (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I have read the article in Meyerj's userspace and reviewed the original afd, and after careful review I feel the article is appropriate for Wikipedia provide that the article receives a thorough cleanup (there are several instances of sentence fragments and such in the article body) and better sourcing through the use of inline citations; I would recommend that the article be immediately listed for a MILHIST peer review if reinstated here to get a better idea of how to improve it. On the issue of notability: the MILHIST MOS outlines criteria to be considered with regards to notability within the armed services; of which the article satisfies one criteria clearly and two criteria in a broad sense: as an officer it appears from the article that he commanded a substantial body of troops (2), he is included in secondary works published (4), and according to our article here his combat infantryman badges are the highest award in there field (1). For me, this constitutes the minimum threshold needed to maintain an article here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I appreciate and understand your views. However, we are not here to judge the merit of the article since this is not AfD2. Our role is simply to decide on the propriety of the AfD close not to substitute our judgement for that of the AfD participants. BlueValour (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reliase that, I am just very new to the deletion review process (to my knowlage this is the first time I have commented here neatrally). Given this I elected to treat this as I would an afd, although I gather this was incorrect, and for that I apologize. You are free to edit my comments to comply with the policy(s) on this page, whatever they may be, and I will make a point to observe this page and its commenters to get a better idea of how to go about commenting in a deletion review so as to aviod this mistake the next time I arrive here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The article is temporarily re-created at Leo J Meyer (though its CSD tagged for deletion). It looks like a very complete article on an individual that appears to meet the basic criteria for inclusion. A closing rationale would have been handy in this case. I think given the quality of the article and the marginal greater notability of this individual, the article should be kept and the result of the AfD overturned. Avruch^T 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Essentially the debate was a judgment as to whether the achievements met WP:BIO. Taking into account the nominator, there were five editors in favour of deletion and two for keeping. Whilst this is not a vote, that certainly represents a consensus. In my view the AfD was properly closed, which is what we are here to judge. BlueValour (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Technically, there have been a number of edits and revisions to this article since it was deleted more than a month ago. It isn't necessary to seek the overturn of an AfD discussion if the newly reposted article includes more references to establish notability/verifiability or allay other concerns listed be participants in the original AfD. I think the CSD tagging was, therefore, premature and only if it was deleted again would a DRV really be necessary. But this DRV was started first, and since there is no other option but to overturn or endorse the original AfD - I'm going with overturn. Avruch^T 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. As I stated above, I do not believe the AfD was properly closed. As BlueValour pointed out, it is not a vote, and the decision should be based on the evidence alone. As Avruch and TomStar have pointed out, the article met the basic criteria for inclusion, met WP:V with secondary and third party sources, and also the WP:MILHIST notability guideline, which includes and yet supersedes WP:N. I defer to TomStar's expert opinion on that guideline, as he is a duly elected project coordinator in his second term. MrPrada (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn One of only a 303 to have been awarded the combat infantryman badge three times, compared to the thousands that have been awarded the Medal of Honor. Sometimes WP:BIO is best ignored, it is only a guideline and not holy scripture. RMHED (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Meets the MILHIST MOS notability requirements. Also, per TomStar81, MrPrada, and RMHED. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has a marked lack of citations, which should be remedied. This would probably resolve any nagging notability issues. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for a different Leo J Meyer

Comment. Here are some publications beyond the secondary military magazines already contained in the article:

Meyer is a subject, is cited by, edited, or contributed to the following:

The Only Thing Permanent In The Military... Is Change

Col. Leo J. Meyer, Official Homepage, 95th division, U.S. Army[90]

Greenfield, Kent R., ed. "Command Decision". Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, Department of the Army. 1991. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 53-61563
Treadwell, Mattie. "Special Studies, the Women's Army corps".. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, Department of the Army. 2000. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 59-60007
"The decision to invade North Africa". New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. 1969.
Place, Jeff. "Smithsonian Folklife Festival Documentation Collection". Washington D.c.: Smithsonian Institution. 1967.
Long, Gavin. "To Benghazi". Military Affairs. Vol. 17, No. 4. Winter, 1953.
Kreipe, Weiner, Gunther, Blumentritt, Bayerlein, Fritz, Zeitzler, Kurt, Zimmerman, Bodo, von Manteuffel, Hasso, Westphal, Siegfried, Freiden, Seymour, Richardson, William, and Fitzgibbon, Constantine. "The Fatal Decisions". Military Affairs. Vol. 23, No 3. Autumn, 1957.
Millet, John. "The organization and role of Army services forces.". Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, Department of the Army. 1998. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number : 53-617
Shimer Jr., Paul. "The Millionth Yank". Southern Daily Echo. October 25, 2004.
Smith, Clarence McKittrick. "The Medical Department: hospitalization and evacuation, zone of interior". United States Army in World War II, ser. ed. Kent Roberts Greenfield, Technical services, ed. Leo J. Meyer, vol. 6. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army. 1956.
Atkinson, Rick. "An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943". New York: Macmillan. 2003.
Ambrose, Stephen. "The Surpreme Commander: The War Years of General Dwight D. Eisenhower". Jackson: Uniersity Press of Mississippi. 1999. p. 677
Bennett, G.D. ed. "The United States Army: Issues, Background and Bibliography". Nova. 2002. ISBN 1590333004
Meyer, Leo. "The Decision to Invade North Africa (TORCH)". Center of Military History, Department of the Army. 1990.
Weigley, Russell. "The American Military and the Principle of Civilian Control from McClellan to Powell". The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 5, Special Issue: Proceedings of the Symposium on "The History of War as Part of General History" at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey (Oct., 1993), pp. 27-58
Ruppenthal, op. cit., pp. 422-24; Hist, 14th Port, Opn OVERLORD, pp. 11-13, OCT HB Oversea Ports; Hist Critique, pp. 37-38; Interv, Larson with Col McCord and Lt Col Leo J. Meyer, 27 Oct 49, OCT HB ETO SBS; Gen Bd Rpt, USFET, Study 129, p. 12, OCT HB ETO.
Playfair, I.S.O. "The Mediterranean and Middle East. Volume III (September 1941 to September 1942), British Fortunes Reach Their Lowest Ebb.". Military Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 2, Civil War Issue (Summer, 1961), pp. 100-101
Jones, Chester L, Norton, Henry K. and Moon, Parker T. "The United States and the Caribbean". The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Feb., 1931), pp. 84-87
Peers, E. Allison. "Catalonia infleix". The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1939), pp. 379-380
Perez Jr., Louis A. "Intervention, Hegemony, and Dependency: The United States in the circum-Caribbean, 1898-1980". The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 51, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 165-194
MacDonald, Charles B. "The Mighty Endeavor: American Armed Forces in the European Theater in World". London: Oxford. 1969.
Davis, Vincent. "Postwar Defense Policy and the U.S. Navy, 1943-1946". UNC Press. 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPrada (talk • contribs) 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my own comment. Just to be sure, I'd appreciate it if the original author, User:Meyerj, could verify these sources, as I am not 100% sure that all of them are the same Leo J. Meyer. Since most of them are behind JSTOR etc, it is difficult for me to ascertain. MrPrada (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good people, I am the author of the article and I hope this is not improper of me to submit a comment to your discussion, but I must clarify. Of the many written documents listed above attributed to Col Leo J Meyer, the only item that is from the subject of this article is "The Only Thing Permanent In The Military... Is Change. Col. Leo J. Meyer, Official Homepage, 95th division, U.S. Army"[1]. Please do not be confused. The other LJ Meyer is quite notable in his own right. Meyerj (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/comment. I think this should be undeleted but it already is, so why this DRV still active? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I believe that an administrator restored the page in good faith to aide in the DRV. MrPrada (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The article needs more inline citations to really drive it home, but even as is it seems more than notable enough for me. I see no reason to be deletionist about this. LordAmeth (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse correct close. A well written article, but about someone who has never done anything notable. DGG (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so according to your records, an army colonel who commands 3000-5000 soldiers is less notable than a university club debater and a local city councillor?? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three-time receipients of the combat infantryman badge have their own wing in the U.S. National Infantry Museum. Also, although Meyer was Special Forces and not a Ranger, all three-time recipients of the CIB are automatically inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame. The only other qualifier is Medal of Honor recipients, and previous battalion commanders and sergeant majors. The army also held ceremonies up into the 1980s to honor the 200 or so surviving CIB (3rd) awardees. MrPrada (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion, AfD had no clear consensus for deletion, subject seems notable per ~~above links~~ the distingushed service and awards given that are above the norm and satisfies WP:MILHIST and WP:N. Dreadstar † 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close was in order - consensus existed to delete the article. How did it get recreated? That seems out of process - an admin needs to step in here and re-delete the article. Eusebeus (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Consensus may have existed (the vote was four to three if you count the article's creator who did not vote in the AfD but has solicited comment from neutral parties), but the logic was flawed so it should never have been closed. Also, there was no rationale provided at close. An article cannot somehow meet WP:MILHIST and not meet WP:N, they are inexorably connected. As for the recreation, that I do not know, when I started the DRV today the article wasn't there, then a few hours later, it was, with full history etc., so I assume an administrator recreated it for the DRV process as I stated above.

The arguments presented in favor of deletion were:

WP:V "the title and/or ISBN of the book isn't listed for verification".

Done Now fixed, see above.

WP:N "Delete unless independent source can be found that shows specific interest in this individual"

Done Also fixed above.

WP:N "Delete. Although an accomplished and even distinguished military man, does not appear to have a particular claim to notability"

POV. #1 3 Combat Infantry Badges, #2 rising from private to Colonel, #3 Directing the Army Center for Military history, #4 being published numerous times, #5 being mentioned in 20+ secondary/tertiary sources, are all sufficient on their own to claim notability in my book, (especially #s 4 & 5).

WP:N *"Delete We have room for them, sure, but there is nothing specifically notable asserted".

I believe the three wars, per WP:MILHIST, or the scrimshaw work at the Smithsonian, are specific.

WP:N "Delete. Unfortunately, I also find no evidence to indicate notability criteria have been satisfied".

I disagree, there was evidence enough in article when it was delete, and a cursory glance at the sources above would seem to support that reasoning.

Again, I feel that its impossible to somehow meet WP:N without meeting WP:MILHIST, or vice versa. Since most of the MILHIST admin/coordinators have agreed that it meets MILHIST, I stand by my DRV-request that the original deletion was flawed. MrPrada (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per the excellent evidence of notability provided above. John254 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Technical ground is that the last strong keep argument in the AfD was made just an hour before close, so other editors did not have time to consider it. Also as the article has evolved since the AfD and the issues there are being addressed, it would need to be reconsidered anew for deletion anyway. Ty 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Appears that additional info is now available to verify notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there seems to be enough material for notability. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I believe this topic to be notable. --rogerd (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn In the AFD the strength of the arguments for keeping outweigh the numerical superiority of "Delete" !votes. Edison (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion I left a reasoning on my close in my talk page over a month ago. There wasn't 16 sources in the article, there was only 5 and a bunch of unrelated external links. Three of the five sources are other wikipedia articles explaining what the metals are, the other two are passing mentions. Sourcing was a concern that was never met in the AFD. There was obvious consensus to delete. As for the current sources, again it seems like a bunch of unreleated links, or passing mentions, there isn't anything that can be used for proper sourcing. Also note the obvious WP:CANVASSING by Mrprada, which should be taken to effect in this DRV. Secret ^account 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly concerned by the allegation of canvassing. My message was a friendly notice written to improve the quality of the discussion and invite experienced WP:MILHIST editors, who would be the authority on notability in this case, and the original contributors to the article and the AfD the piece, to comment, including User:Secret. In no way did I state my personal opinion in an attempt to influence the outcome.

"Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

On that note, I do concur with secret that the current sources seem like a bunch of passing mentions, which need to be addressed per User:Roger Davies. However, per User:Tyrenius (who was not notified of the discussion), there are technical grounds to overturn the AfD. MrPrada (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not notified of this discussion either. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion According to the Combat Infantryman Badge article, this medal is awarded for having seen ground combat in the US Army's infantry. As such, the claim to notability is that this person fought in three wars. I don't see why that's a good claim to notability - tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people around the world would have achieved this during the 20th century. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per a message left on my talk page by User:Meyerj, the US National Infantry Museum figures 303 recipients of the third award of the Combat Infantryman Badge during the period December 1941 to December 2007, and the US Army Center for Military History number of 575 Medals of Honor for the same time period." Therefor, the 3rd award of a CIB is in a sense more notable then the MOH, which is a standard of auto-inclusion. MrPrada (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with that. The CIB is automatically awarded to all infantry who are sent to a warzone and has been awarded millions of times. The MoH is awarded for acts of extreme bravery and is rarely awarded. As such, the issue is whether infantrymen who are sent into a war zone 3 times are automatically notable. Personally, I don't think so. For our purposes, the fact that there seems to be only one reference specifically on this person, and it's a list of names, while there are easily dozens of different references which can be used for all MoH winners, clearly indicates that being awarded the CIB three times isn't generally regarded as being a more significant achievement than winning the MoH. WP:N places great weight on the availability of references, and no weight on individuals' views on what constitutes an encyclopedic achievement. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that the CIB is automatically awarded. Commanders have strict requirements and (at least in modern times) limit the distribution of the award to rigorous quotas. As a recipient of the CAB, I can speak to that myself. I would agree that the 3d CIB isn't generally regarded as more significant then the MoH, but it is still interesting that there were fewer awards of the 3d CIB then the MoH from 1941 to 2008 (apples to apples). However, I believe that this individual is notable for more than just the 3d CIB award. MrPrada (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nth award of a trivial badge is not notable. the first award of the highest one in the US Services is. It's not by being present on the field that soldiers get notability, its by what they do there. DGG (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIB is not a trivial badge. Ask any soldier, including my self. Aside from the CIB, you have Meyer with a Distinguished Service Medal, Soldiers Medal, 3 Bronze Stars, 2 Purple Hearts, 1 MSM, 1 Joint Commendation, 3 ARCOMS with V, four Presidential Unit Citations, and a Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star, no easy feat. I still do not see how this fails notability for WP:MILHIST, per Edison, and Tyrenius. MrPrada (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, well done to the closing admin for seeing through the smoke and mirrors. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article - The guy is a colonel and only one step down from being a general. Obviously WP is not a reliable source, but the article on US colonels says that they command 3-5,000 men, so they are responsible for the life and death of many soldiers. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The long-standing convention is that general-level officers and above are automatically notable, but lower ranks have to prove that they meet WP:BIO. Mayors of small cities with larger populations than an infantry division aren't automatically notable, despite them having a reasonable chance of getting the necessary press coverage, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to make colonels automatically notable. For instance the Australian military seems to have well over a hundred colonels or equivalent at any point in time, so it's hardly a prominent rank which is likely to expose its holder to the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:BIO. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many soldiers have risen from Private, to Sergeant, to Sergeant Major, to Looey, to Chief Warrant Officer 4, all the way up to Colonel, with a Army Distinguished Service Medal(usually reserved for Generals only) and 3 CIB's along the way? Meyer may be the only one. MrPrada (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth reiterating that the article seems to only contain one reference on Meyers, and it's a list of names. Wikipedia:Notability (people) calls for individuals to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have placed calls into the 95th Division Historian and the national infantry museum. I am expecting more sources on Meyer later this evening or tomorrow. Most of the third party sources, e.g., division magazines, Army times, etc, do not maintain online archives. MrPrada (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to thank you for your deliberations regarding the Wikipedia article Leo J. Meyer. The article was written with a strong hope that it might give inspiration to others to capture a piece of history which we are about to lose contact with forever. Just yesterday there was an event at the US President’s residence honoring the last remaining World War I veteran at 106 years old. (roughly 16 years older than Leo Meyer) We are on the brink of losing the source information for the “Greatest Generation” America has ever known. The US is not alone in this loss; all nations have had their contributors to their societies. Traditional paper encyclopedias could not, practically speaking, publish all of the information for history’s sake. But a Web based system can, as long as the server owner supports it. The US WWII Memorial has a Web based registry which permits us to list the contributions of the people in and out of uniform who contributed to the US during WWII. The US Army National Museum in conjunction with the Army Heritage Foundation has a similar registry of the American soldier at http://www.armyhistory.org/armyhistorical3.aspx?pgID=867. Both of these “Web” based systems are a tremendous resource for the collection of historical information and are looking for all of us to contribute to. To paraphrase a line from the George C. Scott movie “Patton”, “answer what did you do in the great World War, daddy?” With, “well I shoveled S--- in LA but I also did this too.” I had hoped that the Wikipedia project might be one more asset in the collection, preservation and presentation of that first or second hand account historical information about our grandfathers and grandmothers, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers. They are slipping away fast.

I fully appreciate the Wikipedia Editor / Administrator concerns about meeting stated guidelines for articles published. However, I believe that there should be a Wikipedia destination for the collection of original work that meets the minimums of the Wikipedia:List of guidelines and allows for the telling of a persons history and contribution to the society and events of their life time. Meyerj (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You mention that this is original work. What is the source of it? Did it come directly from Col Meyer and, if so, would you mind telling me what your relationship to him is? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from my talk page:

Leo Meyer was my father. After he was inurned at Arlington National Cemetery I was asked by some obscure long lost family member I had never met before, but whose side of the family apparently held him in some esteem, about his unit information. I was not prepared to answer that factually so I began researching his records, and putting two and two together and I learned a lot about the little giant I called Dad. I could remember events from his quite extensive photo album/scrapbook, but anecdotes from other family members contributed to a rather lengthy biographical document that I provided to all of the family. One short episode... Around 1960 while a major stationed at Ft Dix, he was detailed to escort the Egyptian delegation during the International Military Boxing Championships (CISM). I attended some of the fights with him. While at an official function at the O'Club he, at 5'8", 135 pounds went up to an official guest of the games, James J Braddock, AKA "Cinderella Man" and told the former heavy weight champion that he was a "Bum". He did this tongue and cheek. Taken aback, the much larger man asked why and my father told him how he had lost a weeks pay, $27, because of him, when he beat Max Baer. Braddock enjoyed the story and asked him to repeat it to his wife. It was his full of "Moxy" persona that enabled him to go through Jump School in Vietnam at age 51, a feat that had not been done (or documented) before by anyone in the Army at that age. And he did it because he was assigned to Special Forces and not airborne qualified which meant he was not authorized to wear the green beanie until he became airborne. He had volunteered to go to Vietnam in his 28th year. So most of what you see there is taken from my original much larger document without the side stories. Additionally quite a bit of information can also be found at the National Army Museum Soldier registry that was taken from his official records.
While in Vietnam LTG Frederick Weyand, who was the top dog in Vietnam after Westmorland, made a special visit to the 5th Group Hq because he had learned that Dad was assigned there and they went back to 1950 in the 7th Infantry. Leo J Meyer was anything but an obscure Army Officer.
Besides being a good staff officer he was a tremendous artist as the Scrimshaw displayed in the article demonstrates. That photo was taken in my living room of one of the whale's teeth that appear in the Bowen book.
Is it original work or just the first time compiled and edited in this manner and depth? I must admit that I do not like copying information from any source and merely citing the source. Why not just post the source?
You may have gathered from my comment of this morning that you Wikipedians need to work toward collecting the history that has been left out of paper encyclopedias because of cost. That is unfortunately editing history and keeping the full story from being told. And I understand cost. I am also not interested in personal notoriety but I never tried to hide my name. Meyerj (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I'm the nominator who started this whole hornet's nest. I think I found the article while going through the COI bot reports.
First, about the notability and verifiability of the article itself: I understand the desire to collect history and preserve first hand information. I also suspected the article was created as a tribute by a son or daughter, and that's confirmed in the message above. I just lost a parent, and I understand the loss and hurt felt by the article's creator at the loss of his father. Nonetheless, the encyclopedia cannot memorialize every veteran. It has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with encyclopedic value. I can't find encyclopedic value in Meyer's vacations to Alaska and the Azores.
Additionally, I am fully aware that World War II veterans are disappearing at an exponential rate, and I agree their memories and experiences must be documented and collected. However, Wikipedia is not the publisher of first instance, and we can't have articles based largely on anecdotes from his family – reliable sources are the standard. When I nominated the article, it didn't have any that contained material specifically about Meyer. The World War II Registry of Remembrances, one of the ELs, contains family remembrances, not third-party, neutral content. The other ELs don't link to material about him, and their search functions aren't helpful either. The External Sources section has two ELs that I could not and can not open. There's no indication how much of the article was taken from primary sources, but it's undoubtedly original work because the article's creator admits it. No verifiable sources = fails WP:BIO.
Second, I agree that AFDs should not be closed as a poll, by counting the yeas and nays and banging the gavel. Our job is to read the article, evaluate its history and the other articles that link to it, read the talk page, _then_ read the discussion and use our judgment and knowledge of Wikipedia policy and consensus to close the discussion by making a decision. Based on the discussion and the article's state at the time, I believe the closing admin appraised these things appropriately.
Again, I have the utmost respect for this man's service. I'm certain he was a wonderful man and a great soldier. Unfortunately, I think this material is more appropriate for a blog or a memorial web site instead of Wikipedia. KrakatoaKatie 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:N and WP:V to be based on reliable third-party sources rather than personal memories and research. While certain facts are documented in the sources none of them focus on his life. Quite frankly, I think that the controversy over the notability of his medals is a bit of a red herring. Policy over-rides guidelines and we can;t have an article based on personal memerobilia and WP:OR whether the subject meets a particular notability standard or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hootenanny – No deletion occurred. Article was edited to be a proper disambiguation page with softlink to wiktionary for the dictionary definition. A sourced article on events with this name might be possible at hootenanny (event), but sourcing was not present in the history so first find the sources and then write an encyclopedia article on what they describe, citing them. – GRBerry 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page recently existed, yet there is no record of its deletion in the deletion log; no reasons or debate are evident. The hootenanny is a valid and important part of folk music history, and should remain in Wikipedia. "Hootenanny" now leads to a long disambiguation page which includes music albums and television shows. The original article about the American hootenanny tradition and its leaders is not to be found. This article should be restored. 143.229.181.205 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be referring to this edit, which changed the article from an unsourced definition/history with ancillary material to a proper disambiguation page per our manual of style for such pages. I think there's enough there for an article (perhaps hootenanny (event)), but it would require sourcing. In any case, deletion review is not the place to discuss article edits; you should start with the Talk page. Kudos for knowing to check the deletion log, though, even if it was the wrong place to look in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Anon won't be able to be bold and start that page. If they return maybe someone can create a stub for them. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 March 2008

John McCain lobbyist controversy – Speedily closing - whether the redirect could be considered "deletion" or not does not change the fact that no history was deleted - redirection is not deletion unless the history is deleted (redirection has never been considered deletion). As such, this is not within the scope of DRV, as there is no deletion to review. any discussion that could be had here should be had on the article's talk page, as redirecting is editorial, and this redirect was not the direct result of a deletion debate. Clarification: From what I have read, the article was kept in its AFD, then someone else redirected it. Anyone could have reverted this redirect, and asked the person who inserted the redirect to discuss it on the talk page. This is essentially a content dispute, which is not in the scope of DRV and never has been. – Core desat 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article prior to blanking and redirection

This article was recently retained as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus, and a judgment by the closing administrator, that the article concerned a notable topic, and did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Some editors are now insisting on blanking and redirecting the article anyway [91] [92] [93]. Has consensus really changed in this much in last three days? John254 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry seems to have nothing to do with deletion. Redirection and merging are editing decisions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close redirects are an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk page. Go there. If that fails try dispute resolution. There is no deletion here to be reviewed.--Doc^g 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection may be editorial in form, but it amounts to a deletion in character. Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, an action which effectively results in deletion may be reviewed here. John254 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, more simply, the proper response here is to revert the redirection and then discuss at the talk page. Of course, John reverted here (albeit, AFAICT, without a substantive talk page note thereafter) and was himself reverted by Will. Surely it is submitted that when an action is undertaken for BLP reasons, associated issues ought to be discussed before reversion, but, well, we had that discussion, and the community determined that the article did not violate BLP. If an editor wishes to redirect an article that is of a form substantially similar to that that survived AfD, they may surely do so, and just as surely may another editor revert that redirect; thereafter discussion ensues. If, though, the former editor maintains that the article('s existence) contravenes BLP and must be redirected and suggests that the redirect should not be reversed in the absence of a talk page consensus for reversal, he has reversed our general presumption against deletion/redirection (which, contrary to certain misapplications of WP:BLPUNDEL and certain misunderstandings of the "do no harm" provisions of BLP, exists even for articles that are substantially biographies of living persons or that otherwise have significant BLP implications) and essentially annulled the AfD, requiring that a community consensus-based discussion be had to keep material where such a discussion has already been had and where the burden is properly on those suggesting that that discussion reached the wrong conclusion; DRV, then, is as a good a venue as any to discuss what amounts to a rejection of the AfD as being contrary to established policy, at least until those who believe a redirect to be appropriate permit reversion to the version that survived AfD and then take their case to the article's talk page (perhaps with a content RfC) or to BLP/N. Joe 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated for BLP concerns. Most of the keeps failed to factor that in. The truthfulness and verfiabliness has further questioned by this news article. In short, i would overturn AFD and delete, and make sure future incarnations of discussion about the story focus on NYT's journalistic ethics rather than McCain himself. Will ^(talk) 14:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy has been reported extensively in a large number of reliable sources -- please see [94]. Per WP:NPOV, we should not assert that, because one source questions the accuracy of reporting by other reliable sources, that the allegations are unfounded, and that the article therefore merits deletion. Our purpose is to characterize controversies such as this, not to take sides. The article is well sourced, concerns notable events, and does not constitute a WP:BLP violation. John254 14:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is forum shopping, take it to the talk page. We don't review redirects or merges here. If we open those floodgates.....--Doc^g 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might actually have to discuss blanking and redirection at AFD, instead of implementing it unilaterally? Why, the massive edit wars over redirection that are the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 might actually have been prevented. How horrible!. John254 14:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if we're actually concerned about "forum shopping", the consensus to retain the article expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy would have been respected, rather than blanking and redirecting it anyway (editors participating in the AFD discussion would have supported merging, not outright retention, had there been a consensus to do so.) John254 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment standard stuff, no deletion buttons have been pressed and redirecting is an editiorial decision, nothing to review. Similarly AFD debate outcomes aren't binding decisions on the community (Though in the immediate space of time following the debate it is indicative of the commuity feeling, a merge/redirect/whatever decision can still be reached). --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Standard stuff, all right, and wrong. Redirects that amount to the deletion of a substantial article are in effect deletions, and its time we recognized this. this particular one is an obvious attempt to reverse the decision just 3 days ago that the article was not BLP--the views of a few people at an article against general consensus expressed elsewhere in a proper forum that it does not challenge BLP should be respected. This is wikilawering at the most extreme--experienced people using a gap in the procedures to violate clear consensus. DGG (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you think needs recognising, materially what is the difference between discussing the merge/redirect/whatever on the articles talk page and declaring it a deletion and discussing it here? WP:DRV has no special authority, a decision here is no better or worse than a decision elsewhere. (If we truly believe the original deletion debate represents the communities desire to maintain an article (rather than the substantive information), and people don't respect that, why would they respect the outcome here any better?) If the community believes the article should stand, then it'll be a slam dunk wherever it gets discussed. What deletion process would we be reviewing here? The editorial decision to redirect is simple, did someone edit it to a redirect? Yes, process is fine, since that is the defined process. Such things are part of the bold revert discuss cycle, it should simply be reverted by the interested editors and discussion ensues. Are we then reviewing the WP:BRD as a "process"? Isn't the failure of editors on one side or another to do that a behavioural issue best suited to normal dispute resolution?. Wikilawyering I can see what you are getting at, not quite the term, but yes using "the rules" in a precise form to force a view point, again though that's a behavioural issue and should be subject to WP:DR. If the community perceive it to be quite such a problem, they are quite capable of generating new policy for redirections to explicitly cater for such situations. I agree that this sort of thing is frustrating to the editors, but it would also be frustrating if deletion review went for some sort of land grab over editing decisions/discussions, when there are already numerous forums to address those particular issues. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The virtue of considering the matter here is that, if a decision to un-redirect the article is reached, it will be implemented administratively. If, next week, editors assert that consensus has changed and that the article needs to be blanked and redirected again, they may not simply remove the article unilaterally, but would instead need to bring the matter to AFD. Such a process is necessary to avoid a protracted edit war over the redirection of this article. There is no "land grab over editing decisions/discussions" here, since blanking and redirection in this context is tantamount to deletion, and in no way comparable to any ordinary dispute over article content. John254 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, a decision here has no special authority. Here is no different to anywhere else and doesn't make and enforce binding decisions. This page makes decisions the sameway as everywhere else, by consensus, the same consensus can be reached anywhere else and has the same force. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A decision made at an XfD discussion actually carries with it a great deal of authority. Suppose for instance, that an article is deleted as a result of an AFD discussion. Does that deletion thereby technically prevent a user from recreating exactly the same article? No. However, if deleted content is recreated in a "substantial identical" form which does "not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" it is subject to speedy deletion pursuant to CSD G4; the user(s) responsible for recreating the offending material may be warned, and, if necessary, blocked. Likewise, editors who fail to respect a decision here to un-redirect the article may be warned and blocked. While redirection may be discussed at AFD again, users will be forced to stop unilaterally blanking and redirecting the article. John254 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD has special authority with regard to delete/do not delete decisions (administrative actions), not editorial decisions. Editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority and can be revisited at any time at the article talk page. Reverting a redirect is not an administrative action and anyone can rerevert at any time; that's why the recent revert battle in which you involved yourself wasn't a wheel war. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we contend that "editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority", and that redirection really is an "editorial decision", not a deletion, we are essentially approving intractable edit warring over redirections, of the type considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Talk page discussion over redirection probably won't work, because it is a binary decision, as to which no compromise is possible: either the article is redirected, or it isn't. It's not as though we can discuss a new version of the article that might resolve objections to previous competing versions. The only process which has been shown to be amenable to resolving such a matter is an XfD discussion, closed, in controversial cases, by an administrator, and not being subject to unilateral reversal. John254 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is just a recognition of consensus. In the case of G4 is was a consensus reached on xFD. If someone isn't willing to abide by the consensus, it maybe considered disruptive and action taken. This is absolutely no different to a consensus being reached on an articles talk page, we expect people to abide by the consensus and may consider their action disruptive etc. etc. (We have caveat's for G4 such as things changing substantially, the same true for consensus discussion elsewhere). xFD pages having the decision recorded are not magical, the significant part if the consensus reached, that is what we deal with and "enforce". If consensus is reached on the articles talk page it is every bit as enforceable/unenforcable as being reached anywhere else. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because talk pages discussions do not have administrative closure in controversial cases, they often do not have ascertainable outcomes. If we can't know what the consensus is, it cannot be enforced. John254 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is recorded in the discussion, the close is merely a summary and has no impact on the actual consensus reached. This is the way merge/redirect and lots of editorial decisions have been made for years without the need for someone to declare an administrative closure for people to be sure of the outcome, so far (at least) there hasn't been a need to provide for such closure of these debates, if there is then it needs to be discussed and the best way of achieving that established (e.g. asking an admin to close a debate on the talk page after a suitable period of time or whatever), trying to reuse an existing process setup for something quite different is unlikely to be the optimal solution --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep and unredirect. The condition is based upon the fate of the Vicki Iseman article. If Iseman is deleted at DRV, then this article should be retained as it existed before redirection. If the Iseman article is retained, than this article should be redirected to it; there is no need to have two articles that substantially relate to a single event. Horologium (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep/unredirect per DGG and Horologium. I don't know if it was intended to be so but this certainly looks like an attempt to get around the AfD. The consensus to keep was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No action, per Doc. Take this to the talk page, please, where so far as I can tell it has not been brought up; and if you don't like the redirect, you seem quite capable of reverting it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted the redirection once. I hardly think that continued reversion would resolve this issue, however. John254 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close as there's nothing to review here. DRV doesn't have a remit to review merging or redirection, only actual deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, actions which effectively constitute deletions may be reviewed here. John254 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unredirect - and I have done so. This is an attempt at whitewashing and ignoring a major political issue. The controversy is real, the New York Times is not a tabloid. We need to discuss the reports and the criticism in a balanced, NPOV fashion. FCYTravis (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:User jer (and associated categories) – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer's rationale was based on primarily incorrect information. Jèrriais is NOT a dialect of French, but a dialect of the Norman language dating back hundreds of years (with a rich written tradition). After Midnight's claim that it has "no official status anywhere" is also incorrect; Jèrriais is recognized officially as a regional language by the British-Irish Council. A GCSE is also expected to launch soon in Jersey to supplement the current Jèrriais teaching program there. None of us who were listed in the category were contacted for comment, either; this would have helped clear up much of the confusion, I expect. The Jade Knight (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a distinct written form of Jèrriais? If so, can it be understood by those knowledgeable in Norman? My intention in asking this question is whether knowledge of Jèrriais could assist translation efforts directed toward the improvement of articles (e.g. translating a source). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:After Midnight appears to be the closing admin rather than the nominator, so it isn't After Midnight's claim... --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The claim was mine, based on data found in Ethnologue. ([95]) I had a great deal of difficulty finding any information on Jèrrais at first, since it is described as a variation of Norman, which also lacks an ISO 639-3 classification. (Under the older ISO 639-2 system, it was classified as "roa", which is "romance language (other)", but the far more extensive and precise ISO 639-3 system doesn't include Norman.) I finally found information for Jèrrais by searching the Ethnologue database by country, and reading all of the languages and dialects listed in the fairly extensive list of United Kingdom languages. I finally found it, listed as a dialect of French. (The Ethnologue link I provided above links to the main page on French; scroll down to the section on the United Kingdom for the notation of Jèrrais and the essentially similar Dgernesiais, spoken on Guernsey.) SIL International and Ethnologue are recognized as one of the definitive language groups out there, as they hold consultative status with UNESCO. FWIW, ISO 639-3 defines 7,589 languages, 6,912 of which are listed in Ethnologue's 15th edition. "jer", which was being used as the code for the category, is for another obscure language, Jere, which is the primary language of 64,000 people in Nigeria. And in regard to the lack of official recognition, it might be a good idea to add that link you identified to the article on Jèrrais, because there is absolutely no reference to official recognition of the language anywhere in the article, except for a brief mention of local support for signage and a school course. Horologium (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist or is unlikely to ever exist in a particular dialect, then we don't need a category for it. VegaDark (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above and UCFD. --Kbdank71 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Horologium, pending a response to my initial question. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Truth (Cherish album) – Deletion endorsed, but create redirect to Cherish (band). – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sophmore album by Cherish. Album was thought to have have failed WP:MUSIC because it was unreleased and not notable, but the release date was imminent. The lead single, "Killa", has so far peaked at ~~#66~~ #59 on the Billboard Hot 100, [96] and the album is set for release on April 29 [97]. I don't think there was enough consensus to delete, because only one person participated in the debate. Admc2006 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion partly on principle (because few things piss me off more than fans of minor bands creating A7 articles and then asking for review every time another copy is sold, as it were) but mostly because there is no suggestion above that independent reliable sources exist, regardless of one track making it to a low place on the Billboard charts. Try a userspace writeup and see how it goes. Sourcing is key. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Very few minor bands have their upcoming albums announced on Forbes. [98] Catchpole (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment two people participated in the debate and both found sources lacking, seems fairly clear. Notability is not inherited even if the single has arguably become notable (I wouldn't believe it has), doesn't make the album which it may feature on also automatically notable. As the album is unreleased seems a bit of crystal ball gazing going on. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Guy & agree with his frustration. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that Cedead has recreated this article as of 21:55, March 5, 2008. As such I have tagged it for Speedy G4. -- Kesh (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - significant sources are still needed. BlueValour (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Nominator made a string of poor nominations to Afd, this was must have slipped through the cracks. If nothing else this should redirect to Cherish (band) until the album is released, VH-1 have information on their previous release. Forbes have covered the announcement of this album's release date (see reply to Guy). Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Universal_Artists – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.) 96.224.30.35 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Universal_Artists[reply]

Endorse deletion, per WP:CSD criteria A7 and G11. Yet another article on a Brand New Company by a single-purpose account. No sources, no claim of notability, likely conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article didn't say a thing about why this business was notable; it just listed the four main people and some of their previous activities. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

MileyWorld – Speedy deletion endorsed. No action taken on redirect currently in place. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Website is notable. See, for example, this article (text is from eOnline, but it was in several newspapers, apparently), directly stating this is a notable website. There's San Francisco Gate, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the Kansas City Star (these are all wholly different articles; there are repeats in other notable newspapers like the Washington Post0. This is multiple non-trivial mentions, and does not qualify for speedy deletion. PS. If undeletion is chosen, then please fix Image:Mileyworld.jpg so it's not deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Unfortunately, the news articles you provided did not qualify the website under WP:WEB. eOnline is just one source, not multiple sources. The others all fall under "Trivial Coverage." The San Francisco Gate offers only a brief description (3); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer merely mentions the name (1); and the Kansas City Star contains MileyWorld in a Letter to the Editor, which is unreliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The Miley Cyrus official fan club web site should be discussed in the Miley Cyrus article rather than in a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No independent sources establishing notability, article seems to have been promotional not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the page could also have been deleted as a G11. There was no indication of importance in the article. The content is unsourced and, judging by the reference provided by the nominator, quite possibly inaccurate. BlueValour (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per King of Hearts. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. See this sentence, "Being a member of www.mileyworld.com, you get a chance to enter contests to win clothes Miley wore, signed guitars, and more." That has promotional written all over it... --Smashville^BONK! 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

CareFlash – Endorse deletion as a proper WP:CSD#A7. Author has been given a copy for improvement in userspace. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion Review Klostermankl (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needed a little work. It was not advertising but informing those who could use it. I believe this page to be no different than the pages created for Facebook, MySpace, Revolutionary Health, or any other company for that matter. I don't quite understand why it was deleted, and if I make any further changes to this page or regarding this page, I will be careful not to appear as though it was advertising. My appologies. I request that this page be restored. Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at WP:AFD. The article did have at least one independent reliable source [99] which would have been taken into account had the article gone through the full deletion process at WP:AFD. The article should not have been speedily deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at WP:AFD per Metropolitan. --Veritas (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have asked the deleting admin for restore and list at WP:AFD but request is being ignored User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deleted_Page:_CareFlash Also the article author has notified the admin of deletion review User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deletion_Review_for_CareFlash Igor Berger (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After taking a look at the deleted article, I can say that whether or not it was advertising, there wasn't any assertion of notability, and therefore qualified for SD under A7. I can't support restoring this, as it would certainly be deleted following an AfD. However, if someone would like to have what was there so that they could work on improving the article in their userspace, I'd be happy to give them the deleted text. faithless (^speak) 11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of an advertorial-style article on a company of questionable importance, written by someone whose username matches that of the CEO of the subject (Bob Klosterman), and whose only contributions are this article and promoting the subject in another article. Userfy for Igor if he wants to work on it and completely rewrite to remove the spamminess and add proper sourcing establishing significance. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I advised the original aurthor of such affect, that the he can get the copy of the original article and continue working on it in his sandbox, if he so desires. When I first saw the article I did not believe that CSD was prudent but AFD should have been the route. But being that the article has been reviewed for notability, it has met my satisfaction of the process. Now it is up to the author of the article to improve it, if the interest is there. Thank you for the review. Igor Berger (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the article. I tried to tag it for deletion but an admin prevented me and reverted my tag. User_talk:NawlinWiki#CareFlash_deletion Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here Igor Berger (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 March 2008

Synth Rock – Synth Rock restored, others deletion endorsed. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

- 06:58, 15 February 2008 East718 (talk · contribs · logs) deleted Rocktronica (CSD R1: Redirect to nonexistent page)
- 09:24, 27 February 2008 Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · logs) deleted Synth rock ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Appears to be nonexistant genre, product of original research)
- 09:43, 27 February 2008 East718 (talk · contribs · logs) deleted Synth Rock ‎ (CSD R1: Redirect to nonexistent page)

(original request) The page for synth rock (as well as rocktronica, but that's a minority) has been deleted for being a "non-existant genre".

What makes it non-existant when it's not?
What do we call bands that use elements of electronica and rock, but aren't dance-punk?
If we can't do the above, is it possible to undelete it?

Thank you for your time Titan50 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synth rock exists, probably we can find sources for it if we look hard enough, but the deleted article was not compliant with policy. I think that userfying and pointing the author to the music project is the est way to handle this. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate synthrock, endorse the rest Will ^(talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Synth rock as contested prod. The redirects Synth Rock (to Synth rock) and Rocktronica have correctly been deleted as redirects with missing targets and no significant history so there isn't anything to review there. The target of Rocktronica, namely List of Rocktronica musicians, has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rocktronica musicians), but unless there is an explicit request to review that as well, I'd simply follow JzG's suggestion for that case, i.e. that given its history any article Rocktronica should better be prepared first in user space. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've interpreted above as reasonable contention and restored Synth rock as well as mentioned this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 27, where the related cat is being discussed. It may still be a case for AfD though.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg – No consensus to overturn. I would like to assume good faith, but I sense there is a large undercurrent in this debate that is not actually about our NFCC policy. There were a number of arguments on both sides of the debate that seemed to be based on misunderstandings of copyright law and/or our NFCC policy. Firstly anonymous works are copyrighted. This is indisputable. It is arguable if they can be placed in the public domain or not, but there is no way to verify if Anonymous (notice capital "A") placed this work into the public domain. NFCC10a demands source and copyright holder. A source was found (seemingly midway through the debate). Please note that WP:NFCC does not require that this source be linked to. A specific description of where this source can be found in some other media may be acceptable as well (although this is not relevant as a source was found that could be linked to...again, the undercurrent and implication of where the first source for the image was, has likely colored the discussion). The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous). This leaves the debate on if this image is replaceable. I see no consensus on this point. – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"It's a logo!" was used to get the image kept. It's not a logo, it's a poster, and RFU at that. And it's no way official - I saw four logos on /b/ within the sapce of 5 minutes last Saturday. Will ^(talk) 15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the requester's statement. Please reword and/or expand. Why do you want what done? Per what policy? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's replaceable fair use, thus should be deleted per NFCC #1. People are claiming it's the logo specifically to controvert NFCC, but there are so many different logos it's also a POV issue. We also can't identify the copyright owner (again, bad), or the source of the interior image. Will ^(talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, this is not a logo. It's replaceable fair use. --Core desat 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention -- irrespective of whether this image does or does not actually constitute a logo, it is clearly irreplaceable in the sense that it is necessarily to illustrate the propaganda employed by Anonymous (group), which is not likely to be released in a freely licensed form. John254 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I note that the original argument that the image was replaceable presented in the IfD discussion was predicated on the probability of the discretionary freely licensed release of this or a similar image by a member of Anonymous (group). This argument proves too much, however: the deletion of any fair use image could be justified on the grounds that it is replaceable in consideration of the prospect of the copyright holder releasing it under a free license. John254 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, I agree w/ Coredesat (talk · contribs), a free-use alternative could be used instead. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. This image is clearly non-replaceable. If you tried to create a new image using freely licensed images, it would not be the same thing, and would thus misrepresent the group. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image depicts the group]... and look! David was nice enough to release it under the GFDL! 12:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment: The article the image in question is to be used in was created to differentiate from Project Chanology, which is a protest David's image represents. The people in that photo are not Anonymous as a whole. Anonymous, as a whole, cannot be represented by "people". It's a group and subculture that firmly rejects representation. As such, the two uniform cartoon images most commonly used to represent them, an invisible suited male, and a green skinned, suited male are the only acceptable images for representing Anonymous.--Cast (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. Despite the fact that this image uses the demotivator "poster" format, it most certainly functions as a logo. Why? The image is a graphical symbol with easy recognition that is used to identify the group. It is placed in posters, flyers, forums, and (I believe) website defacements to mark the group. The logo vs. poster point was discussed in the origional IMD which resulted in Keep, but if more evidence is needed, I now present several examples of the image in anonymous propaganda, as contrasted with similar usage of corporate logos: Anon 1 vs. Coca-Cola ad, logo of the time; Anon 2 vs. Apple ad, logo of the time; Anon 3 vs. Batman Returns, logo; Anon 5 vs. Dodge ad, logo of the time, note dodge/chrysler vs. xenu.net/anon similarity; Anon 6 vs. Half-Life ad site, logo. Apologies for the imageshack'ing - encyclopedia dramatica links are blocked, but here they are a main source of anon propaganda. Z00r (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but read my supplemental note. I saw four logos on /b/ within the sapce of 5 minutes last Saturday. Nothing's going to be an official logo, thus presents a POV issue if it's used as such. Will ^(talk) 14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going into /b/ is basically the equivalent of walking into the middle of an internal marketing meeting at a company. Of course there are going to be tons of images being thrown around. However, if you look at the logos Anon presents to the outside world, there are only a few, as is consistent with how most traditional organizations (most big corporations have several logos). Z00r (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as soon as I saw this, I recognized it as a salable item from a popular website, and was going to nominate it for deletion myself, so thank you for it already being here! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really? Salable? And where can you buy it then? It isn't "from a popular website." It isn't from any particular website. You can find it haunting the internet in many locations.--Cast (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep Anonymous doesn't claim copyright. In fact, I'd say the very nature of the "organization" means they don't claim copyrights. Anonymously releasing an image with the intent that it be spread without being attributed to you is really the same as releasing something into the public domain. Mind you, anonymous isn't some hierarchical organization with a formal setup. It is really just a bunch of people who do as they please without asking for any recognition of their efforts. Anyone can join and distribute images all over the Internet. As such I would say it should really just say public domain, not fair use.

As it concerns the image being a poster, it was earlier pointed out that the image was created using a software that is on their site, but was not created by them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works are automatically copyrighted unless the copyright holder specifically releases it into the public domain. Will ^(talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. My point is the very nature of creating something and releasing it as a member of anonymous is the same as releasing it into the public domain because that person is knowingly providing an image which will be spread around the Internet by complete strangers most likely and never attributed to them. A person giving their consent to such a thing is the same as a person releasing their work into the public domain.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. The inherent nature of Anon's bases, like 4chan, is the expectation - indeed the hope - that these things will spread around, and maybe even become a meme. And it's implied then that it might be taken and manipulated, changed, etc. And geez, just look at the name. They're not going to identify themselves or claim copywrite anyway, it's part of the nature of the group. It would be difficult to prove that any single person even created the image, anyway. Posting into placed like /b/ and 4chan is implied consent to release it to the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soonlaypale (talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally don't see why we don't just use the image David Shankbone took that actually depicts members of the group, in place of this image. --Core desat 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article the image in question is to be used in was created to differentiate from Project Chanology, which is a protest David's image represents. The people in that photo are not Anonymous as a whole. Anonymous, as a whole, cannot be represented by "people". It's a group and subculture that firmly rejects representation. As such, the two uniform cartoon images most commonly used to represent them, an invisible suited male, and a green skinned, suited male are the only acceptable images for representing Anonymous.--Cast (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete - Logo or not, it's replaceable fair use AND lacks a source. There's an available free alternative to represent the band. Lara_Love^Talk 22:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These concerns are important, but they were already considered at the IfD, which resulted in keep, and no one has presented new evidence. The original IfD considered whether the image was replaceable and determined it was not. The original IfD discussed the problems with sourcing the image and determined that it was fair use even though no source could be found. Z00r (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no source can be found, it fails WP:NFCC 10a. Simple as that. Will ^(talk) 09:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous - there is a distinction between the author and the source. No author can be found, although I'm sure listing the source where the image was obtained would be trivial. WP:Citing Sources, linked from WP:NFCC 10a states (emphasis mine), "It is important that you list the author of the image if known (especially if different from the source), which is important both for copyright and for informational purposes." In this case, it is unfortunate that the ~~source~~ author is not known, but not necessairily a deal-breaker. Thus the extensive discussion of fair use... Z00r (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a (non-ED) source: [100] post 52888075 (about 1/4 the way down the page). Z00r (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't need to be listed here. It needs to be listed on the image page. Also, I get I'm arguing the same points as the IFD discussion, thus my vote to overturn as it was wrong. One of those where the weight of arguments should have resulted in a delete against the majority vote. Lara_Love^Talk 13:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source added to the image page! (formatting is confusing, hopefully someone with more knowledge can fix) Z00r (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and Keep The Image Documents one of Anonymous's main propaganda images. It is relevant and fair use --81.133.62.215 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep This image is the most commonly used logo for Anonymous. Like logos of companies, it should be kept regardless of copyright.--Theymos (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per LaraLove. It seems strange to me that we're even having this conversation! Obviously a blatant vio of NFCC #10a. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per LaraLove and Riana. GlassCobra 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When looking at the IfD you'll notice a few anonymous editors came in to say it is basically the logo of anonymous and should be kept. The nature of anonymous means any logo they produce would not be clearly released into the public domain or attributed to a source. However, the nature of the group suggests anything they produce and release as a member of anonymous is public domain. I mean, a member of anonymous literally creates an image and releases it for anyone to use without attributing it to the original creator and does this knowingly, in fact, largely intending for it to happen. At the very least this implies consent for use if not an outright waiver of copyright.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use images based on implications. Either the copyright has been explicitly waived, or it's non-free. Will ^(talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least there's permission to copy, at the most it's released into the public domain. I just don't see why we're even arguing over whether this violates copyright. Given the nature of Anonymous, we'd know if they didn't want this image used. Hell, I think they already gave us their position in the IfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to believe we are even having this discussion - 1) the image already passed IfD handily, 2) it is an important logo that helps distinguish the general Anonymous from the Chanology Anonymous, 3) it easily qualifies for fair use assuming full copyright, 4) even if it didn't then there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that anyone would ever claim copyright or be able to enforce it, and 5) it now has a source as per NFCC 10a. I think some editors may be taking a personal vendetta out on Anonymous for past trolling and vandalism. In some sense I can understand this - from time to time their trolling has annoyed me as well - but it is not a reason to sabotage the article. Z00r (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even paying close enough attention to realize who they are. I thought it was a band. Seemed like a strange logo for a band, but then I figured that's why people were disputing whether or not it is actually a logo. Regardless, I don't see the necessity. Where's the link that shows there is no copyright? Lara_Love^Talk 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok, well here is a bit of quick background information to get you up to speed: Anonymous (group) is an amorphous collection of internet forum and imageboard users who traditionally engaged in trolling, vandalism, prank calls, and other nonsense. However, recently they have become notable due to several real-life activities that have drawn considerable media coverage and commentary. The image in question is Anonymous's de facto logo/banner/flag - they place it in propaganda, flyers, forums, picket signs, and (I believe) website defacements as a form of identification, and it is closely tied to the group's perceived identity. No one knows who originally made the image since everything on the Anonymous boards is posted anonymously (heh), but editors such as myself believe that it falls under fair use as a logo even under the strictest copyright provisions, similar to the way the logos for corporations like BMW are considered fair use. This is discussed in more depth on the IfD page, and I will be happy to provide you with more details if needed. Z00r (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/Delete - NFCC 10a. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely a bad faith nomination? 82.32.195.193 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention -- Has nothing else to offer the conversation, but seriously, if the maker of the logo came and said it was bad to use on wiipedia, could it possibly make any difference? 24.181.243.82 (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the creator simply states "it's bad for wikipedia," that means nothing. Wikipedia is not at the service of pov statements by individuals with a conflict of interest. Wiki goes by what is notable. That said, if the creator instead stated "I do not give permission for this image to be used," that would be something else entirely. However, that is practically impossible. That image has been floating around for years now. If someone were to step forward at this point, they'd have no way to prove they created the image.--Cast (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wakfu – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think speedy deletion of a page about an MMORPG under active development was appropriate under CSD A7, which "applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." (Emphasis added) I'd like to see the article reinstated in time for the game's upcoming beta test. I left a note on the talk page of the deleting admin, KnowledgeOfSelf, not realizing he/she has retired from Wikipedia. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion article was tagged as an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, online game (Emphasis added), or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7) - Wakfu is a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game and did meet CSD A7 in my opinion - specifically it also had elements of WP:Crystal indicating in its lead paragraph Very little is known about the game at this time, but Ankama has promised to keep users posted with trailers, concept art, screenshots, etc. every two weeks..--VS ^talk 10:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The text in the template conflicts with the text of WP:CSD A7, which mentions "web content" but not the broader term "online game". Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion web-content with no assertion of notability. Article specifically stated that very little was known about it, and then pleaded with people to keep checking because the creator of the game promises to leak details over time. Wikipedia is not an online game promotion site. As it has been created multiple times also salt. If it ever does become notable, it can be unsalted at that future time. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid A7. The article had stuff like what the characters were, but no assertation of any notability whatsoever. An incomplete/unreleased game would have to be pretty darn special to have an article of its own, and some rock-solid reliable sources. This had nothing of the sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no indication of its importance so valid A7. Even with such an indication the page would have severe problems - no secondary sources, no real world context, crystalballism etc TerriersFan (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vicki Iseman – Closure endorsed. This was a somewhat tricky closure, as there was no consensus to overturn a no consensus decision. The thoughtful discussion in this DRV has served to elaborate many policy points that were brought up in the AfD, so I considered these on the strength with which they followed the letter and the spirit of policy in question. There are two main factors that led me to make this decision. One is the fact that the spirit of WP:BLP (i.e. do no harm) is better served with retention of the article than a "...Controversy" fork alone. Were the subject of the article actively requesting its deletion, I would suspect the outcome of this debate would be very different. Also, arguments coming from the letter of a WP:ONEEVENT perspective are cast into active doubt because other aspects of the subject's life as a major lobbyist (a marginally public figure) may have notability revealed by but not inherited from the case. The fact that reliable sources have picked up on these details is supportive of this argument. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as no consensus despite very well supported BLP-based case for deletion. Closing admin has discussed and defended the close and recommends review [101]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. My personal view is that closures should follow the rough editorial consensus absent compelling reasons to do otherwise. This AfD was fairly straight-forward, there was no shortage of input, there was almost no canvassing/sockpuppeting, and the arguments for deletion were IMO reasonable but indecisive. WP:ONEEVENT references seem rather strenuous considering the significance of the event. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since John McCain lobbyist controversy exists, the "significance of the event" argument doesn't hold -- all significant information about that event can go into that article. There is no reason to override WP:ONEEVENT or the other aspects of WP:BLP that directly apply here and have never been shot down by any Keep arguments. I made detailed, very explicit arguments at AfD because a majority didn't seem to be listening to the WP:BLP arguments. That may have been because WP:BLP1E (link corrected; time stamp below) no longer links to WP:BLP, but rather to WP:BIO, so Delete/Merge arguments were cut off at the knees when editors like me were confused about that. The switch in that shortcut may be a reason to relist the debate, as I posted at the top of the AfD.Noroton (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC) (corrected link Noroton (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think merging Vicki Iseman and John McCain lobbyist controversy is an unreasonable idea by any means. But DRV isn't the place for that; merging options can (and should, for the sake of clarity) be discussed on the talk page after an AfD is closed as keep.

Again, I think WP:ONEEVENT allusions are very tenuous given the obvious long-term significance of this particular event. Whether or not the information could theoretically be placed anywhere doesn't change that. WP:ONEEVENT really was not meant to preclude proper coverage of events of this magnitude (hence its qualifications); the relevant talk page discussions and ArbCom proceedings make this clear. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. You cannot just wave the policies and essays of "BLP", "COATRACK" and "BLP1E" and use them to say "this must therefore be deleted, end of discussion" without considering if there really is a violation of those policies. In fact, BLP1E and COATRACK arguments were in my view very unconvincing since the article focuses on Iseman's achievements as a lobbyist, and not on the nonsense speculation from the New York Times. If the article was a repeat of the NYT story, that would be a coatrack and BLP1E, but this article is in fact a complete biography. Read the article. The McCain story is just mentioned briefly with a link in the lead. The rest of the article is about Iseman's education, and her career. The NYT silliness is probably what gave Iseman name recognition for most people who know her name now, but it is her activities in working with politicians which has given her real significance. The WP:BLP policy is mainly a policy on how to write biographies on living people, not whether to write such biographies, and with every statement in the article well sourced, there is no violation. The closure was entirely correct. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Cover the event, not the person. - we cover the event, we don't need to cover the person. Will ^(talk) 11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and compromise at merge redirect to John McCain lobbyist controversy. The notability of this individual is already decreasing to "yesterday's news" and we have the only thing she is notable for covered as the "event" per WP:BLP1E. Closing admin got it wrong, this is a BLP issue, a consensus to keep is needed, whereas there is a consensus here to do something other than keeping a biography. I nominated for, and still prefer, deletion, but a merge would be a fair compromise.--Doc^g 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I like that tool! Look at this: stats for "John McCain lobbyist controversy". Comparing the numbers for the person with the numbers for the controversy, it's possible to state with confidence: this is an ex-parrot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The tool, of course, suffers from the Heisenberg Principle.--Doc^g 12:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting: the stats for the article on McCain. Avb 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse as major contributor. I have pledged to abide by the AfD. Now, I'm surprised that within minutes of unsuccessful AfD, the page was redirected, as if no one had objected to this exact action prior to to the AfD. I have reverted the redirect as against the consensus measured (in the AfD and VI talk). I encourage this correct process, but am disappointed with the unsupported redirect by Doc. Since Doc appears so interested in getting his way here, I'm just going to stop fighting him, even though in this case I believe he's incorrect, and consensus already has been measured as against his action. BusterD (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is not the same as a deletion, it is an editorial decision that stands apart from the deletion process. --Doc^g 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you say, Doc. BusterD (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop attacking people who disagree with you, please? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Comment for clarity. Your view is of course important Doc but as an admin you are probably aware that at point 7 here it does not state that a consensus to keep is needed - it in fact states that If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the article is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, such as No consensus - default to keep, in order to minimise ambiguity and future confusion. As the closing admin that is exactly what view and decision I took. Whatever happens here so be it but there was no consensus to delete even as BLP and even less of an interest or consensus to merge. Best wishes--VS ^talk 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Doc - it is extremely inappropriate to redirect after the AfD and whilst this DRV is in place. Please abide by the first decision of the umpire and await the Video Ref.--VS ^talk 12:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected unaware of this DRV, please assume good faith. Plus, redirection is not deletion, and AfD cannot preclude it.--Doc^g 12:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough your edit summary of no consensus to delete perhaps, but certainly a consensus to merge/redirect) made it look like you were acting in direct opposition to the closure of the AfD - good faith is your right and assumed - but now you know. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 12:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the AfD was closed as no consensus to delete. I did not delete.--Doc^g 13:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you like - but it was also not a consensus to re-direct. I leave you to it - but I ask you to again await the decision of this secondary process, and as my understanding of you is that you are a good editor and admin I continue to assume good faith that you will do just that. Again my best wishes to you. --VS ^talk 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The has decided to redirect anyway. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected - Yes I noted that he has - and such an action was completely inappropriate. I have reverted and protected for now and I urge all persons including Tony aka Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The to await the outcome of DRV especially when that editor has asked for the review. If the DRV results in a change of view on my AfD closure that will be accepted by me without qualm. --VS ^talk 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse close I would likely have endorsed the close if this had been closed as a merger and that should still be strongly considered and possibly discussed on the talk page. But a no consensus is a reasonable close as well. The redirection in the middle of this DRV is not so good but I believe Doc when he says that he was unaware of this discussion. Claims that ONEVENT/BLP1E and others somehow necessitate overturning are highly unpersuasive. In general, we should respect actual consensus or lack thereof when deciding BLP-penumbra issues. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for more about this issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and redirect None of the "keep" arguments provided a rationale that overrides policy. WP:ONEEVENT is policy. As I noted in the AfD, outside of two trivial events (a listing of her clients from her now-deleted profile page at her firm, and a note about her speaking at a school board meeting), none of the sources covered her outside of the context of her relationship with McCain. All of the relevant information is at John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is an appropriate article. In fact, her name should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, because this whole kerfuffle isn't about her, it's about McCain. That is why the coatrack analogy has been applied; it's "all about George" (or in this case, "all about John"). WP:COAT is not an appropriate deletion rationale, but the application of policy is incontrovertibly correct. Cover the event, not the person. Horologium (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn BLP is policy and AFD consensus should be measured against policy not headcount. The closing comments do not address the BLP aspect so it is not clear that this was properly weighed in the close. I would personally go for a straight redirect to the controversy article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse some political events are important, and this is one of them. Itwill remain in the histories of the campaign when its written. I wish people would realize that the presumption of privacy does not apply to really major politicians such as presidential candidates, and those involved with them to the extent that they are already covered by the news media extensively. In such circumstances, if an article is reliably sourced it meets BLPDGG (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Nobody is disagreeing that the event is important. Vicki Iseman, however, is not important. The event is mentioned and linked from five other articles in Wikipedia, including John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is the article specifically addressing the event. Horologium (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article you mention was just destructively redirected, despite clear consensus at the afd to keep it. (Its now up for deletion review, on the grounds that this redirect amounts to a deletion). this shows a certain determination to get rid of the content regardless. The consensus of the community has been repeatedly expressed on this one, and it shoud stand. DGG (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have contributed to that discussion. My position is that having two articles is clearly unnecessary, and support keeping that article and deleting this one. The BLP issues in that article can be fixed, but not in this one, and the community's "consensus" cannot override policy. Horologium (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless We can do anything we damn well please (WCDAWDWP) is the governing philosophy (and I'm not confident that it isn't), then this DRV discussion needs to focus on whether or not the closing admin misinterpreted the debate. The only misinterpretation that would get us anywhere close to rehashing the AfD itself is over the question of how much certain votes should be discounted because they ignored or argued against policy rather than giving an acceptable interpretation of it. If editors would prefer to overrule WP:BLP this isn't the proper forum for that, and WP:Ignore All Rules could be argued, but there would need to be an extremely strong case that it would be best for the encyclopedia to ignore WP:BLP. See WP:DRV: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer -- nor for that matter should it be used to rehash the debate if you agree with the outcome. Am I wrong about any of this? Noroton (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I notice that it took a while for a closing admin to weigh into the 84K-long, difficult AfD and I appreciate and applaud the admin who took on the responsibility. I also appreciate the regard for consensus and the editor's statement that policy was considered. It could not have been easy, and the closing admin has earned my respect for that. With one point I would quarrel: In this kind of detailed, long, contentious AfD it would have been better to close with a more detailed statement about how the decision actually related to policy. I disagree with the closing decision because consensus (or in this case a lack of consensus) cannot overturn policy, and no policy-based argument was put forth for Keep, while very detailed policy-based arguments were given for delete or merge. The Keep side really hasn't done it's job in providing those arguments while the common-sense application of WP:ONEEVENT, a policy has been shown to be obvious. That being the case, Keep votes must be discounted and a "rough consensus" declared, probably for "delete" (too few "merge" votes, which was my choice). The only guidelines I can find for closing admins is at WP:DGFA where the "Rough Consensus" section states very clearly:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. [...]

A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.

I put some hard work into providing policy-based arguments against Keep. I did so because as an editor participating in that discussion, I was obligated to try to apply policy and guidelines as well as my common sense more than my personal preferences. I do not see evidence on that AfD page that adequate policy-based arguments were presented by the other side. I don't see evidence in the closing statement that the closing admin adequately considered how little the Keep editors relied on policy even though good policy arguments were presented on the Delete/Merge side. It does not appear that WP:DGFA was followed, therefore the closing was outside deletion policy and should be overturned. Noroton (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, redirect and/or delete, without casting aspersions on the good faith of anyone involved. WP:BLP is an important principle, and here we have a person whose role in public life is so minor that without the one regrettable event any article would be a slam-dunk delete; we should cover such matters not as pretended biographies (which are essentially coatracks, as noted) but as events. This event involves more than one person, is inextricably linked to a political campaign with attendant muckraking, and most of the interest in the individual is purely salacious. We should not be bolstering this. An existing article exists on the campaign and its controversies, and that is where this material should go. A redirect is unproblematic, a biography is not because there is no reason for this person to have any ongoing coverage. In twenty years time the article will still be "X is some girl that was involved with a politician and that ended up in the news". Guy (Help!) 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's even more tenuous than that, actually. "X was a girl that a politician's aides, anonymously, told a newspaper they thought might have been too close to politician Y". There is no evidence, in all this mess, that Vicki Iseman was ever involved with anybody, appropriately or inappropriately. Nor has the New York Times claimed that she was (and they were severely lambasted by their Public Editor for running the story, given the lack of evidence) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure -- the task of an administrator in closing an AFD discussion is to effectuate the consensus expressed, not to employ the closure as a forum for his or her own personal views regarding the acceptability of an article's subject matter. The closure of this discussion as "no consensus" is exemplary in its adherence to this principle. Absent an extrodinarily compelling reason, such as an article which is comprised of unsourced controversial material concerning living persons or copyright infrigements, administrators must not delete articles being discussed at AFD without an actual consensus to do so. While an article which substantially violates the biographies of living persons policy should be deleted, the determination of whether any particular article actually constitutes a WP:BLP violation is to be made by means of consensus, except in the case of articles which are comprised of inadequately sourced, potentially libelous material. Since this article is clearly not such a blatant WP:BLP violation as to warrant deletion against consensus, the AFD discussion was properly closed. John254 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus disagrees with you on the task of the closing admin, as I demonstrated in my post at 17:33. Strength of argument counts, not simply that there was an argument, however weak.Noroton (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course AFD discussions should be closed on the basis of the strength of arguments. However, the relative merits of the arguments presented is a subjectivity that is better assessed collectively by the established contributors participating in an AFD discussion than by the single administrator closing it. (Note that some of the editors supporting retention of the article are administrators themselves.) Furthermore, as I argue below, deletion of the article is radically inconsistent with the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy, as the deletion would compromise our neutrality and fair treatment of Vicki Iseman by ensuring that we provide no positive coverage whatsoever, and instead mention only the controversy surrounding her. John254 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the relative merits of the arguments presented is a subjectivity that is better assessed collectively by the established contributors participating in an AFD discussion than by the single administrator closing it. Yet again (as below) you're twisting a policy or guideline into something exactly the opposite of what it means. The passage in WP:DGFA that I quoted directly contradicts you. It is the closing admin's job to assess how well policy has been adhered to by editors in the discussion. You've been arguing that the Keep arguments adhered strongly enough to policy not to be radically discounted, but your own arguments are weak even right here. Noroton (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus does state that the single administrator closing an AFD discussion should personally consider and weigh the merits of the arguments presented. What must not be overlooked is that this policy provision is intended to be applied to a particular situation, namely, one in which either outright sockpuppetry or the participation of a large number of inexperienced or otherwise unrepresentative users results in a large number of comments in an AFD discussion which are contrary to community-wide policy and consensus. It is singularly inappropriate for an administrator closing an AFD discussion to misapply Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus by claiming that his or her judgment regarding the correct application of policy to the article in question is so far superior to even the judgement of other administrators in this respect that his or her personal assessment of the merits of the arguments presented outweighs the judgement of all other established users, including other administrators, partipating in the discussion. John254 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"For example", "including" in 1st paragraph. 'Nuff said. Noroton (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the claim that Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is somehow a "coatrack" for the John McCain lobbyist controversy is without merit, as the article focuses almost entirely on Vicki Iseman's career, mentioning the controversy only briefly. An important aspect of the enforcement of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is to uphold the intent of the policy, not to enforce the letter of the policy in a manner contrary to its purpose -- see WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Arguments for the deletion of this article focused on a largely mechanical application of WP:BLP1E to the subject matter, without considering whether the general mandate of the policy to strictly adhere to a neutral point of view and "do no harm" is thereby effectuated. Is it seriously contended that limiting coverage of Vicki Iseman to the John McCain lobbyist controversy article, thereby covering only the controversial aspects of her life, and nothing about the positive aspects of her career, somehow furthers the application of WP:NPOV and "do no harm"? John254 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under the 2-4 definitions at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Interpreting WP:BLP or WP:BIO (your link to WP:BLP1E at this point confuses me for the reasons explained in my 19:06 comment below) to demand that we provide "positive coverage" of a person notable for only one event contravenes both the spirit of WP:BLP and the direct language of the WP:ONEEVENT section. This is the kind of illogical, weak argument that is found on the AfD page, which is the only reason we can bring it up here because this is not AfD Part 2. We are obligated to be "fair" in our coverage of an event. We are not obligated to say nice things about someone in their own WP article because something bad about them was said (insinuated, actually) in an article on an event. Having something not nice written about you in Wikipedia is not a notability criterion for an article. From WP:DGFA: Arguments that contradict policy, ... or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Noroton (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument. I never claimed that "anytime we mention a person in the context of negative events, we must provide an article on the positive aspects of that persons life." Indeed, if the only reliably sourced information concerning a person relates to their participation in negative events, we cannot, consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability, have an article about other aspects of their life. Our coverage of Vicki Iseman presents a particular set of issues: our present article demonstrates that it is possible to provide substantial reliably sourced information concerning her accomplishments, and place the events described in John McCain lobbyist controversy in context. To exclude any well-sourced favorable coverage of Vicki Iseman from our encyclopedia, and describe only her involvement in the John McCain lobbyist controversy, is the precisely the sort of negatively biased coverage that is incompatible with both our neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies. This is only "wikilawyering" to the extent that the biographies of living persons policy is viewed as a deletionists' charter, instead of a policy designed to ensure that our coverage of living people is accurate, fair, and balanced. John254 19:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to mention her by name at all, either in the controversy article, or in this "biographical" article. The article covering the issue does not suffer by omitting her name (simply identifying her as a lobbyist is sufficient). The sources for the New York Times article were described as a pair of "disillusioned" and former McCain employees, and their allegations have been denied by McCain and Iseman. More importantly, they have been denied by McCain's former communications director, Dan Schnur, who is not involved with McCain at all at this point. He stated that the allegations were "highly implausible", and added there he was totally unaware of any discussions about the alleged relationship while he was working for McCain. [102] The public editor of the Times very frankly criticized the paper's handling of the entire story, and stated that they provided no evidence of a relationship between the two.[103]

Precedent on Wikipedia has been to remove articles on people whose notoriety stems primarily from a single incident; Alison Stokke, "QZ", and Crystal Gail Mangum as primary examples. The first is the most relevant; there was nothing derogatory in her bio, and she had apparently held track records of some sort, but her notoriety stemmed almost solely from her emergence as an internet phenomenon from a YouTube video, and the rumors and salacious speculation surrounding a totally innocent act. In the case of Iseman, without the gossip (and that is all it is), she is as utterly non-notable as the thousands of other lobbyists in Washington, and we shouldn't be in the business of republishing rumors and gossip. Horologium (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the situations aren't comparative at all. Alison Stokke was a teenager who had nasty things said about her on the internet. That's not at all in the same category as a major lobbyist who has been mentioned and discussed in major newspapers. Furthermore, given how much attention this matter has received the idea that a Wikipedia article will substantially alter the level of public attention is close to laughable. In any event, this is not AfD round 2. We should let community consensus decide what to do in such cases, in this case there was not sufficient consensus to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that

(1) Vicki Iseman's name is currently present in John McCain lobbyist controversy.

(2) It is likely that any effort to redact the name would not achieve consensus.

(3) There is actually little precedent for completely censoring any mention of people who are mentioned in nationwide journalistic coverage of notable events.

Any argument predicated upon such an inappropriate action as completely redacting Vicki Iseman's name from John McCain lobbyist controversy should be withheld unless such a redaction has actually been effectuated and maintained against what will doubtless be many outraged users. Articles such as those described above are actually quite different cases: Crystal Gail Mangum, for example, was deleted as a genuine coatrack, because it provided exceedingly negative coverage of Crystal Gail Mangum's participation in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case and little else. Our article concerning Vicki Iseman obviously does not suffer from this deficiency, as it is primarily concerned with well-sourced, positive aspects of her career. Special:Undelete/Alison Stokke was deleted on the grounds of genuinely harmful publicity, as the article related to a person with no voluntary participation in public life who had a notability which she regarded as embarrassing thrust upon her through no fault of her own. Vicki Iseman may be distinguished on two grounds: that lobbyists are intentionally public figures, and that her notability arose as a result of alleged fault asserted by highly reliable sources such as The New York Times. John254 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

WP:BLP1E as a shortcut' I only found out after a closer review of this AfD that WP:BLP1E (oops. Corrected at the time noted at bottom. I miswrote it when I called it WP:BLP#1E, which DOES direct to WP:BLP, and how's THAT for confusion?), despite the fact that it has "BLP" in it, no longer directs to the WP:BLP policy but now directs to the WP:BIO guideline. As can be seen in the AfD, and now on Doc Glasgow's talk page, some experienced editors who were used to that shortcut as a link to the section in WP:BLP were inadvertently directing people to the WP:BIO page. (The new link to the WP:BLP section is WP:ONEEVENT.) The shortcut was apparently changed months ago in an ... ill-advised move to delete the "one event" section of WP:BLP and when the section was restored the shortcut remained at WP:BIO. One of the most strenuous Keep editors, User:Therefore, was following the BLP#1E link that editors were referring to and was evidently confused for a while (he did not change his vote when the confusion was finally cleared up). Some of the Keep editors who participated in the earlier stages of the debate may well have had their decisions affected by the confusion. Although I think this DRV discussion should result in overturning, it would be completely justifiable to relist. I've offered (at the top of the AfD page) to contact every editor who participated in the AfD to make them aware of the difference and offer them an opportunity to reconsider, since they may have been confused. My offer stands, but only if the AfD is relisted. (It seems to me that, absent a complete merger of policies or guidelines, editors should not be allowed to redirect a shortcut to a policy/guideline page for just this reason.) I realize that the shortcut was changed months ago, but does anyone really want to argue that editors need to check each time they type a shortcut into an AfD discussion? They're called "shortcuts" for a reason. Noroton (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC) (corrected link as noted above Noroton (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Arguing that an article should be deleted because the redirect target of a shortcut has been changed is the sort of wikilawyering that is strongly disfavored by WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. This article is not comprised of the sort of material of that WP:BLP1E is designed to prohibit. If we had an article on the John McCain lobbyist controversy masquerading as a biography of Vicki Iseman, this would constitute a genuine WP:BLP1E violation. However, our present article on Vicki Iseman instead serves the vital purpose of placing the events described in John McCain lobbyist controversy in the larger context of Vicki Iseman, thereby ensuring that our coverage of her remains fair and balanced, as required by WP:BLP. I therefore contend that the biographies of living persons policy actually requires the retention of this article, if we are to cover the John McCain lobbyist controversy at all. John254 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the items on the numbered list of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering applies to my comment, John? And when you mention WP:BLP1E are you referring to the WP:BLP policy or the WP:BIO guideline that your shortcut points to? I'm confused. Noroton (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:BLP1E I refer to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event, Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event, and anywhere else the same policy provision has been restated. John254 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closing admin - having awoken to such interesting re-debate on the article I feel it is proper to clarify again (as was already posted [104] here in response to the initial question by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The) that my close was not (as put above) measured against headcount. Indeed I spent over 2 hours reading through the responses and links in the AfD; I read the article and articles related to the AfD; I noted each nominators previous edits especially where they were Single Purpose Accounts; and I did not pay undue attention to the numbers but added them as a part of my closure just to give comparison values. As I stated in my close I looked very carefully at the various points of view expressed. Whilst I read good arguments - I read them from both sides and that fact and the fact that a consensus to close was not formed forced my action as the closing administrator to reach the default conclusion of keep - in my view as a part of the overall policy and guidelines to closing admins. Best wishes--VS ^talk 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SV's comment repeats the mistake on the top of the AfD page: The convincing points in the case the admin agreed with should be noted. Instead we have an assertion that they were looked at. In a hotly debated case, if one argument is more convincing than a competing argument, it is useful to everybody if the closing admin can point it out. In some cases, it will avoid DRV (although that was unlikely in this case) and it will help educate editors.Noroton (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Not a single individual has raised any argument that the close violates Wikipedia process, the only valid justification for overturning consensus. All I see here is an attempt to reargue the failed attempt at deletion. Alansohn (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is contested that the close failed to reflect policy as expressed in WP:BLP, which no amount of WP:ILIKEIT keeps can overcome. It is a well established principle that policy overrides vote counting, not least because consensus behind policy is immeasurably greater than the "consensus" represented by a few dozen editors turning up at an AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is in dispute here, however, is the correct application of the biographies of living persons policy to the facts in question. Users supporting deletion have engaged in extensive wikilawyering to argue the downright bizarre conclusion that the biographies of living persons policy requires us to cover only the controversy in which Vicki Iseman was involved, and exclude all mention of well-sourced information concerning her accomplishments, thereby creating the very sort of negatively biased coverage that the policy is designed to prohibit. As a still more disruptive tactic, supporters of the deletion of Vicki Iseman have resorted to blanking and redirecting John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in an apparent attempt to undermine the arguments that I have presented here [105] [106] [107], despite a clear consensus to retain the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, and a judgement by the administrator closing the AFD discussion that the article did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Rather than edit warring any further with the users engaging in page-blanking, I will list John McCain lobbyist controversy at deletion review as well. John254 13:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, even if John McCain lobbyist controversy remains blanked and redirected, John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists also mentions Vicki Iseman. Unless we're going to redact her name from the presidential campaign article as well, the deletion of this article would still place massively undue weight on the scandal, and exclude all well-sourced information favorable to Vicki Iseman. (This should not be construed as an invitation to actually redact Vicki Iseman's name from the presidential campaign article, as censoring the article would be massively against consensus.) John254 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who you gonna believe, people: John254 or our own lyin' eyes? But I guess I'm being too mechanical in my strained, wikilawyered interpretation of this deeply complex and nuanced policy which in fact means the opposite of what it says it means. Getting back to the actual purpose of this forum: The policy exists. No other interpretation is available when policy is explicit and obvious. If an AfD consensus refuses to recognize that, it is the job of the closing admin to do so. If the closing admin does not do so it is the job of this forum to point it out and the job of the closing admin of this forum to do so. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and people can have reasonable disagreements about how to interpret and enforce policy. In this case, there did not seem to be a consesus that Marsden was either a) only notable for one event and b) that that one event was not by itself so notable as to not override such concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go into this here only to make the point that no plausable response to these arguments was in the AfD discussion: (a) There was no other event than the Feb. 21 NY Times article that was notable. The article consisted of either mentions in the media that are trivial or nonsubstantial by the definition of WP:N or WP:ORG (50th paragraph on the history-making Homer-Center School Board meeting; three paragraphs in the college alumni magazine, etc.) or it consisted of stories that piggybacked on the original New York Times story which was one event if ever there was one (by "piggybacked" I mean those other stories never, ever would have been written without the original NYT story -- therefore they offer no additional proof of notability beyond one event). Where is the argument in the AfD that gives a plausable response to this point, which I did make in the AfD? In fact, in the AfD I ran through a description of all seven footnotes in the article. It simply is not plausable to claim more than one notable event in this person's life. (b) I agree that the event was notable. That's why it's covered in its own article, and the event is certainly important enough to be covered by a Wikipedia article. And WP:ONEEVENT has very specific, very clear, very hard-to-misinterpret language saying why an additional BLP article is a bad idea when the event has its own article. Noroton (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to more directly refute JoshuaZ's point (b): I would agree that if this event was comparable to the JFK assassination, then this article would be justified as the BLP of a subject just too important to be ignored. It's kind of hard to argue that this event was of such importance since the reporting has largely ceased and it doesn't seem to have hurt McCain. Noroton (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to the rest of your points later today when I have more time but to be brief; if we agree that there is some point where an individual's notability overrides ONEEVENT/BLP1E issues then that needs to be determined by community consensus; in this case the consensus was that that wasn't the case. DRV is not AfD roudn 2. (I don't see any consensus against merging but that isn't the claim being made here and regardless should have a full discussion. Certainly merging isn't viable as long as the obvious merge target itself is just a redirect. See the DRV a few entries above this one). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Devil's Advocate makes a similar point below, and I answer it there at 18:16, 3 March. Essentially, exceptions to WP:ONEEVENT would also have to be exceptions to WP:NOT#NEWS which covers much of the same territory and is also a policy. But if we're going to continue on this point, let's do it at that spot on the page. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, Delete and Redirect per Guy, Doc and others above as an obvious BLP case. Eusebeus (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct -- it's obvious that the deletion of this article would constitute a serious WP:BLP violation, as it would thereby place undue weight on the scandal described in John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists, to the detriment of our coverage of well-sourced, favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman, which should likewise be included to maintain our neutrality. Ensuring that our coverage of living people is accurate, fair, and balanced should be what WP:BLP enforcement is all about, not trying to find reasons to delete as many articles as possible. John254 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm a bit disturbed by the discussion above this one DRVing John McCain lobbyist controversy. The combination of attempting to delete/redirect that article together with the attempt to remove the Iseman article together essentially appears to have the net effect of removing most substantial coverage of a very notable set of events that is having long-term impacts on the United States presidential campaign. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I've added my voice over at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and others should too. It doesn't much affect the arguments here, however, since the event is covered either way. It would be unfair and inappropriate under the spirit of WP:BLP if more information about the event were included in an article about one participant rather than an article about McCain, the most important participant and the one who actually makes the event notable. It has the flavor of pinning the scarlet letter on one person and not the other, whatever the intentions of Wikipedia editors. Noroton (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Arguments given for deletion seemed to focus on WP:ONEEVENT, which is a common objection to biographies of such people and not always sufficient. However, I think the general reason against including a person in that case is if the event does not center around that person, the event itself isn't very significant, or that person isn't a significant player in the event. It's not intended to mean a person has to be notable for more than one event. Given the nature of the actual event and her specific role in it the one event argument just wasn't sufficient reason.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not intended to mean a person has to be notable for more than one event. Except that there's absolutely nothing in WP:ONEEVENT to support that interpretation. Noroton (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this article somehow passes deletion review, how could it possibly have any information in it since the subject is of marginal notability and therefore all information not connected to this one event would have to be deleted under "People who are relatively unknown", the subsection immediately above WP:ONEEVENT. WP:NPF states editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability (boldface in original). So we delete everything but the information on this one event under WP:NPF and then all we have is information on this one event, which is strongly discouraged by WP:ONEEVENT (If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.) If this person were notable, we wouldn't be in this kind of a ridiculous dilemma. Noroton (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, we are not bound to follow a strictly literal interpretation of policy, to the manifest detriment of the policy's intent and purpose:

Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

WP:BLP1E is intended to be applied to a situation in which we have an article concerning an event under the pretense of a biography of a person involved in it. Such an article necessarily gives massive undue weight to the event in our characterization of the person involved in it, and, thus, constitutes an actual, substantive, WP:BLP violation. See Special:Undelete/Crystal Gail Mangum as an archetypical example of such an unacceptable article. Yet, for most people whose notability has arisen from a single event, we cannot, consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability, produce comprehensive biographies, since we lack the necessary coverage in third-party reliable sources. In the case of Vicki Iseman, however, avoidance of undue weight actually weighs in favor of retention of the article, since deletion of the article removes well-sourced information favorable to Vicki Iseman, and leaves us with only a mention of her involvement in a scandal. The general purpose of the biographies of living persons policy trumps its specific terms: it is manifestly incorrect to claim that the policy actually requires us to violate our neutral point of view policy by means of negatively-biased selection of which well-sourced material to report, when the policy expressly states its purpose as follows:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies:

* Neutral point of view (NPOV)

* Verifiability

* No original research

I strongly disagree with highly technical interpretations of the policy which require us to not do anything mandated by its purpose. John254 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy language actually touches on WP:NPOV concerns and refutes John's point more economically than I ever could. In applying policy, a look at the intent, purpose and spirit is a good guide. The nut graph and paragraphs at the top of the policy help as do descriptions of the policy that are found in other policies. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton you completely misread the policy. Few articles deal solely with a person in context of what that person is notable for because that would just be a dumb article. Background of some sort is always required in an article. Her career as a lobbyist goes directly to her notability because if she wasn't a lobbyist, well, she probably would never have been in the news.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DA's disagreement is primarily with with policy, not with me. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy doesn't make it clear for someone who apparently only looks for black and white statements, but WP:ONEVENT is not given as an absolute argument. I'll highlight it for you: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

One should consider WP:BLP1E as it concerns talk of one event notability. Policy is not clear enough on this issue, but a person associated with one event may be given an independent article in certain conditions. As such if someone's argument on an article is only WP:ONEEVENT but this event happens to be extremely notable and this person was a central figure in it, there has to be consideration for whether this is an exception. So the decision to close as no consensus was perfectly legitimate given the circumstances of the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point (JoahuaZ brings it up earlier), and it gets us back to what we're actually supposed to be doing here: deciding if the closing admin's decision was within policy. The argument DA makes was made in the AfD, but here and in the AfD the WP:NOT#NEWS policy was ignored (emphases added): Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. [...] Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Note the "may" in the quote is not absolute either, which further strengthens DA's case. Clearly, this policy and WP:BLP allow for exceptions and clearly consensus can decide those exceptions, but common sense tells us that even a consensus to apply policy has limits or we'd have the equivalent of jury nullification all over the place -- groups of editors being willfully blind to policy and doing whatever they pleased.

The WP:NOT#NEWS policy above clearly states that the encyclopedia is concerned not with the passing notability of news accounts but the longer-term notability of history. In the AfD, User:DGG was one of the editors making the point that WP:BLP is not absolute. (I also addressed this in the AfD and said that we needed a justification for making this exception and I didn't see any good ones.) DGG and others were not making the point that this was an exception due to historical notability but that the woman was in the news. Comments at the AfD also justified "Keep" votes because the article would be useful to readers now interested in the news event. These comments should have been radically discounted because they were so contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS as well as WP:BLP (as well as WP:USEFUL).

The closing admin should have radically discounted those Keep !votes because historical notability can't reasonably be claimed if we're talking about interest that only lasts for months. The AfD participants had no reasonable way of knowing that an article providing more information about her than is in John McCain lobbyist controversy would be of any historical interest at all for encyclopedia readers. Incidentally, the "historical notability" isn't a high hurdle: I think two notable events would get past it, but it is meant to help weed out subjects of only passing notability. The exceptions allowed for in WP:BLP aren't a license to violate it any time we damn well please but in cases like Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan where delving into the person's personal life may provide important answers to historical questions, and the focus on that notable material is further mandated by the "People who are relatively unknown" subsection of WP:BLP. We see this article running up against multiple policies which reinforce and clarify each other, something we don't see applying to one-event-notability articles like the ones on Oswald and Sirhan. Noroton (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Minor change: replaced "John Hinckley" with "Sirhan Sirhan" -- Hinckley was notable for more than one event. Noroton (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not going to try and make this AfD part two, but the fact is this really shows why the close as no consensus was appropriate. Whether policy justified deletion in this case seemed more a matter of personal interpretation than any clear-set policy. Arguably her career as a lobbyist does give her historic notability. The fact reliable sources are given for her history before the controversy just proves this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.