Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 13

13 May 2007

John Wilderspin

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

Subject clearly notable; article made it clear. Reliable and independent reviews/sources. Non- amateur organist. Does a lot in the area so is notable. Was only nominated in the first place in conjunction with a page (Ian Venables) which was subsequently kept. Page not a stub, spam or offensive. Good quality with pictures etc. Edited by multiple users. Had links to and from the page. Had already survived one debate. Dewarw 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep. Appropriately notable; no real rationale for deletion. Newyorkbrad 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, do not relist. I think the undue focus on the mud-slinging regarding possible "single purpose accounts" and "conflicts of interest" clouded the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - Properly sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. FCYTravis 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Eh? Am I missing something? Perhaps the AfD should have been let run, but there's nothing encyclopedic here and no reason to undelete.--Doc^g 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  My read of the AFD is that he may be notable to WP:BIO standards (due to available sourcing), but my read of the article history is that the article didn't bother to demonstrate that. Which means that I have a hard time figuring out what the right thing to do with this one, so I'm sitting on the fence. GRBerry 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah I'm not seeing that he meets WP:BIO. The closest thing to a non trivial source [1], seems to focus almost entirely on the music program in the church. All of the other mentions of him in print are also trivial when you get down to it, basically they just mention he'll be playing or accompanying organ somewhere and that's it. Great if we were creating a directory of this guy's performances, but that's not an encyclopedia article. I am leaning towards saying it was a good close. --W.marsh 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Dewarw attends the same school at which this man works (he has admitted this to me here), and has been extremely zealous in his support for both this article and that of Ian Venables, a composer of very little notability. The latter article survived its AFD because Dewarw used both his account and an anonymous IP address to spam the debate with positive arguments: a tactic he used again with the Wilderspin debate (as you can see in its records). I won't go over the arguments again (they are in the AFD debate which was decided as a delete) but this man is clearly not notable in any sense. He is just using this as a substitute for an AFD which did not go the way he wanted, and the original decision should stand. If you can source the fact that any musician has performed somewhere, then we would have practically every musician who has played an instrument on wikipedia: that is clearly not what the notability criteria are about; it must be more than just using some local newspapers to prove that he has played an instrument. I wonder why Dewarw spends so much effort on this: he clearly cares very much about these articles, which would suggest more of a personal attachment to the people involved than something objective or encyclopedic. By the way, in the first (group) debate, he was hardly mentioned and it was a 'no consensus'. Clavecin 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no mud-slinging. Look closely at Dewarw's behaviour (and that of the IPs on the debate):

Special:Contributions/81.158.2.82

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=84.68.170.87&namespace=

The former IP address started out when I proposed Ian Venables for speedy deletion, then posted overwhelming positive comments in all the AFDs (Venables, Wilderspin). The latter IP address has only been used to edit the debate about John Wilderspin and something about Ian Venables, with similar positive comments - additionally, he claimed:

Keep: John Wilderspin is very famous. I'm a vicar from Florida and i've heard of his organ playing. It's on a CD i recorded at home. How can you delete such a good musician? 84.68.170.87 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) - when, if you do a search on the IP address, it is located in England:

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?domain=84.68.170.87

So this user is lying to try and win the argument. And he left multiple keep opinions, a few unsigned, the other using different IPs and his username, something he did in the earlier 'Ian Venables' debate. This is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. This was just fairly pointed out by me and another user. Clavecin 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am afraid that I must comment on Calvecin's comments. I completely deny the fact that I have been spamming the debate. Just because there are a few single purpose accounts/ IP addresses, you cannot assume that they are mine. A far as I am concerned they could have easily been made up by other people to make me look like a spammer. Obviously none of this can be proved- so I would like to request that this "mud slinging" is stopped by Calvecin and others, and that we continue with the content of the article, which at the end of the day is the most important thing to concentrate on! i reject to being accused in this pathetic way! As for the article, as above! Dewarw 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• About the "vicar" comment. Although I still deny putting it on Wiki, it could still be true! The vicar could have been in the UK at the time- people do travel. For this reason, and others as above, I would like to ask that all these pathetic arguments are ignored, along with all the so called "spam comments" if you wish to. My "legitimate" comments provide enough reasons why this page should be un-deleted! Dewarw 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Regarding the vicar's comment: firstly, Americans do not usually call themselves 'vicar': it is a British English word; Americans generally use 'pastor' or 'priest'. Secondly, the IP this came from (in England) is completely single-use with regards to Wikipedia. The uses have been only to contribute to the Wilderspin debate and to edit Dewarw's article on Ian Venables. Really, what are the chances? Clavecin 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Detailed Reply: Regarding this IP address: 81.158.2.82: up to the time it contributed to the Wilderspin debate, it had been single-use on Wikipedia: to contribute to Dewarw's Ian Venables article and the deletion debates related to his articles, and to Dewarw's school's article. And look here, three minutes after Dewarw comments, this IP comments, in the same debate [2] and then about ten minutes later, Dewarw again. Similarly here, Dewarw is followed by the IP after four minutes [3] and one minute later Dewarw edits again. And then the other IP address which I mentioned above, the 'vicar' comment, 84.68.170.87, removes the 'unsigned' tags I put on some of Dewarw's contributions before Dewarw replaces them with his own signed tags three minutes later (as he realises he has to sign in to do that): [4] The same minute, the IP adress returns to sign the 'vicar from Florida' comment with that IP address: [5] He even tries to make himself look like an established user by adding the name 'vicar 220', but this does not work, so Dewarw deletes it a minute later: [6]One of the comments added turns out to be another single-use account: Special:Contributions/W.j.matthews editing Dewarw's articles only and whose first edit was on the Wilderspin deletion debate: he is similarly closely connected with Dewarw's edits: [7] and [8]. Yes, technically this may all be coincidence, but really, what are the chances? The evidence is there for all to see. Just go step-by-step through the edit history on the Wilderspin debate: These accusations are well founded. The reason I am focussing on spamming of the debate is because everyone else in the debate was in favour of deletion, apart from Dewarw and these IPs. This is why the page was deleted, and we have already had that discussion on AFD, plus I went over the main points again above. If the IPs and Dewarw are all the same person, then this review must be closed and the page deleted. If anyone reading agrees with my assessment and evidence above, it is clear that Dewarw's behaviour here has been unacceptable and goes against the principles on which this encyclopedia and community operates. Clavecin 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Firstly, this is not AfD, round two. The AfD, after SPAs were properly discounted (I'm not saying they had anything to do with the article's subject, I can't possibly know that, but whether they did or did not they should have been discounted) clearly reached consensus to delete. As for sources in the article, only the first one has any substance, and that one pretty much looks like human-interest type filler. The rest (including the long PDF) are just name-drops. There isn't sufficient sourcing for an article here. (However, I do advise Clavecin to watch the personal attacks. Misconduct by an editor, even if it does exist here, is never reason to delete an article anyway. At most it can be reason to invalidate an AfD and run it again.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Keep deleted/kill with stick, come on, clearly notable? This guy is basically a high school teacher cum local organist. This guy is no John Scott, or even John Bertalot, lord love him, a notorious self-promoter. He went on a choir tour and played at some big cathedrals - this is not a good assertion of notability. The sources are very local and the mentions not significant. Add to that that significant hunks of the article seem to be copyvio from at least one of the sources, it seems to be written by people with a strong connection to him, single purpose accounts, and I'd say it should also procedurally be a keep deleted. And killed. With a stick. Mak (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted He's a high school teacher who clearly - clearly! - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fring

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

was deleted at time we suspected spam so didn't change the text. Now I know you considered it blatant advertising, the text will be replaced but please unlock the page so reinstating it isn't prevented. the content will be written by someone else who didn't write the original and I will make sure it is certainly non-advetorial Seital 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Write it under userspace first, when your happy with it bring it back for review or ask an admin to do so and move it into place. --pgk 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• You have a hill to climb here. It's been deleted eight times so far, every single version has been crap. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• I am worried that User:Seital seems to have a conflict of interest here. Corvus cornix 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (edit | [[Talk:User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

Debate was wrongly closed as "delete", while no consensus existed and the majority of people who participated at the debate were against deletion (6 persons at last debate). This was the second nomination for deletion, the first was made by sockpuppeteer Mauco who cheated in the first debate (voted also through his sockpuppet Pernambuco who claimed to have "a neutral look"), however he was not succesfull in his attempt. After Mauco's sockpuppetry was discovered a person who participated at the first debate nominated it again for deletion, but he received no support and again the debate was closed without deletion. Then, the deletion nominator insisted for the relisting of the debate [9] explaining to the closing admin that this is "a sensible decision" for him and obtained the relisting of the debate. I wonder why a sandbox is so "sensible" for the deletion nominator, my guess is that this is part of a harrasment campaign against me linked with the arbitration case where I and the first deletion nominator sockpuppeteer Mauco are both involved and where the second deletion nominator is involved also through presenting "evidence" against me. Part of this harassment campaign against me is to label all those who share similar views with me as being my "political allies" (see the deletion nominator first comment) whose opinions are not worthy to be taken in consideration (in both debates the majority was against deletion however the result was "delete"). I mention also that I've used part of my sandbox in 4 different Wikipedia articles, I worked in the sandbox recently - in months April and May -, the claims that the sandbox is a copy of a deleted article are untrue, there were many sentences with their source which are usefull for my future edits in Wikipedia. Arguments for deletion are not based on Wikipedia policies, as even if some parts of my sandbox can be considered OR or don't follow NPOV (while this is debatable), those policies don't apply to userspaces. A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right for each wikipedian. Based on WP:USER, this sandbox was "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working" and it also contained some "opinions about Wikipedia". An other argument for deletion (brought by an other user involved in the arbitration case) was that the sandbox appear first in google searches for "transnistria propaganda" and "for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article". While this is only partially true (google.ro is not showing it in the first hits [10], in other languages it appear in the first hits [11], other search engines like altavista, yahoo, lycos, rambler, msn, are ignoring the sandbox), anyhow, this is not an argument based on Wikipedia policy to delete. Sandbox had also an userpage template, it doesn't look like an encyclopedic article. According to the deletion nominator I am a "single-purpose POV warrior and propagandist on Wikipedia" which should not be tolerated [12] but he already expressed this opinion at the above mentioned arbitration case and we should let the arbcom to decide if people like me will be tolerated in Wikipedia, not to claim an inexistent consensus against me (while the opposite is true, the majority was for keeping the sandbox). The closing admin is also a person with whom I had disputes, he is upset for the fact that I questioned his integrity before. I hope that in Wikipedia harassment campaigns will not be tolerated and all decisions will be taken based only on Wikipedia policy, in this case, mainly on WP:USER. MariusM 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This user attempts to disrupt Wikipedia by turning it into a battlefieled and tries his best to tendenciously (and almost always longwindedly) push away uninvolved admins who try to keep the peace in the Transnitrian series of articles. It is, in part, the mode of discourse he has been acustomed to that there is an ongoing arbitration case. The user also seems to be under the mistaken impression that xfD is a vote, and looking below, it appears he isn't the only one (I try to correct him here and here). As for the page in question, it appears to be a simple replication of User:Dc76/Sandbox —which is at least structured like a workpage— with some recycled jokes and soapboxing commentary added in support (well, at least that appears to be the intent, although it's possible it's in opposition; I havne't looked close enough at it and I don't recall which side of Transnistrian dispute he's affiliated with, if at all — sorry, I've only been monitoring this dispute for a few weeks and am not entirely oriented as to all the actors, although MauriusM instantly & crudely labled me as being against his because I do not tolerate incivility and tendencious conduct which has the effect of perpetuating rather than diffusing a dispute). El_C 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, closing admin called this correctly: WP:SOAP. Wikipedia does not exist to host divisive and inflammatory personal content, and this was exactly that. It stood no chance of finding a place in the encyclopaedia, as a blatant POV fork. Please find another host for your soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly no consensus. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've reviewed the article and commend the closing admin for a bold and imho correct closure. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - there's plenty of free web hosts for this kind of thing. Endorse. --kingboyk 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP does not have full jurisdiction over userspace, as all userboxes can be seen as soapbox. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? applies, however. Corvus cornix 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid call on the basis of what was policy-based consensus. And WP:SOAP does have full jurisdiction, over elements in userspace that pose as articles, are allegedly meant to become articles, and previously were articles; as WP:USER very clearly states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The page in question was neither a page poses as an article, nor a preparation for an article. It's a userpage essay. Essays are all soapboxes, and are allowed under WP:ESSAY, so WP:SOAP is excluded from jurisdiction over essays. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Plain wrong. The user did claim he meant this to be a sandbox for a future article. And Userspace "Essays" are for essays about Wikipedia. WP:USER explicitly states you can't have political soapboxing essays on non-Wikipedia-related issues. Read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the purported "sandbox for future article" claim. Where is it? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It had {{Workpage}} on top of it, and Marius kept calling it his "sandbox" and arguing about its value as material for incorporation in articles, in about a dozen places during the two weeks of debates here. In fact, he's saying that in his very nomination statement just above. Did you read it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it has a Workpage template on top. One of the arguments for deletion used in the debate was that "for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article". The workpage template is exactly to answer this particular concern, making this argument for deletion invalid. To be mentioned that the template was already added when this particular concern was raised, I don't understand why was raised this concern, I know only that the person who raised it is also involved in the arbitration case.--MariusM 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is it? Try MauriusM's opening statement on the MfD. A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right ... [etc.] Hope that helps, Wooyi. El_C 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for being over-questioning, then I think the page may violate WP:USER. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and sorry for sounding curt on my side. I suppose it's just because this has been drawn out so ridiculously long, for such a trivial issue... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Deletion of userspace copies of deleted material that is not significantly being worked on is uncontroversial. I've done it myself recently under WP:CSD#G6. Reviewing the version deleted from article space in September and the recent user space versions, there has not been any significant work done in 8 months. As pointed out in the MfD this falls afoul of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, which is a policy based reason for deletion. GRBerry 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  The sandbox is not 8 months old, check its history. We are not talking about 8 months of activity, but only about 2 months after the first debate. I explained why I didn't work so much at the sandbox, but in fact I had many edits on it in April and May. Unfortunately, the history of the sandbox is not visible anymore (at least for me, I don't know if admins can see it).--MariusM 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

John Paulus

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

The nomination and the "delete" votes were based on a faulty premise and the closing admin should have disregarded those !votes which misunderstood the nomination. The objection to the article was largely that the content of the allegations were "tabloid fodder." However, the content of the allegations is not a question that should be considered. The question that should be considered is whether there are reliable sources for the fact that the allegations were made, and there are. That people don't like the sources or the allegations is irrelevant to the sources themselves, and the sources that attest to the fact that the allegations were made are solid. WP:BLP concerns are irrelevant. The article was not asserting the truth of the allegations, simply the existence of them. That the allegations were made is undeniable and well sourced. The deletionists want the information purged completely from Wikipedia, including from Clay Aiken's article, because they find the allegations unsavory. I agree that the allegations are unsavory. That doesn't make them unfit for Wikipedia. The article passed every relevant policy and guideline and no reasonable deletion criterion was advanced. The admin should have discounted the invalid deletion rationales and kept the article. Otto4711 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The opinion that the sources are bad is certainly relevant to deletion, especially since BLP mandates removal of material which is poorly sourced. Allegations from unreliable sources can and should be deleted. -Amarkov moo! 06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that if the article were asserting the truth of the allegations then the existing sourcing would be inadequate. But again, the truth of the allegations is not what is in question here. The existence of the allegations is. A recording of Paulus making the allegations exists (episode 3), so how can the existence of the allegations be in question? If the article had said, based on the existing sources, "Paulus had sex with Aiken" then I'd be the first guy there calling for its removal. The article is saying "Paulus claimed to have sex with Aiken" and as verification of the fact that Paulus made the claim, the sources are solid. Otto4711 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, that's not the way Wikipedia works - we are not a scandal sheet for living people, and we do not serve as a sounding board and amplifier for sleazy and salacious rumors or allegations not otherwise reported on or supported by other evidence. FCYTravis 07:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, that's exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia is not supposed to make value judgments about what is reported. Wanting an article deleted because its topic is "sleazy" or "salacious" is censorship and Wikipedia is not censored for good taste. Or at least it's not supposed to be. Otto4711 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - There is nothing to suggest that this is not simply another scandalous assertion made by some nobody looking to attach himself to someone famous. The sources are dubious in the extreme, and the matter is beyond trivial (whether or not Clay Aiken had sex with this guy is of absolutely no consequence to history.) Absent some evidence that this person isn't making it all up to get 15 minutes of fame in the tabloids, this has no place in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 07:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion I can't retrieve many of the original sources, but the NY Times one frequently refers to the National Enquirer as a source and uses the term "Alleged". I notice for the others they have been referred to as "Gossip Columns". Questions of reliability seem legitimate so closed properly. Also note WP:BLP "When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?" - hence the gossip columns and words like "Alleged". --pgk 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in--not the NY Times, the NY Post. -Jmh123 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• You have no understanding of standard journalistic practices. News outlets use the word "alleged" when talking about pretty much anything relating to living people that isn't legally fact. People on trial are "alleged" criminals prior to conviction, and so on. As for the reliability of the Enquirer as a source, it certainly seemed reliable enough to get Gary Hart out of the presidential race when it ran the Monkey Business photo, when it broke the story of Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child, its reportage of OJ Simpson's spousal abuse or of Rush Limbaugh's drug usage, and the Star was certainly reliable enough when it broke the Gennifer Flowers story and the Dick Morris story. Otto4711 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for telling me about my lack of knowledge. Being common practice makes it no less weasly, and in this case the whole thing is just that we're not willing to commit ourselves on this, it is gossip. Again WP:BLP we aren't a rumour mill or gossip column. --pgk 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Always glad to help dispel the ignorance of my fellow man, even when it obviously doesn't take the first time. The idea that the word "alleged" in a journalistic context is a "weasel word" is absurd and would come as news to every professor of journalism and journalistic ethics in the country. And one more time, we are not talking about an article discussing the truth of the allegations but the existence of them. What the problem is with taking that step back is I have no idea because it really doesn;t seem to be that complicated. It is uncontrovertable that the allegations exist and were reported on in reliable sources and all this turning up of one's nose at the notion of reporting on the existence of the allegations in the face of the amount of gossip that gets bandied about the articles here reeks of WP:BIAS. And for all the pointing at WP:BLP I have to wonder if those pointing to it have actually read it, as it says in relevant part If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Otto4711 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• But these allegations aren't documented by reliable sources; you're making a bunch of arguments as to why it doesn't matter that there are no reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have yet to see something that indicates that a source which prints 100% accurate information is not a reliable source for that information. Otto4711 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• It was a sarcastic response, not genuine thanks. I'm perfectly aware of journalistic practice, you seem to be confused between a word such as alleged being able to be used legitimately in some contexts and illegitimately (i.e. as a weasel word) in others, it isn't a one size fits all situation. This was a gossip column, the use of the word alleged was clearly a weasel term meaning we have absolutely zero confirmation only the story from a down market tabloid. If you can't see the difference between reporting on someone currently being charged with murder as an alleged murderer and that, then I give up now. Consider other situations of the word, a reporter for a reputable magazine does an interview with someone at which point an allegation comes out, the may report that as alleged as in they have a reasonable background to the allegation, here the source is not an interview it is a unreliable source, this is not a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes, as pointed out numerous times now this was written in "gossip columns", WP:BLP is quite clear on the standard of reliability, gossip doesn't cut it. --pgk 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please copy and paste the exact portion of WP:BLP or any other policy that says that gossip columns categorically can't be reliable sources. "Paulus alleged that he had sex with Aiken." That's an acceptable non-weasel use of the word "alleged" under any non-insane standard. How exactly would you suggest that a reporter report on an allegation without using the word "alleged"? And no, I don't see the completely phony distinction you're trying to draw between a report in a so-called "low-end gossip column" and a report elsewhere in the paper. What you're suggesting is that if the New York Times had a story on the front page and one on the gossip page both calling someone an alleged murderer the story on the front page is reliable and the story on the gossip page isn't. That's stupid. Sorry if that's uncivil or whatever, but that's just rock-freakin'-stupid. And I've already posted a link to an interview in which Paulus goes into great and specific detail about his allegations. If your standard is that the allegations have to be in the form of an interview, there they are. Otto4711 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - The arguments of the delete votes ignored our guidelines. Being written about in the New York Post, People Magazine, MSNBC and the New York Daily News demonstrates notablity, whether it's "tabloid" news or not. If they're written about by very highly circulated publications, they're notable. The nature of their notabilty, like this person gleaming for attention with slanderous allagations, doesn't suddenly eraticate the media coverage this person has recieved. --Oakshade 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As the closer of the AfD, I believe that the discussion was closed per consensus and was not based on faulty premise and thus was an adequate close. The reports and rumors are all allegations, in which nothing can be proved from. Sr13 09:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• And again, the truth of the allegations is not in question because the article did not assert the truth of them. The article discussed the existence of them. The question is not "are the allegations true." The question is "were the allegations made and are there reliable sources to that effect." The answer to that question is yes and any AFD nomination or !vote made on the basis of whether the allegations are true should be discounted. Otto4711 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Valid AfD with overwhelming consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per FCYTravis. AFD was completely valid and closed properly. --Coredesat 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Baseball Channel

The Baseball Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A quick glance at Google News suggests that enough reliable sources ([13] [14] [15]) exist to establish this future television channel's encyclopedicity. The project has been in gestation/vaporware forever, which I think only adds to the encyclopedic interest - is this the Duke Nukem Forever of TV channels? FCYTravis 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Was at The Baseball Channel until today, in fact. Should have never remained deleted anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• overturn The AfD should have been continued, as the discussion there was being outdated by events. DGG 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The sources only mention that carriage of such a channel is a stipulation of the current MLB Extra Innings deal. There has been no official announcement about the launch of such a network, or any management for it. One of the cited items was from 2004, about a previous plan for an MLB network which was shelved when MLB and Fox attempted to launch a sports network [16]. Those plans were abandoned when the two failed to get the NFL cable package that went to NFL Network. Only when there's more info about the network, that does not have to do with Extra Innings should an article be created. Milchama 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That no "official announcement exists" is not reason to ignore the reliable sources which discuss the potential network and the fact that it has been discussed and abandoned at least once before. As I noted, its long "vaporware" status arguably makes it more encyclopedic. FCYTravis 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn since it seems clear there are sufficient sourcesDGG 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)