Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 1-15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2006 Deletion review archives December 16-31 2006 >

15 December 2006

[edit]
Flash Flash Revolution – Overturn and delete – 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Flash Flash Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (VFD)

The result is pretty clearly delete due to no reliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Genmay – Speedily closed, repeat nomination without new information – 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Genmay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

numerous assertions of importance in the article. with plenty of sources as cited before Mrtwo 12:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tourette's Guy – This isn't going to change, unless someone comes with a good article on it. Please come back when/if you do. – 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Hello, I am a fairly new user for wikipedia, and I have found and created many articles, and I am very happy to be here editing with all of you. That being said, I recently was showed Danny or the Tourettes Guy at work. I don't have much of a sense of humor, but I thought it was mildly funny, and definitely a pop culture trend for today's comedy lovers. As I naturally do with things I discover, I looked this thing up on wikipedia, and was shocked to find out that it was not there. Not only that, but I could not edit because it was protected. I believe this is very notable, I looked on Alexa rankings and many search engines to see how popular it was, and I found it was quite notable. I really hope I can at least get some of you to agree with me that this deserves an article on wikipedia. If you don't agree, I can always try to make a proposed article on my talk page, and you can see if it is worthy. Give me your ideas. Of course, I would say Strong Overturn. Thanks Fortyniners9999 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly speedy endorse deletion with no disrespect at all to the nominator. We've been through this about a dozen times, including just a few days ago. The article has been deleted many, many times before as lack of notability shown via reliable sources. -- Kicking222 05:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Just Cause 2 – Deletion endorsed – 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Just Cause 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

When this article of a future video game was created, it had absolutely no sources. Predictably, somebody nominated it for deletion. The first few votes were for delete. Then I found 4 sources confirming that this game is in fact in development. The main source was an interview to Swedish magazine Kong by the the CEO of Just Cause maker Avalanche Studios, Christopher Sundberg. [1] In the published interview, he confirmed it was actually being made and gave some more information on it. Not alot, but it was certainly a confirmation. The source article was credited to reporter Jonny Knutsson. At least one vote was changed to "keep" after this new information was added. But the closing administrator chose to delete this citing there were no "reliable sources". I very much disagree that the company CEO and the magazine he interviewed with, along with credited reporter Jonny Knutsson, is not a reliable source. I tried being bold in recreating this article with this source, plus two more English language ones confirming the first [2][3], (plus some nice wikification) but it was deleted and locked by the first closing administrator. I respecfually disagree and feel this article of a sequel to a very popular game should be re-created. --Oakshade 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Sources provided are from late October and say that the game is confirmed as being in the company's product pipeline - the game designers have just started coming up with the master game design document, if they've started at all. This might be worth a mention in the original game's article but this sequel hardly merits its own article yet - especially in an industry infamous for vapourware. I kind of understand people who want to create articles for future games and films etc when there has been substantial marketing buzz (though we have to be careful that Wikipedia is not coopted into such efforts), but in this case there isn't even any buzz. Just a brief confirmation that the proposal for the sequel has been officially accepted by the company's bureaucracy. Bwithh 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure only for the sake of consistency. When this is announced by something a little more reliable, I'll gladly fight to overturn it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What is the point of an article which says "This is a game. It may be released at some date in the future."? Because that's all the info you have. -Amarkov blahedits 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. This game is not released, and should either not exist or be a subsection in Just Cause. RedKlonoa 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Horseshoe Theory – Deletion endorsed – 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Horseshoe Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are probably referring to Horseshoe Theory. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've corrected the listing. This article was deleted in AfD on December 3. On December 8, it was recreated, in a shortened form, by Horseshoesmith, and deleted as a G4 by Deepujoseph about an hour later. Horseshoesmith recreated the article, and I redeleted it, noting that the user had been left a message, explaining how to contest a deletion. I think it wasn't entirely clear what was involved, and after a couple of quick recreations and deletions, I finally protected the page and advised Horseshoesmith how to list the article at Deletion review. I think the article, as recreated, still contains substantial original research, and doesn't seem to get past the sourcing problems of the former version. Thus, I suggest we endorse deletion, but I'm open to being shown that this topic is covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources, in which case I'll agree that we can support a well-sourced article about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting case. The question is whether the recreation is substantially different from the AfD versions in the matter of argument. Is it different "where it counts," in other words. The article provides references to some people who have said things about the theory that are similar, although a stable and precise discussion of "horsehoe theory" instead of "the extremes meet" doesn't really work. (Jonathan Swift, in A Tale of a Tub, proposed that Peter (Roman Catholicism) and Jack (the Puritains) grow to look like each other during their fight (the Reformation and Counter-reformation), and that was in 1704. This isn't ever called a horsehoe theory, even though it is the observation being called that theory.) It's the point of view and application of a single term to this general observation that is original research. The general observation is a commonplace, but it doesn't have a single name or, to my knowledge, get a general discussion (only particular ones, like people swatting down the anti-communists who want to say that the Nazis were socialists). Endorse deletion or, and this is controversial maybe, send back to AfD for a new ruling on the more bolstered form. Geogre 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mavis McClure – Endorsed, this need to be brought up at Wikimedia – 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mavis McClure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion, request speedy close per procedure. Deletion review does not have the capacity to confirm the copyright status in situations like this.

    Slightly modified to be applicable for the situation:
    Please send an email to the Wikimedia Communications committee at the e-mail address "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", where it will be securely archived. In the confirmation that you send to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", ensure that both the Internet URL for the original text which you are re-licensing under the Text of the GFDL and the a Wikipedia link to the intended target for the text is provided so that the Wikimedia PR department may cross reference the Wikimedia page image to the Internet URL text. This must be done through an official email affiliated (and listed) on the website as confirmation.
    After sending the email message to the Communications comittee, drop a note on the talk page (not the article itself) mentioning that permission has been sent to the m:OTRS system, but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. Afterwards, somebody with access to OTRS will come along and tag the article talk with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question. Please note that providing the link to the ticket number is essential to easy verification.
    See also: Wikipedia:copyrights, Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements, new editors claiming copyright thread on Wikilegal-l

As I mentioned previously, DRV has no capacity to do this - these instructions are the only way to do so. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion "permission for it to be used here" is inadequate, permission under the GFDL or a release to the public domain so that it can be used/modified etc. by anyone is what is required. --pgk 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stephen Rodefer – Endorsed, this needs to be brought up at Wikimedia – 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stephen Rodefer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 December 2006

[edit]
Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) – Prodded article restored on request, now at AfD – 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request the restoration of Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) to Wikipedia. I have spent hard work on this article and would not like to see this go to waste. Please consider putting this article on the articles for revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyville (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Uncle Sherm's Visit – Deletion endorsed – 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Uncle Sherm's Visit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

This episode of SpongeBob SquarePants exists. I provided a neutral source (in german) on its talk page after it was deleted and protected. Kitia 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has a picture of him... ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a reliable source. What's the matter with your signature? ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's messed-up. I don't know how to fix it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go to "My preferences" and unclick "Raw signature". ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on more and more are going to believe that the episode IS real! I suggest that maybe you can re-create the page soon, because i signed a petition on the articles talk page. Please re-create the page soon. Thanks. Zany zacky (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn and Undelete Keep Deleted. Or perhaps suspend deletion? This episode is still in developement and will be aired in Gremany first, like the last few. It seems kind of redundant to delete a page just to make it again a week later with sources... Anyways, here are a few:
      • They don't look like reliable sources to me. The first anyone can sign up for an account and add/change the content. The second maybe a story board to an episode (I'm no expert) but doesn't give an verifiability to any material in the article. Far from being redundant if deletion is what it takes to get people to provide sources then the deletion has had a positive result. --pgk 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point and I agree. It even appears the some information may have been added by wikipedia members (user:patrickrox11, [6]). I think I was little hasty in voting, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. Hence, I'm changing my vote. If this episode airs, it will be added then, such unfounded speculation is unencyclopedic. ~ Kelden 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jewish-American businesspeople – Deletion overturned and relisted – 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jewish-American businesspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

The original vote was here with just three votes: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#American_businesspeople_by_ethnicity

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople was created to break up Category:Jewish Americans into smaller pieces. It was NOT created to break up Category:American businesspeople into smaller pieces. By changing the category all the people lost their Jewish identity, and as below, their national identity. The change was made with just three votes and was made without thinking of the consequences of the change and the loss of information it would create. Now each article has lost their inclusion in Category:Jewish Americans. Important moves like this need much more debate before enacted. I suggest a minimal number of votes before decisions are made. Category changes are much more complicated than article changes because there are supracategories and supercategories that have to be considered. Remember if the category is a double intersection, you can't replace it with a single category, it has to be replaced by two categories. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same for:

Jewish Americans is currently divided into the following, so why is "business person" not acceptable:

African Americans are identified as:


    • You should probably avoid sarcasm, stick to what your good at. You also lost me with your terrorist metaphor. Was that an attempt at humor or are you equating Judaism with terrorism? And yes, when you remove an ethnic tag from an article, you are removing their ethnic identity. It is like taking a book from a library shelf, and removing the Dewey decimal code on the spine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.... my guess is that he's not? Bwithh 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite good at sarcasm, actually - what we have here is simply an example of a sarchasm. Be that as it may, the idea that Wikipedia exists to promote the Jewish identity of anybody seems very much like soapboxing. I am not persuaded that it is in any way helpful to identify Jewish Americans separately in this way, it seems to be more of a service to those wishing to validate their religion than to the reader (and I'd say the same if you were to substitute any other religious identity). What one can say with very great confidence is that the Jewish or national identity of any individual is completely unaffected by their inclusion in a category on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but by that logic all of the other "Nationality Profession" categories (which are explicitly supported by WP:CAT) would be invalid. Your trolling is not appreciated, by the way and it would be in your best interests to cease and desist per WP:CIV. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who closed the debate, I obviously endorse the deletion, otherwise I wouldn't have done it:-) Other reasons for my endorsement include my thinking that "Jewish-American people" and "Businesspeople" is not an encyclopedically meaningful intersection of categories. I disagree with TonyTheTiger that "Businesspeople" now contains "things that are different". If TonyTheTiger is right then if we have category Category:Jewish-American businesspeople then we should also have Category:Women American businesspeople on the grounds that women are arguably at least as different from men as Jewish people are from non-Jewish people. It is the splitting of the category Category:Jewish Americans (that should be Category:Jewish-American people) that was ill-conceived, not the deletion of this category. This debate shows us why we desparately need category arithmetic. If the result here is to reverse the deletion, then apply to me and I will gladly supply a list of articles that were in the categories. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar The action shouldn't have been taken with just three votes, and without doing research into the categories already existing and their inter-relationship. Special care has to be taken with categories that are carefully crafted to provide intersections of other existing categories. You can't remove a triple intersection category and replace it with a single category, without losing information. These changes require some thought and familiarity with categories and the boolean logic behind them. If you don't feel that someone should be identified as African American oder Jewish thats a much bigger discussion and needs to be argued elsewhere. You should also have the courtesy to notify the Wikiproject or Portal involved with these categories, since they have been working so hard to tag Category:Jewish-American people and then subdivide that category. And, lastly you should be responsible for undoing the damage you created, not others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly I did not nominate the category for merging: why hold me responsible for notifying the project? Secondly, AFD is not a vote. Thirdly, three clear coherent reasons to merge is actually a pretty good AFD consensus in my opinion. Fourthly, please do not imply that my closure of the debate was thoughtless: comment on the closure, not the administrator. Fifthly, my familiarity with categories is just fine, thanks. Here's the boolean question: do we categorise American businesspeople by ethnicity? The answer from the AFD discussion was a clear no. I thought the discussion here was about whether to reverse that consensus, not whether the closure was incorrect. Sixthly, do not attribute arguments to me that I have not made: people should clearly be categorised as African American or Jewish. The AFD discussion said clearly that ethnicity does not impinge on business-ness. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Richard has apologised for the tone of his comment above, and I accept the apology. I apologise in return for the tone of my reply, but I feel the content of the reply is valid. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/Keep The individuals involved in the original CfD either have not read WP:CAT or believe it does not apply to them. The existence of Category:British writers is explicitly supported here. Is there some logical reason why Jews should be treated differently? If you have a problem with WP:CAT, propose changes to the guideline, don't use your admin flag to circumvent consensus. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have been willing to accept the argument that I should also have added the people in the categories to the other category of intersection, and I am still willing to do so, as it was possibly an oversight, but the WP:CAT guideline you point at supports the existence of Category:British writers, not the existence of Category:Jewish-British writers and is not relevant here. Your accusation of my "using my admin flag to circumvent consensus" is gratuitous and insulting, and you may wish to consider apologising. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. To get back to the debate: the argument Karimarie has put forward in favour of restoring this category is consensus at WP:CAT. I was initially sceptical, above, but following her recent advice on my talk page I have looked there quite carefully. Searching WP:CAT for the word-stems "religio", "ethnic" and "jew" give no results. WP:CATGRS does mention ethnicity, but again I am not sure that it is relevant to this debate (and Karimarie did not cite it anyway). I conclude that there is no such consensus as the one Karimarie cites. I am not infallible, and my usual practice in the face of personal criticism is to withdraw on the grounds that the least said, the soonest mended. I initially withdrew here, but on reflection I feel that it would be allowing Karimarie to carry her point by playing the man and not the ball. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What rationale are you using to support one and not the others? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist obviously there is not a consensus yet. Koweja 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, RelistDGG 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/Keep Again, we have admins getting way over their heads deleting categories (and deleting articles and abusing CSDs) where there is no clear justification for doing so. The category -- and the other, similar child categories -- are meaningful descriptions of the individuals so designated. What we seem to need more desperately in Wikipedia is an "Admins for Deletion" category. Alansohn 14:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. Reading again what you wrote, I am reminded that hyperbole doesn't really work as a debating technique in Wikipedia discussions. In answer to your one substantial argument, "meaningful" is not the same as "encyclopedic". --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Graal Online – Deletion endorsed – 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Graal Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Overturn and Undelete. This article does not require deletion so long as it follows Wikipedia Guidelines. It deserves a place in Wikipedia. Also, this was just speedy deleted simply because of the past, while it had no conflicts with the Wikipedia rules. RedKlonoa 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That assumption is not borne out by the AFD discussion linked above, that is full of editors agreeing that the site fails WP:WEB. The large number of trolls in the discussion didn't help anything, but do not appear to be the reason for the deletion, from what I can see. Fan-1967 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You opened this DRV based on what appear to be false assumptions. The AFD shows that a consensus of editors determined that it failed WP:WEB, i.e. it does not meet our standards of a notable website. You have not offered any counter-arguments relevant to that decision, or any reason for overturning the AFD. Fan-1967 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E-Sword – Speedily closed, deletion was endorsed yesterday – 19:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E-Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Overturn and undelete This article was originally listed for deletion as "non notable" and not conforming to WP policy on software related articles. During the original delete debate several assertions of notability were not backed up by necessary references. This has subsequently be rectified. During an initial delete review a number of references for notability were provided. Many more were obvious from Google (>40000 listings and many just as required. I therefore undeleted the article, started to insert such notability information (reviews etc) and add more - as I said google is full with it. The article was again deleted by another admin, who felt it should go first go through another review. Given that even the review said that the article may be recreated with actual references - which I was starting to provide - I did not hold this for necessary, but I am happy to submit to process. Summary : the software is notable, and the necessary references are provided. This should be sufficient to satisfy policy Refdoc 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples for notability are here [7] [8] and [9] In each listing it is finalist in one magazine or another.
Actually, all 3 links are from the same source, and the program is only labelled as a finalist (for the religious category of pocketpc programs) in the first link Bwithh 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a finalist in the Pocket PC awards [10] and is described here - an academic theological journal [11] Latter is a 32 page review and analysis of various pieces of Biblesoftware. E-Sword features prominently throughout the whole article. Refdoc 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. (though it might be weak) I still think the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) was closed was completely inappropriate. I also wish that the first deletion review actually addressed this closure, rather than the lack of sources in the article. Had the amount of criticism in the last review been made during AfD with no improvement toward the article, I would endorse deletion. Refdoc has claimed that he put sources and more evidence for notability in the article after he undeleted it. If this is true, I don't think Robdurbar should have redeleted it--Mackensen and the last deletion review both allowed recreation of the article, so long as WP:V and WP:RS were followed. --Karnesky 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object in the strongest possible terms. There was a deletion review of this decision on December 5, and the close was upheld. Refdoc acted inappropriately be undeleting on his own authority. Are we reviewing DRVs now? What the hell is this? Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that Refdoc didn't add sources? If so, I might have to change my vote. --Karnesky 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The text of the addition: e-Sword has been subject to numerous outside reviews and has been several times named (one of) teh most comprehensive and usable free Biblestudy programmes. Color me unimpressed. Perhaps more to the point, this is an abuse of process. The decision was already reviewed and upheld. Re-creation is fine, but the undeletion stuck me as a bit raw. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close bad faith DRV listing. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you get envolved and have a sensible review when it gets closed before getting started. It strikes me that there could be another adgenda here than pure unbiased assessments of notablility. Agreed it was a little short of proper referencing in it's original form. That I believe is largely due to good references being buried in the search engines such as Google by the "download related" sites that are too numerous to mention (obviously a hardly known piece of software then!). You have to dig deep to get the referencing for this one. But it can be done. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Footballdatabase – Deletion endorsed – 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Footballdatabase (edit | [[Talk:Template:Footballdatabase|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

i don't knoow why afd became tfd and not cleanup, the template is useful for create external link for some footballer. Matthew_hk tc 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PocketGPSWorld.com – Nomination withdrawn – 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PocketGPSWorld.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The Keep reasons were based on the notability of this site - it is referred to in most articles and websites on GPS systems. There was also a majority (5-3) for a Keep. The closing admin overruled this based on "the lack of sourcing in this article, and the quality of the article itself". Neither is a ground for deletion against the concensus. I should welcome a quality threshold, but that is for another day, and it is not a deletion reason. Inadequate sourcing (as opposed to being unverifiable) signals the need for editorial action but not deletion. Yes, this is a poor article that needs a thorough cleanup but procedurally it should not have been deleted. Overturn and Keep. TerriersFan 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply by closer WP:V is an inviolable reason to delete and overrules both notability arguments (or rather here: assertions) and vote counts. As I said in my closing statement, if someone thinks they have sources and wants to write an article based on them I'm happy to userfy or restore. But with zero outside sources either in the article or in the AfD discussion the argument by User:Pan Dan that the article fails WP:V trumps all others. ~ trialsanderrors 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - thank you for this helpful reply. Though the article has a regrettable lack of sources there are plenty enough /available/ to verify its safety camera database, its main claim to 'fame'. User:Pan Dan was arguing (I think) on notability not verifiability. He/she acknowledges that verifiability is not an issue by saying "no one denies that this company & website, and its services, exist". The company's existence is verified here and its safety camera stuff is verified here. TerriersFan 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion, it fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Safe a small group of topics that are considered notable per se, articles that do not assert the notability of their subject risk being speedily deleted, articles that do not support the assertion to notability via independent sources risk being deleted at the end of an AfD. This is what happened here. Elvis Presley doesn't have an article because his birth certificate verified his existence, but because multiple outside sources exist that attest to his notability. In simple terms, if the subject of an article is notable it shouldn't be hard to find sources unless it's historical or from a remote part of the world. ~ trialsanderrors 11:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number one is a directory listing, number two is a passing mention in a forum post. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Penumbra (game) – Deletion endorsed – 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Penumbra (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history) — (AfD)

The article about Penumbra has been deleted before because the game was only a tech demo. Since that deletion (and the article's recreation), Penumbra has expanded into a full commercial game that has received the mention and interest of major gaming websites such as Gamespot and IGN. It is possible that the game will be digitally distributed on Steam: a major market for gaming. The full game is significant enough to warrant its own article. The focus of the article as of now is on the tech demo, but it could easily be changed to place the emphasis on the full game being developed.

I also think it's incredibly unfair because the second deletion was only a proposed one. The template said to remove it if any reason was seen as to why the article should be kept (there was no actual AfD involved). I brought the argument up on the talk page and removed the notice, and a few hours later, the article was deleted. That aside though, I still think the article should be remade to focus more on the full version of Penumbra. ShadowMan1od 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the link to point to the AfD debate, as it should. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second deletion wasn't a proposed deletion -- I placed the {{prod}} and then it was brought to my attention that the article had already failed an AfD, so I deleted it without letting the prod run its course, and told this user to come here to have it undeleted. I do note several references in Google. However, I don't know if the article truly passes notability, it's possibly close. Andre (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against future recreation once the game is actually released. The game company's own website says that the first episode of this game isn't scheduled for release until Q1 2007[12]. Gamespy says this game isn't due to come out until October 2007, and hasn't been rated or found a publisher yet [13]. Gamespot has a preview of the game-project-development-still-in-progress from October, which suggests the first episode is likely coming out in March 2007[14]. IGN has like 3 screenshots, and that's it as far as I can tell[15]. What's the hurry in recreating this article if the game won't be out until maybe some time March to October 2007? Wikipedia is not a place for creating pre-launch/pre-"possible distribution through Steam" marketing buzz for unpublished software projects. Bwithh 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:SombatMetanee.jpg – Overturned and restored – 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:SombatMetanee.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

The image was uploaded as a {{promophoto}} and included in the article Sombat Metanee in the infobox. It was flagged by User:Chowbok with a {{Replaceable fair use}} tag, which I then disputed. Through that process, however, I learned that the use in the article was indeed not fair use, so I moved it to a section of the article that detailed the actor in the era depicted in the photo. That was "not good enough" for User:Angr, who then deleted the image. I disputed this on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg, and Angr offered some helpful suggestions about how to improve the article so that the image might be kept. Those improvements were made and a new fair-use rationale for the image was crafted. Angr then made a subjective judgement about the photo and asked if a different image could be used. I accommodated him by offering an external link to another image, but it wasn't good enough for him, either. I then offered a link to several images that he could choose from, and that's when his responses ended. So I've brought the issue here, seeking a resolution. — WiseKwai 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I'm still not 100% convinced the image is unreplaceable yet, but I was surprised when the talk page was closed for further discussion. My responses only ended because I felt out of my depth in making decisions on what images do or do not adequately illustrate the physical attractiveness of an actor I've never heard of. I was hoping for more input from others rather than "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it." —Angr 10:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who closed the debate. I just thought it was policy to close debate after the image was deleted. I certainly didn't mean to stifle debate if it's still up in the air. I personally wouldn't have deleted it, FWIW, but I know it's a borderline case. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- we don't appear to have a source for this image or know who owns its copyright -- there's a statement that the image was "released by" a film festival. This fails our image sourcing requirements. Jkelly 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image was part of promotional material distributed to the press for the 2006 Bangkok International Film Festival, which holds the copyright to the material. — WiseKwai 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

13 December 2006

[edit]
VirusBurst – Keep closure overturned, relisted at AfD – 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
VirusBurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)
This is crossposted from the closing admin's talk page: User_talk:W.marsh#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FVirusBurst

I weighed into this AfD thinking that it was a straight-forward delete: No evidence of notability was presented, and my understanding is that editor testimony without supporting evidence is tantamount to a naked vote and will be disregarded. A quick breakdown of the participants:

  • "Keep it's notable" from members of the community who are *cough* very new:
    1. 30sman (talk • contribs) - Ten edits, all on 2 Dec, all to AfDs.
    2. Dpbeckfield (talk • contribs) - His only contributions was to that afd.
    3. Jmldalton (talk • contribs) - Thirteen edits total.
    4. 220.240.91.96 (talk • contribs) - Two edits in total.
  • Naked "Keep" votes with no rational:
    1. Firefoxman (talk • contribs) - Naked vote.
  • "Keep it's notable" from members of the community who are established:
    1. DGG (talk • contribs) - a "real" user, and provides at least some argument, but about verification not notability.
  • "Delete it's not showing it is notable"
    1. J Di (talk • contribs) provides no arguments in his nomination, true.
    2. Demiurge (talk • contribs) disputes a comment about google hits by refering to bias, also providing no evidence on non-notability.
    3. Finally {{subst:user|ME!}} with a bit of homework showing this is nothing special.
  • Other participants
    1. RichMac (talk • contribs) switched from "keep" to "Neutral" after thinking about google bias.
    2. EdGl (talk • contribs) suggested there were many other viri that could be deleted.

Whatever way we cut it, this looks like a clear delete to me: Nose counting (spit) give three-to-one in favour of deletion if you're into that sort of thing, and argumentation shows that the only evidence presented for keeping was Google hits, something the person who made the argument recanted. WM suggested I re-nominate it when I raised it with him, which I'd prefer not to do because a) This nomination has a clear outcome to me, b) The stigma of a renom leads to knee-jerk keepage often enough, and c) I can't create the sub-pages anyway.
152.91.9.144 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. Why do people think that they can make an article verifiable by saying "It's verifiable!" -Amarkov blahedits 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. The AfD debate was largely a waste of server space, for reasons noted above, and although this is verifiable from AV vendors' sites that does rather place it in the category of a directory entry. Neither GNews nor Factiva shows any significant coverage other than press releases and AV vendors' threat databases. I say relist. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. If no sources are presented in the article or the AfD, the article should be deleted. AfD is not a vote, WP:V is a cornerstone policy, guess which wins. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence may be verifiable, but I see one directory listing in the article and one press release in the AfD which mentions the virus in passing. The AfD participants didn't come close to making an actual case for the article's retention in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's why I believe this AfD should have been closed as 'delete', and consequently we should overturn it. It doesn't seem a good use of Wikipedians' time to have the same discussion again (no new evidence has been presented that would indicate that a second discussion would be substantially different from the previous) just so we can hope it gets closed in a different way, when the purpose of DRV is to change closings when necessary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with the debate was that it was almost entirely irrelevant to inclusion. My first searches show no significant coverage, but there might be some. I am undecided, hence I'd like to see more discussion of the content, not the process. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keep arguments may have been irrelevant to inclusion, but the delete arguments weren't. Both the nomination and supporting editor cast the subject's notability into doubt, which is a good enough reason for deletion if no-one can debunk it by showing significant reliable coverage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's verifiable enough" is good enough for me. Do not overturn. You had your shot and it was correctly kept. It's terrible that this forum is used for a small clique to delete articles they could not manage to rid us of in a more widely read forum. Grace Note 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been edited and verifiability demonstrated. I have just edited the article, added links to the pages about this virus from 3 of the major-antivirus producers in both the US and UK, (I could probable go on and find another 30 or so, because I found 198,000 ghits.) Probably I should have done this earlier, but to me at any rate, the Symantec link already there was verification enough. DGG 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... No you haven't. It hasn't been edited since the close of the AfD. -Amarkov blahedits 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Links such as the one currently in the article should be considered directory entries anyway. Thousands of viruses are created, and it's Symantec's job (as well as McAfee's, Grisoft's etc) to document as many as possible, just as it's the Yellow Pages' job to document every person and business with a phone. We are not the Yellow Pages, or Symantec, we do not document everything, we document notable things, which means non-trivial coverage. ILOVEYOU is an example of a virus that received such coverage. I can't comment on the links DGG said he added, because he didn't add them, but the link currently in the article is definitely the equivalent of a directory entry. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z) – Nomination withdrawn – 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Moving here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the temporary restoration - MustTC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log; 18:21, December 13, 2006 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z)" (WP:CSD A3 - no article content, this shouldn't be in article space. Userfied version already exists.)
My message before deletion to the admin who deleted article here:
Dear FPaS,
Thanks for your good faithfull commends.
You are right, there is no enough number of editor which deals with these kind of works.
I undertake a project (One contributor, me) to organize categories,templates,images and articles.My first job is to collect related categories,organizing,renaming and cleaning of them.That is reason why I have a subpage "deneme", I created a new article.There will be another one; "List_of_Turkey-related_categories(by topics)".I think, many categories was created accidentally, and needed cleaning and reorganizing. Also I will create a Category tree and user manual in WPTR. I hope in the future other/newcomer user will use categories in proper way. This project will take a big time of course( all linked articles are needed to scrutinized one by one), all helps are welcome. I need some bots to handle so huge number of articles, is it possible?
I think My message include the undelete reason.RegardsMustTC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darcy Burner – Nomination withdrawn – 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darcy Burner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Legal Medical Advisor – Deletion endorsed – 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Legal Medical Advisor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)
Legal Medical Advisor Certification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has been edited to comply with wikipedia TOS lpritchard 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please review this blatant spammer's contribution history, permanently block the user, and delete and protect the latest spam pages. -THB 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nonsense Humor Magazine – Deletion endorsed, article userfied – 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nonsense Humor Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Page was deleted citing "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I would suggest that a college humor magazine that has published for more than 23 years, providing critical and alternative analysis of society and its publishing university, is significant. Article has autobiographic tendencies, but that's an argument for editing, not outright deletion. Toomuchjoy 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy organizations and publications of single colleges are generally not considered notable on wikipedia. I am suggesting that the deleting admin place a copy of the article in your userspace so that you can edit and improve it to show how this one is notable enough for an article. Things to consider are has it won any awards, has it published work by notable authors, has it been mentioned in other reliable sources. Eluchil404 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Send it my way; the magazine has indeed won awards, been covered in other reliable sources, etc., and it will be simple enough to recast the last current info in the listing to reflect that and its relevance in a larger scope. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

Since the magazine is typically just referred to as "Nonsense," try a Google search of "Humor Nonsense Hofstra" and you get over 9,300 Google hits. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

Ok, below are a few from Newsday that I was able to dig up on short notice. Also, the magazine was awarded "2nd place, Special Interest Magazine" by the Society of Collegiate Journalism in the mid-80s (I'm still digging up specifics on that), has appeared in The Joe Bob Report. More to come if needed. Newsday articles, letters to the editor, etc. regarding Nonsense:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100187141&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104078480&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104782470&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104781543&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=49254948&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100891649&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100191828&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Coverage of when MIT plagarized Nonsense:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_110/TECH_V110_S0615_P002.pdf Toomuchjoy 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic League argues with Nonsense in The Catalyst, a magazine for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/1997_catalyst/197catalyst.htm#Anti-Catholicism%20Hits%20Campuses Toomuchjoy 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse although I would support a history undeletion, because any mention of the magazine should be at Hofstra University#Student life. Campus publications that do not achieve independent standing get discussions at their university articles. We do this with nearly all campus publications, no matter how august. The very, very few exceptions, such as The Crimson or Dartmouth Review, have other reasons for articles than that they have a long run and/or popularity on campus. Geogre 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These college humor magazines--

-- all have Wikipedia entries, but haven't been around as long as Nonsense, which was founded in 1982; thus it seems the requirement of "a long run" is arbitrarily enforced (I might politely add that allowing an entry purely because a publication has been around for more than 24 years doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the publication). Meanwhile, judging a publication based on "popularity on campus"--which Nonsense always has been (Vault.com characterizes it as "a student favorite" here: http://www.vault.com/survey/school/college/Hofstra-University-social-life-74210.html ) --contradicts the argument that the publication has to be judged based on its relevance to the world at large.

Toomuchjoy 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those magazine articles listed above appear to be clear candidates for deletion Bwithh 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense Humor Magazine was listed prominently in the The Directory of Humor Magazines and Humor Organizations in America (and Canada) 3rd Edition. Published in 1992 by Wry-Bred Press.

Nonsense was listed and sold by Spy Magazine in its December 1991 issue. "Spy Humor 101, Go Back to College for a Few Laughs". Spy got enough of a response to the listing to start buying advertising in Nonsense itself.

Heyitsal 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Couldn't find any hits in Factiva (which includes Newsday archives - though may not include letters to editors/some minor articles etc). I looked at a mirrored version of the deleted article here - I couldn't see any claims to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent, up-to-date version of the article--which is NOT the one mirrored around the web--had been updated substantially in November with a lot of facts, figures and information, in order to make it more of a comprehensive survey of the magazine's history. Please don't base your opinion of the listing on the meager (and inaccurate) version still floating around on the web. Toomuchjoy 13:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blue Dot Inc – Deletion endorsed, new version created and listed at AfD – 23:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blue Dot Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

G11 does not apply here. The purpose of the article is to describe a company, not promote a company. Further, the company is notable by reference to the cited independent news sources covering Blue Dot. I feel it was quite rude to have the article summarily deleted with no discussion; the article was obviously well structured, informative, and undergoing a process of improvement. Mike Koss 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say? I reckon you're the head cheerleader at Blue Dot, having a great time working to help Blue Dot "become a great service and a great company." You didn't mention that YOU LOVE BLUE DOT. Given your self-evident conflict of interest I'm more inclined to believe the Crazy Russian, and my own reading, and diagnose spam. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COI, WP:CSD G11, notability never at issue. A non-COI user may recreate this if notable (on which I reserve judgment) - 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Prior to deletion, notability was in question, as which point I added citations to demonstrate notability. I don't deny I have a COI. But I would ask that you judge the article for yourself. I believe it displays a NPOV, and contains factual, valuable, and cited information. I've created a copy here so you can read for yourself User:mckoss/Blue_Dot_Inc. The article was not created by me, but I started to improve it when it came under question as to the notability Mike Koss 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why my comments off of wikipedia are relevant. I have a long history of wikipedia edits accepted as NPOV. On my own private web site, I don't think I need to maintain NPOV. As yet, I've not heard any justification for speedy deletion based on the content of the article. I believe that should be the ultimate guiding principle - all other guidelines are meant to aid editors in making decisions. Mike Koss 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even remotely suggesting that action should be taken against Mike Koss for his personal attack that is off-Wiki. I am simply stating that, because of his uncivil behavior and severe conflict of interest, he should be strongly encouraged to allow other, uninvolved parties to recreate the article if and when the time comes. -- Satori Son 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You people have a clear problem with being civil. In what sense did I act in "bad faith"? I may not have understood the esoteric wikipedia guidelines. But I never acted in bad faith and have always been honest and forthright about by relationship to the company. I would like an apology. Mike Koss 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly say calling someone an asshole is not bad faith? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just playing the devil's advocate, it's possible to say something like that off wiki and still operate in good faith on wiki. Although in WP:ARBCOM(Snowspinner) linking to one's own nasty comments off-wiki was found to be uncivil, in WP:ARBCOM(Giano) Cyde's reposting and linking of Kelly Martin's off-wiki smear didn't even rate a mention. The ground is fairly well trod that unless off-wiki comments are death threats or lead to harrasment, we're meant to simply ignore them.
152.91.9.144 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've taken the liberty of posting it at Blue Dot. I think this discussion is moot now. We have a neutral version, supported by references. Thanks, asshole asstalk 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (BTW - Please accept my apology for the A**hole remark - it reflected my frustration at being cut off mid-discussion on the talk page, and that fact that you used sarcasm when making comments to me). I realize that the new page may be marked for deletion - I will just stay out of it (as recommended by COI guidelines). I am generally a big fan of wikipedia and have been amazed at some of the results. The problem, I think, in this case is that because of the speedy deletion rules - there is no record, debate is cut off prematurely, and a (potential) author is cut off with no sense that the community respect that there might be some value in the contribution. If the article is porn, profane, or link-spam, I can understand a speedy deletion reaction; but I don't think this article falls into that category. It's not just me - several of my friends (all potentially good conrtibutors) have written off even contributing to wikipedia again becuase of heavy handed administration. Mike Koss 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barse – Deletion endorsed – 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 193.1.172.163 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The term "barse" referring to the bit between the balls and the arse has been deleted 6 times from Wikipedia. It is a term I as an Irish person regularly use. I did not make it up. All my friends use it. People I don't know use it. I have met English people who use it. It seems to be a well used term in England and Ireland, and was probably coined on television. Reasons for deletion have included "hoax" "complete load of arse" etc. While it may be a vulgar/humourous term, it is certainly worth having a look at, unfortunately I do not have the time/resources to do this. I am responsible for the last article (my first on this site) and can't help but feel frustrated by the situation. Perhaps instead of googling the term you could use a blog searcher to search bebo or myspace for "barse". It is a part of modern culture, I am sure of it.[reply]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

  • Respectfully, endorse deleting and salting because, even with the most reliable sources in the world, this is an utter deletion from start to finish because it is a dictionary definition and therefore would belong at Wiktionary, if it could be validated. In the absence of validation, it's an inappropriate entry inappropriately done. Geogre 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, not only is it a slang dicdef, it is also either a protologism or at the very best a highly restricted neologism (stated to be British Isles usage, and I live in England), and it's already been to BJAODN at least once. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

12 December 2006

[edit]
Transition Video Magazine – Prodded article restored on request – 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Transition Video Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

proposed deletion This article was deleted with the following reason - 05:17, 16 November 2006 Crzrussian (Talk | contribs) deleted "Transition Video Magazine" (Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 November 2006). I propose reinstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.44.65 (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sorin Cerin – Speedy deletion overturned, AfD optional – 06:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sorin Cerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — {AfD}

This article was deleted on December 3 with conclusion: "Deletion endorse among established editors" because the article was very poor in information.After that time we recreate another article,with more information and now we beleive that article is good to be in Wikipedia.The new article was deleted on December 11 with conclusion:"the article must to go first through deletion review again"Alinaro 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Armeniapedia – Deletion endorsed – 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Armeniapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Article was definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. If the deleting admin believed there was no assertion of notability as stated in the deletion log, then he or she should have listed it immediately through AfD, which is standard and proper procedure, rather than delete unilaterally without discussion or notification. metaspheres 08:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: WP:CSD A7 is for exactly this: articles that do not even assert notability can be speedied without AfD. And I didn't "believe" there was no assertion of notability; I saw there was no such assertion, I don't need AfD to tell me that much. BTW, as a courtesy to interested editors I even notified the Armenian noticeboard in advance, which I wouldn't have been required to do. But anyway, I'll be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted material if you want to work on it and improve it (although I'm skeptical). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Fut. Perf. is quite right. There was no notability asserted. It did however have 3 links to the same domain where one would've sufficed. Sounds like spam. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Please read WP:CSD A7 again. Then read it a third time. Dragging an utterly non-notable wiki to DRV after a perfectly valid speedy is ill advised. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd advise you to assume good faith and not attempt to look cool by treating other editors as children by telling them to read something again and again. Deletion review exists precisely for these reasons, and if you believe otherwise, that's tough. If you have any other problems with me, take it to the proper channel. metaspheres 10:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment would somebody please delete Urdu Wikipedia as well? There is no assertion of notability there as well. Tizio 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There is nothing that asserted notability in the article's previous incarnation, but if notability becomes asserted at a later date, then recreating it is OK. --SunStar Nettalk 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Freedom Imaging Systems – Deletion endorsed – 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Freedom Imaging Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

See also: [16]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because the deleted version was awfully like an ad. It was promotional in tone and wording, with how many products now offered, etc. In other words, undeletion of this article would be to reinstate an article that violates the deletion policy pretty clearly both in terms of lack of reliable sources and for being an ad. The fact that the company could be covered just puts us back to the "article needed" stage. I do not think this is a cleanup case: this is a rewrite from scratch case. Geogre 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Circle Square Ranch – Restored by deleter – 06:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Circle Square Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Not a commercial page, only meant to inform viewers about the company. It's a non profit organization, they don not advertize on wiki. I was a volunteer there onece just thought i would make a page, cause i love wikipedia. If I broke a rule please explain it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.163.100 (talk • contribs)

  • Informing people about a company is exactly the same as advertising even if you don't call it that. To be listed on Wikipedia it has to be notable (i.e. covered by independant third party reliable sources). Being famous for something is not required but helps. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if AfD: This isn't a speedy deletion candidate, but it is an article that violates the deletion policy. "No advertising" is one of our most important principles at Wikipedia. We can't promote even the things that a majority support, and so we can't be used to announce or promote awareness of even non-profit and humanitarian organizations. Instead, we report on things already reported on by multiple others. Geogre 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Just Dial Communications – Deletion endorsed – 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Just Dial Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version. Thanks for the comments, I will rewrite the article with references explaining why the company is not just another communication company, but an organization which should be included in wikipedia pages.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG – Deletion endorsed – 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing.

Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it.

Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything.

Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you saying that if he becomes leader of the federal opposition, he'll become a recluse? Why will no one be able to take a photo of him in that situation? If he does disappear into private retirment then the issue of availability of free images can be readdressed, now is premature --pgk 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, if he becomes the leader of the opposition, he'll be so booked by shadow cabinet meetings, national publications and stations, etc., that he won't have time for the little people. When was the last time you saw Bill Graham at an event? Yes, he's interim, but so what. Can we not just undelete, and then discuss this on Monday? -- Zanimum 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People will still be able to take photos, he'll still make "public" appearances, taking a photo doesn't have to be posed or one on one. The image was originally deleted over a month ago, we've had over a month to replace it and no one has bothered, I can't see what difference a couple of days without an image would make. --pgk 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you eliminate (a) all the events that are $100 a plate, (b) only for the registered media, (c) only for Liberal members, you're not left with a lot. The only opportunity to see Bob publicly, for free, was in Toronto at 8 am on a Thursday, and on a Friday in Ottawa from 3 to 5 pm, at the Slovenian Canadian Club of Calgary, and in Cupar, Saskatchewan, which is in the middle of no where. He's trying to attract a very limited bunch of people, the Liberal delegates. Thus he has no need to be freely accessible to folks like us. -- Zanimum 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He'll still be appearing in places the public can attend and take photos, again it doesn't need to be a posed shot or a one on one. Why you eliminate (a) and (c) I'm not sure anyway, are we saying the being a Liberal member and being able to take a photo for use on wikipedia are mututally exclusive? The policy on replaceable fair use says nothign about replacement images needing to be taken for zero cost. --pgk 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That list is to prove that almost all of the events on his tour of Canada were inaccessible to Canadian Wikipedians. They were members-only or expensive. Do you see anyone that's willing to spend $100 dollars for one photo? -- Zanimum 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again the criteria says nothing about cost or willingness of any given individual to meet that cost. The person will still be appearing in public and will still be able to have his photo taken, and indeed you can still persue getting an "official" image released under an appropriate license. I assume this individual doesn't get out of cars with a blanket over their head as they get shuffled into buildings with blacked out windows with individuals searched to remove photographic equipment, they aren't a recluse. Your list doesn't "prove" anything regarding unavailability of a photo or ability to take one. As to the general principle is someone willing to pay $100 to get a given photo, if not then I guess the photo simply isn't that important to the article. --pgk 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone took a picture of a unicorn, but kept it under copyright, you'd say we couldn't use it? Because "oh, we can just send a photographer to Antartica to wander around for five months to take a free alternative". Correct? -- Zanimum 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well putting aside that unicorns don't actually exist, then I can't see what this has to do with anything. Bob Rae isn't a recluse hiding out in Antarctica, he is a public figure, he appears in public regularly, I would guess he probably even has a fairly public diary. Go to flickr and people have photos of him, (they aren't licensing them under a suitable license) they undoubtdly have managed to take photos of him, why those people can manage to but you reckon no one else in the world will be able to is beyond me. If your unicorn appeared in public regularly, then yes it would fail replaceable fair use, if it cost $100 to get the picture, it would still fail replaceable fair use. For sports personalities in such situations we say people can go to a game and take a photo, they can indeed cost $100 or more to do. --pgk 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:CRIIRADmap.gif – Deletion endorsed – 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:CRIIRADmap.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has been deleted on the claims that one Wikipedia could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could have copied the information from that map (the coordinates of the dots) and incorporated that same information into a PD map of France. It looks to me like this deletion was proper. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure simply copying the coordinates from this map would clear copyright issues. As I understand cartography copyright, we would need a new map constructed from the same data, if it's available in a published source. Zocky | picture popups 11:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Facts aren't copyrightable. A new map constructed from the same data would put the dots in the same location, so what's the point (or what's to stop me from just doing that and saying I reconstructed the whole thing)? howcheng {chat} 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

11 December 2006

[edit]
Template:User UBXEssay – Status quo endorsed – 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:User UBXEssay (edit | [[Talk:Template:User UBXEssay|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Inappropriate Application of T1. Cyde claims that this is "divisive" which is just a thinly veiled excuse to force another userbox to User space. The template and the essay that it refer to are intended to help editors think about the userbox discussions in an informative, albeit somewhat humorous, fashion. This template and its inclusion on user pages is not divisive, but conciliatory. It has done a great deal of good in bringing people to see each other's points of view on this Wiki issue more openly. Forcing this particular template to user space will lessen the effectiveness of the discussion because several of those involved in the discussion believe that this is exactly the sort of template that should be allowed to remain in Template. Forcing them all to User is inflammatory in and of itself. In any case, a speedy delete per T1 was rushed and probably inappropriate. NThurston 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has read the essay on userbox personalities and might be a Centrist.

Users can put whatever categorization they prefer in place of "Centrist." --NThurston 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thanks. Do not endorse deletion, but see no major issue with it being in userspace as it is now. Certainly wasn't a T1, in any regard, but it continues to exist, so there doesn't appear to be a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Remember this is about process, not necessarily outcomes. The question is whether Cyde should have used Speedy Delete (T1). In my opinion, T1 was mis-applied. At a minimum, this should have gone to MfD, where a discussion about Template vs. User could have taken place. As is, Cyde is imposing a userfication that may or may not be justified, and this case in particular shows why that imposition is not appropriate while the discussion on userboxes continues. --NThurston 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DRV is necessarily about outcomes. When an incorrect process gives a possibly-incorrect result, DRV is empowered to correct it. If an incorrect process produces the right result, then we have nothing to do - correcting the process is beyond the scope of DRV. Chris cheese whine 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion while I'm here. This didn't belong in Template space -- any reference to the userbox war in template space is an automatic T1. Properly userfied, where it belongs. Xoloz 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Xoloz, that was exactly what I was thinking when I got rid of it. --Cyde Weys 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse userfication. Boarderline T1, but nothing is gained by undeleting since clearly should be in User rather than Template space. Eluchil404 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse userfication and deletion If it was properly userfied I have no issues with the deletion. CharonX/talk 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, the box already exists at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay. Userfied (and ironic, concidering it's about a userbox personality essay). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse status quo. This is precisely the sort of thing that should be out of Template: and into userspace, which is precisely what happened. Precisely how it happened is none of our concern. Chris cheese whine 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse userfication, since little is gained by having two copies of the same userbox. However, I state for the record that T1 shouldn't have been used as the criterion for deletion (it was not, as far as I know, actually causing any divisions or controversy amongst the community); it would have been easy enough just to use its redundancy as the reason for deletion. CameoAppearance orate 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete It's the right thing to do. Some of the other comments here can be less harsh in tone, though. Xiner 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - it's not an appropriate use of template space to promote userspace content. By the way, the image of the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is obviously mistagged (I will correct it) and is a non-free image. It should not be used in userspace. BigDT 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care if it is in template namespace or userspace. Note: this template is an exact copy from the one in userspace, originally by the same editor. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's already been userfied, so I've no problem with kicking it out of templatespace. jgp TC 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to Close Since it is apparent that a consensus is emerging, I see no point in furthering this discussion. However, I would like to note that there is some feeling that Cyde did mis-apply T1 in this case. I presume he used T1 because there was no other criterion to justify Speedy Delete. So, the bottom line is - yeah, maybe it shouldn't have been a Speedy Delete, but "oh well" the outcome is not that bad, so what the hay. While there is something fundamental about this approach to editing that bothers me, I accept that this is the consensus. --NThurston 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to NThurston - What an incredibly arrogant and bad faith assertion you make above. Simply because you don't like the rules doesn't mean Cyde is abusing them. It's divisive because it invokes that pile of crap people call the userbox war. It was in template space. Kindly explain to me using logic and not "Gee I'm going to make a wild accusation of Cyde making up a reason to delete my thingie". --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Elaragirl - I have responded on your talk page. To the rest - I think you should know that Royalguard has done more to calm the userbox war than the rest of us put together. The personality essay has helped to bring people together, not drive us apart. He deserves some credit and/or recognition for being willing to talk about what makes us different. Understanding is the key to progress. --NThurston 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/userfy - no reason for this to be in existence as a template. Moreschi 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The template, like the page it directs you to, is divisive and polemic crap. Valid T1. Proto::► 11:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that way to me; all it does is sort the existing attitudes towards userboxes into categories. How did you draw that conclusion? CameoAppearance orate 09:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion – Undeleted with no objection by deleter; MfD optional – 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion (edit | [[Talk:User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I'm shocked that the page was deemed inflammatory, when I didn't disparage anyone but am just stating what many pro-choice people believe, that we're pro-life, too. If the page is T1 then so is every pro-life page that is against choice, b/c they're saying we're against life. I'd also have liked a notice on my talk page about the deletion and about my "inflammatory" behavior, because if I'm guilty of such behavior, I should be warned against it. Xiner 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I just realized how difficult it is for anyone to form an opinion about this case if they don't know the original text. It was, as I recall, a userbox saying "Abortion|This user is pro-life and pro-choice". I wrote it with WP:GUS in mind. I hope no one got defensive about my mentioning the violence against abortion clinics? Xiner 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I have not seen a cogent argument for speedily deleting my page. I thus feel Dmcdevit abused his admin privileges in this case and has filed a grievance at the appropriate page. Xiner 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "I'm just stating what I believe" doesn't keep something from being inflammatory. Please direct me to these other pages you're complaining about so I can nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pro-Life_Wikipedians is a prominent example of what I'm talking about, and openly too while my page sat in my user space. I am also complaining about the speedy deletion that took place. While you promised to nominate the pro-lifer pages for deletion, my page was deleted without a whimper. Xiner 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INN is a good essay to read in this case. This is a wiki, and deletion is necessarily inconsistent, if only because rightfully deleting one thing does not obligate someone to undertake rightfully deleting everything of the same type. If you actually want that page deleted, that's another thing, but its existence offers no argument for keeping your page. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I found the pro-lifer category, I wanted to nominate it for deletion, but decided to present a balancing view instead, which is now removed from Wikipedia. I'm waiting for Amarkov to do something about that page now. Xiner 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed they were like yours. They are just like the standard pro-choice userbox, which wasn't deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew it. The only differences between mine and theirs is that theirs is in Template and Category while mine is in my userspace, and theirs implies I'm against life while mine just says everyone is pro-life. Can I say Biased Admin? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you won't do it, I've listed the related categories for renaming. Xiner 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia aims for neutrality, and templates used for transcluding POV advocacy and organizing Wikipedians by POV serve no productive purpose. That is why this userbox was deleted as divisive. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my page says an abortion supporter also supports life, while the pro-lifers' page implies I'm against life. Which is divisive? I'd also argue that deleting my page removes an inclusive point of view and is thus a divisive act itself. Xiner 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what your POV advocacy was, just that it was. Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny the only thing you've said is that my page violates something. How about a substantive debate? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, provided that the content was something along the lines of "This user is pro-choice" and not "This user supports the slaughter of unborn babies". It was in userspace, and WP:GUS was applied for userboxes of a political or religious nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. My page falls under GUS while their pages fall under Template namespace rules. Apparently some admins find "This user is pro-life and pro-choice" inflammatory. Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, list at TfD. Speedy may have been proper, but it seems controversial enough where a better hearing should probably happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for admitting at least that much. May I ask why I can't say I support life? Xiner 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really care what you state, honestly. But if it's obviously this controversial, you should be able to make your case in the proper forum. I don't know how it was worded at the time of deletion, so I don't want to make any real judgement calls. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete It makes me wonder what made this userbox so obnoxious and vile that it required speedy deletion. If Dmcdevit feels this box should be gone he should take it to MfD rather than going straight for the delete button. CharonX/talk 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So that people know what is at issue, here is the most recent version of this deleted usebox:
Choice This user is pro-life and pro-abortion.

- TexasAndroid 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close per Dmcdevit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the only reason you've stopped objecting to the undeletion is the overwhelming consensus of your peers. I still think it's an abuse of adminship, but regardless, this case itself is due for an end. Xiner 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete, MfD please if you want to. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn & Undelete There is no way that this is the kind of noncontroversial deletion envisioned by CSD. While assuming good faith, I do think that a disinterested party should look at whether sanctions on the original deletion are in order for the following reasons: First, this userbox is in User space, not Template space, so T1 is, by my reading, inapplicable. Second, it is difficult to imagine that anyone would consider the deletion of a userfied userbox as noncontroversial, much less the deletion of a userfied userbox dealing with abortion. Undelete it, leave it be, & edit articles instead. --Ssbohio 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Halo2Leagues.com – Deletion endorsed – 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Halo2Leagues.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

This page is not spam, we are posting information about a free leagues website. If MLG has the right to a page we should also have that same right. CBTS Pennywise1 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 December 2006

[edit]
Fixity of the species – Deletion endorsed – 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fixity of the species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The article was originally called linnaean lawn when it was proposed for deletion. After being moved to fixity of the species, a more commonly used name, and more was added to the article, it was not reconsidered as a legitimate article by the many who agreed to delete the article. The article now meets all the wikipedia criteria (although, much more can be added). Furthermore, some who agreed to delete the article appeared to be confused as to the difference between "merging" and "deleting". Pbarnes 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ned Raggett – Speedy deletion overturned with consent of deleting administrator – 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ned Raggett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was speedied per CSD A7. The article contained an assertion of notability, however tenuous (major contributor to All Music Guide), so I feel the article should have been prodded or listed at AFD instead, to give editors a chance to clean up the article and attempt to make a stronger case for inclusion. The subject has had multiple articles published in a major newspaper (Seattle Weekly[17]), and as a significant contributor to All Music Guide (over 2000 reviews) his writing is widely quoted and reproduced with attribution by sites that use AMG metadata. I've written a draft stub that attempts to make a case for notability. --Muchness 04:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pingus – Undeleted in light of new evidence, AfD optional – 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pingus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)
This article has been undeleted in the light of more evidence produced. Evidence as to the notability of the article was not present either on the AfD discussion or the page itself. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Linux game. Has been mentioned in many industry publications, online and offline, e.g. linux.about.com, UnixReview.com, CNN.com. It was Game of the Month [18] at the Linux Game Tome, arguably the most notable online Linux game website. If we have any Linux open source games at all, then we should certainly have Pingus -- it is among the most well known ones. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pingus did not show any consensus to delete.--Eloquence* 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tourette's Guy – speedy endorsed due to repeated previous endorsements and no new evidence presented. – 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

(note: an anon misplaced this on the December 5th page; I've moved here, Patstuarttalk|edits 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I propose that the article for Tourette's Guy be reinstituted for the following reasons:

1. He is a famous person.

2. HIs website has sparked an internet phenomena, with many people visiting his the site to watch the videos of him in action, parodying his videos on YTMND, and putting his stuff on YouTube and other video-sharing websites.

3. Similar internet phenomena, such as "O Rly?" and "Leroy Jenkins" have their own Wiki pages.

4. He has appeared on an MTV commercial.

Moreover, any offense taken by those who think he is "faking" his illness and alcoholism ought to be disregarded, specifically on account that many offensive articles are to be found on Wikipedia. Certainly, if David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, not to mention a Cleaveland Steamer, have wikipedia pages and are not banned for the offensive content, Tourette's Guy can have his own? 69.22.252.216 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

  • Thanks PatStuart, I was the person who put it there. Sorry about the date! Anyway, re: the above user's points.

It is most certainly verifiable. The man's website routinely adds new videos of him doing stupid things and his works are widely dispersed over the internet. His existence as a subject of a series of videos about his antics is grounded in fact and this so much can be seen by simply looking at said videos. Moreover, a search on Yahoo for "Tourette's Guy" brought up over 9000 results. This is a level of notority worthy of mentioning on an Encylopedia, specifically when we have articles on Japanese anime characters, professional wrestlers, and webcomics - all equally as trivial as the Tourette's guy.

There is simply no sensible reason why Tourette's guy should not be included in a small entry on Wikipedia.69.22.252.216 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)(Anonymous).[reply]

  • That which is "verifiable" only by reference to the guy's own website or by reference to crap off "teh internets" is not verifiable per policy. Please provide evidence that this has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Cite new evidence available since this was endorsed last month. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note The version I looked at was a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35 10 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Endorse deletion and let it drop already. It's most definitely not verifiable, and it's probably not notable. No reason given why three seperate AfDs and two DRVs should be overturned. You could at least provide some of these reliable sources you claim to have, since you need them for verifiability. -Amarkov blahedits 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

9 December 2006

[edit]
Rachael Ray Sucks – Speedy deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rachael Ray Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The AfD on the above article was speedily closed by Zoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with the explanation "NN blogs (it's on Livejournal) and attack pages both qualify for speedy deletion". Regarding the non-notability: the article asserted that the site was covered by Slate, Newsweek, The New York Times, and USA Today. Those are all "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", which means that the article met WP:WEB. Whether the site is hosted by LiveJournal is immaterial. Rachael Ray Sucks also didn't qualify for G10 because it was not an attack in itself: it merely reported an attack site. Writing about an insult does not repeat the insult. This means that the article didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I request reopening the AfD, to assess some kind of community consensus. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an attack site. But what matters is whether it was an attack article. Attack articles qualify for G10, articles about attack sites do not. And how is it non-notable with the outside coverage? (Yes, it needs referencing, but that's no ground for speedy deletion.) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mandarin emperor style dildo – Endorse; review is obvious trolling – 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mandarin emperor style dildo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

widespread pornographic usage

I believe this article should be undeleted. The mandarin emperor style dildo is being featured in more pornography and is for sale in numerous sex shops. 128.233.151.203 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been an article by this name. Are we being trolled? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're referring to Mandarin Emperor style dildo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --W.marsh 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The deletion argument is quite easy to make: one does not create an article for "low flow economy toilet," despite that being for sale, as what we're talking about is a specific design of a topic that has plenty of coverage here and elsewhere. Separate articles for every conceivable configuration, design, shape, action, orifice, color, scent, and speed setting of a vibrator is absolutely useless. Geogre 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, W.marsh. I think it's pretty clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin Emperor style dildo that we are being trolled. Speedy keep deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Heather Poe – Deletion endorsed – 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Heather Poe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), AfD

0942 PT Dec 9, 2006 Heater Poe is the life partner of Mary Cheney (daughter of VP Dick Cheney). It was announced this week that they are expecting a baby. She is mentioned several times in the Mary Cheney article. When you pull her up in Google there is a lot about her and photographs of her. She is important as she is one of the first openly gay spouses invited to the White House for State Dinners - (I.E. The recption for the Prince of Wales). She also helped co-auther Mary Cheney's book "Mine Turn" and has several chapters about her in the book. Her name is [[]] in the article and when I tried to expand it twice it was remove as being NON REVLEVANT. I think anyone with so many google pages, on the front pages of newspapers and in a current best selling book is revelent and should have an article on them. (By the way the comments from the remover were really in combative and natsy tone) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfphotocraft (talk • contribs).

  • Why not just redirect to Mary Cheney? It's what we usually do with family of notable people, and it wouldn't need a DRV to just make a redirect. Also I don't see what comments from any of the 3 people who deleted this article had a "combative and nasty tone". --W.marsh 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AFD consensus was clear and obvious. Nothing in the nomination indicates that she has any notability other than being the partner of a daughter of the current VP of the U.S. By our standards, the VP automatically merits an article, their children have to do something publicly notable to get an article, and the spouses/partners of those children really have to meet WP:BIO all on their own. De-redlinking the name in the Mary Cheney article would help prevent more attempts from recreation. GRBerry 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but create redirect The AfD closure from ~6 months ago was obviously valid, and the person does not have any notability of her own. However, there's certainly no reason her name can't redirect to Mary Cheney's article. -- Kicking222 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, redirect and protect: I'll do it, if others won't. At this point, the name is going to be entered into the search box with increasing regularity ("Mary Cheney's Partner Pregnant! Film at 11:00!"), so we both need the redirect and need to prevent homophobes and ... others ... scribbling on the spot. (I'll do it meself.) Geogre 13:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Big Brother - Big Business – Nomination withdrawn – 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article made a notability claim and was sourced, it was a valid stup and should not have been speedy deleted. --Striver 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the logs, it seems the "source" is a google video, which isn't reliable (and is primary). Not to mention probably a copyright violation. ColourBurst 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just recreate the article as more than a tiny substub? Add some context, something about what the show's actually about? The article that was deleted had basically no useful information, it was less than you'd get from the TV Guide capsule description. Seems faster than DRV at any rate. --W.marsh 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, ill recreate it and go for undelete history. withdraw nom. --Striver 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SheezyArt – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SheezyArt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I closed the AfD for the article and speedy deleted it due to CSD A7, but since even those who supported speedy deletion mentioned it had a decent Alexa rank, and also due to requests, I'm placing this on review. Personally I still think it is a borderline speedy candidate. (Note that the article used to be titled Sheezyart, and was apparently copy-and-pasted to SheezyArt last year.) Kimchi.sg 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, valid A7, Alexa ranks are not indicators of notability. Will reconsider if notability is asserted and verified through multiple non-trivial reliable sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. I actually had an account there once, amazingly enough, but I can attest to its non-notability. There isn't anything in the article itself that suggests that WP:WEB is met in any way. --Coredesat 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are talking about a site that now exceeds 100,000 members; would you consider a city of that size "non-notable"? Do you assert "non-notability" on the grounds that you did not enjoy your experience? Or simply based on the fact that the site is non-commercial unlike archives such as deviantART? Even that would be a spurious argument, as I can provide you upon request with the URLs for many artists who make a living off of their art who make use of SheezyArt. I suggest you justify your claim further, especially considering that you were a member. Exactly when were you a member--from what date to what date? What exactly did you find non-notable besides your dislike for the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.21.218.60 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Membership isn't a measure of notability, either. While I was there I did not see anything that showed that the site was very widely known or notable in any way aside from the number of members (granted, this was some time ago, but as far as I can tell, it still applies). Whether I can say it's notable or not, it doesn't solve the problem that the deleted article did not meet the standards in WP:WEB. --Coredesat 22:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cities cannot be equated to websites, simply due to the fact that the latter isn't bound by a physical location and is therefore easier to grow to 100,000 people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Alexa ranking doesn't mean automatic notability, and besides, A7 says "that do not assert notability", so if the article didn't mention anything which would make it notable, it's valid anyway. -Amarkov blahedits 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per everyone above. Not just does Alexa ranking not confer notability, but the site's Alexa ranking is in the 28,000s, which isn't that high to begin with. If no importance was asserted, then there's no reason not to speedy the article. -- Kicking222 03:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Alexa rank is higher than a lot of website articles that come and go, but nowhere near high enough to suggest this needs any special treatment or exemption from our fundamental policies. Besides, the article as written was almost entirely trivia desperately stretched out to get it near article length: server downtime this, forum drama that, etc. etc. etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
R G C Levens – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
R G C Levens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I wrote a stub about the Merton Classics don, R G C Levens (Robert Levens) which was twice speedily deleted for notoriety. As he was well known at the time for his school edition of Cicero Verrine V how do I get the entry restored if such arbitrary methods are used? Alternately someone might provide a fuller entry----Clive Sweeting

Can we have a link to the AfD debate, if any. If speedied without debate, the decision is impossible for non-admins without access to the article to evaluate. Newyorkbrad 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the article said R G C Levens (Robert Levens)( - ) was Classical Moderations Tutor at Merton College, Oxford in the mid twentieth century. Married to the theatrical producer Daphne Levens (née Yarnold) he was particularly well known for his school edition of Cicero, Verrine Oration V. His only son, Andrew, was killed as an undergraduate in a traffic accident in Russia.. No claims of notability whatsoever. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" particularly well known " is a claim of notability, albeit somewhat strained. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 10 December 2006 (GMT).
We have gone over this many many times. If somebody writes "Joe Blow is particularly well known for his large penis and his way with the ladies", I can't speedy delete it? Be realistic. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would more than likely be blatant vandalism. This, of course, is not analogous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

8 December 2006

[edit]
Yeouinaru Station – Nomination withdrawn – 07:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yeouinaru Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The votes in the AfD were Keep: 8 (2 "Strong Keep" and 1 "Speedy Keep"), Delete (including nom): 5 (no "strong" or "speedy") . The closing administrator cited no sources for the reason for deletion. It is the view of at least some of the keep voters that rail and subway stations are inherently notable and per WP:AFDP ("Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [21]"), Wikipeida consensus has agreed with that. With 8 to 5 votes in favor for keeping and per precedent, this warrants an undeletion.

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of people whose full names are not commonly known – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of people whose full names are not commonly known (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)


After looking at the AfD for this list, I'm concerned by the reasons given for deletion. Also, several people seem to have the wrong idea about what the list actually is. I've tried to follow the policy at the top of this page, and resolve this informally on the deleting admin's talk page first, but he refused to answer my specific points and pointed me straight here, so here I am, I guess. These were the three main points made for deletion:


  • Criteria's too vague, lots of people don't have their full names commonly known

This point was made by several people, including the deleting admin, and it's quite valid - if the list really was a list of "people whose full names are not commonly known", it would be too vague. However, if you actually bother to look at the list, you'll notice it's specifically based around use of the person's first name. That's why I reworked the introductory paragraph there, to tighten the criteria needed to list a name, and suggested, with some support, that it be renamed to "List of people whose first names are not commonly used".


  • Can't be verified or checked for notability

If there's an article on Sean Connery, he's passed the notability test.
Sean Connery's full name is Thomas Sean Connery.
Due to community consensus, and based on the volume of published works which use his name, he is referred to as "Sean Connery" throughout the article.
Therefore, by Wikipedia standards, he falls into the category of "someone whose first name is not commonly used", and is a valid candidate for the list.

Re: the original nominator's example: if there were no references, then all occurences of "Buzz Aldrin" in his own article should be replaced by "Edwin Eugene Aldrin". However, the article can use the Buzz name, since it has several references showing how frequently this name is used, even in official publications. (That's where the change from "known" to "used" becomes more useful.)


  • List is unnecessary, just go to the person's page

This defeats the purpose of the list. If you're trying to find people whose first names aren't commonly used, and you don't know exactly who you're looking for, what do you type into the search box? Quote from WP:LIST:

If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).

Indeed, there is a whole category, "Lists of people by name feature", which is then seperated based on the nature of the common name. This list is now a notable omission from the category. (However, List of people named after famous people seems far too vague, so I've prodded it).


I made most of those points during the discussion, but they went unanswered. Based on those points, I still believe the list should be renamed to List of people whose first names are not commonly used, as proposed. If, at the end of the day, there's a true consensus to delete it, fine, - but I'd still like to hear a few answers to those specific points. Thanks for your time. Quack 688 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. "Commonly known" is entirely based on editors' POV, as the nominator admits by saying that the basis for Sean Connery being on the list is because that's what we refer him to as in his article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As this isn't AfD round 2, let me be more specific about process; the main argument for the consensus that argued for deletion in the AfD was that 'commonly known' is POV, and this is absolutely right. Hence, valid AfD and no reason to overturn. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The main argument seemed to be that it was POV what is "commonly known", which it is. Even if it wasn't the main argument, I'd still endorse deletion for that. -Amarkov blahedits 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, we should refer to this guy as "Thomas Sean Connery" in his own article, since "it's POV to say his common name is Sean Connery". However, if it's community consensus that the shorter name is the one more commonly used to identify a particular individual, then it should be used all across Wikipedia - both in his own article, and in this list. I'm just after a bit of consistency.
As I previously said, I agree that "commonly known" is bad, that's why I proposed changing it to "commonly used", since it's easier to verify. Can we please direct any future comments towards that? Quack 688 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we still don't know how common something must be to be "commonly used". To address your other point, that isn't POV, any more than it's POV to use "humor" instead of "humour". It's just the name we use, it doesn't express a viewpoint. To say something is "commonly used" does express a viewpoint. -Amarkov blahedits 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree - continually referring to him as "Sean Connery" throughout the article isn't "just the name we use", and it's not a regional issue like spelling - it makes an implicit statement that "Sean Connery" is, in fact, his common name. That is simply an editor's POV - until reliable sources are supplied, that is. The only reason people can use this name is because they have references at the bottom of the article, showing how often he's referred to as such in primary sources. However, I can't refer to author Robert A. Heinlein as "Anson Heinlein", since there are no sources which suggest that this name is commonly used. It's all about the sources. (I've got some errands to run, I won't be able to answer for a while, but I hope people keep this in mind.) Quack 688 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid per process. Also valid per policy: list is subjective (define "commonly known") As to the nickname argument, that's why we have redirects. No reason to overturn deletion of this subjective list. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per everyone above. Incredibly subjective criteria for the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an encyclopedia primarily uses the name "Sean Connery", then it is already implicitly claiming that this is his common name, not just a fashionable nickname. A reputable encyclopedia should not imply anything that it is not prepared to openly state, and needs to be consistent across all its articles.
Can you please be more specific, and say exactly what part of the following reasoning is "incredibly subjective"?
- The name "Anson Heinlein" does not appear in any notable sources, so it would be intellectually dishonest for an encyclopedia to suggest that this is Heinlein's common name - either explicitly ("He commonly uses the name Anson Heinlein"), or implicitly ("Anson Heinlein did X, Anson Heinlein did Y...")
- Connery's birth name is "Thomas Sean Connery".
- The name "Sean Connery" is used in primary sources much more often than his real name. (Interviews, award ceremonies, film credits, reviews, etc.)
- This is not his real name. (His real first name is Thomas, not Sean.)
- However, due to the weight of primary sources, "Sean Connery" can be used as his common name:
explicitly ("He is commonly referred to as Sean Connery", or "Thomas is his first name, but it is not commonly used")
implicitly ("Sean Connery did X, Sean Connery did Y"). Quack 688 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've struck the "incredibly subjective" section from my comment. However, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be more specific about saying "I agree with the other people who endorse the deletion".
Your rationale is moderately sound (though it potentially falls apart for anyone who isn't as famous as Sean Connery), but I still can't shake the opinion that this article is just plain useless. Sorry, but that's just how I feel. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to address the "useless" criticism, but first, I'd like to point out that verifiability was the main concern of the original nomination, and of several of the "delete per nom" comments there. If a valid verifiability method was presented to these people, several of them might change their stance.
Regarding its usefulness, I've mentioned the WP:LIST quote and my basic reasoning in my first post. Also, if you want to find examples of stage names, but you don't know anyone in particular, you can go to Stage name. However, that article's own criteria makes it clear that Sean Connery is not welcome there:
People whose main forename just happens not to be the first one (such as Paul McCartney and Marie Osmond) are not listed here—these are their real names, not stage names.
This sounds like the exact criteria for the deleted list - wouldn't this be a great list to link to from that paragraph? If you want to find examples of these people, but you don't know what names to type in, how do you go about it without a list? Type in random celebrities until you get lucky?
In summary, if the list helps users find the information they're after, if it's based on the same standards used throughout Wikipedia, and if the three main reasons used for deletion are addressed, the only reason outstanding is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, someone could come up with a new reason for deletion, but that's what AfD is for. I'd be perfectly happy to see the article renamed, updated with the verifiability criteria I mentioned, then given a fresh procedural AfD listing. Hell, if someone revives it, I'll tidy it up and relist it for open discussion on AfD myself. How does that sound? Quack 688 08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for Quack to recreate as [[List of people whose first names are not commonly used]] unless a better name can be found. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24 10 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Please tell me that any reworked version is not going to contain the less than surprising fact that Katie Couric is named Katherine, or Bobby Cox is actually Robert. Next thing you know, they'll give us the shocking news that Dick Cheney is actually named Richard. Fan-1967 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You endorse yourself based on your own closing statement of "there are a great deal of people that their actual full names are not known."? Sigh. Like I said to Guy before, I've now said five times on this very page (twice in bold text) that the term "commonly known" is inherently problematic and should be replaced. It's six and three if you count this post. Same for the "full names" part. If you don't intend to address any of the specific points brought up here, I honestly don't know what else I can say. Quack 688 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am allowed to endorse myself, I'm not entirely insane, thank you. Let's take a look here, shall we? I judged this AfD based upon strength of argument this is not another AfD. There was almost no or barely any strength in the argument for keeping this page. The subject matter is inheriently trivial, and nearly on the boderline of insanity. Also, I don't think anyone is too keen on you essentially badgering everyone here about how you feel about this page. Just because you're going on near tirades doesn't negate the consensus of the AfD, which is being fully endorsed. Yanksox 16:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I never suggested you were insane, and I don't appreciate your statement that the list is bordering on insanity (and the implication that anyone who endorses this list might also be bordering on insanity). The main concern people had with the article was verifiability. I've outlined a method of verifying the statement "Sean Connery's first name is not commonly used". Too many people's full names aren't commonly known? That's what the rename's for. The article is trivial? It's a list - it's not supposed to add new information itself. It's used to organize existing information based on a common feature, just like the current list of stage names. That's the purpose of a list. Several people commented that it was useful, just not verifiable.
I thought the point of the discussion process was to highlight problems in an article. Three main problems were found, and I proposed three solutions for them. If there's a specific problem with one of my solutions, point it out and it can be addressed. If my solutions are valid, then the original concerns have been addressed, and the article should be kept. At they very least,it should be fixed, then put back on AfD so people can check and see if their concerns have been addressed or not. Quack 688 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I haven't seen any comments in a couple of days - what happens now? If there aren't any new criticisms beyond those I've addressed above, can I get this list put on my user page to start work on those problems? Quack 688 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wiki Con Artist – Request for review withdrawn – 07:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wiki Con Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

What? Closed in less than one day? It may have been bad, but from what I saw, it was not that self-evidentially bad. 4 people was too little to generate discussion, and it was not even unanimous. -Amarkov blahedits 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Just Dial Communications – Deletion endorsed – 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Just Dial Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version.

  • Endorse all G11 deletions, and whack the people who did the G4s. G4 does not apply to speedies. -Amarkov blahedits 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful who you whack there, guy. G4 used to cover speedy deletions, not sure where this instruction creep came from, but if it met a speedy deletion criteria and is recreated in a "substantially identicle" form, it still meets the original criteria. --W.marsh 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is a bad idea for G4 to apply to speedies, but okay. Sorry if I offended anyone. -Amarkov blahedits 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The updated {{db-repost}} template now asks for a specific AFD reference. I don't have an issue with it. Let's face it, usually a db-bio is still going to be a db-bio on the next round, but occasionally content is added that takes it out of db-bio qualification. Rather than checking to compare with older versions, it seems reasonable to just ask whether this specific version meets speedy criteria, so use a specific CSD reason rather than repost. Fan-1967 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Non-notable group. There's absolutely no assertion of notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lang Michener LLP – Deletion endorsed – 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lang Michener LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

This article has been created and deleted twice, the first time for 'spam', and second for reading like advertising. The topic of the article is a Canadian law firm, one of the most notable in the country. One of its founders, Roland Michener, is a former Governor General of Canada, and they have had many other notable partners, including former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. I do not believe the current version of the article read like an advertisement, but at least two editors had already posted to the talk page offering to help improve the article before the deletion took place a few hours ago. I think the deletions were probably unwarranted in the first place, but there are editors who are willing to work on bringing the article up to scratch. Since the previous version (note the article creator's talk page) had also been worked on to make it more neutral and fleshed-out, perhaps that version could be userfied to combine the info from both? Anchoress 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Keep it deleted
2. Rewrite it.
But as it stands spam is not keepable Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't agree that it's spam. It's not really self-promoting, it's less POV than the vast majority of the articles on pop music artists, and it is on a topic that's mentioned in a bunch of Wikipedia articles. Anchoress 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those articles seem to reference Roland Michener in his political role, or are otherwise not relevant to this firm, or mention it only tangentially. Fan-1967 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the listing doesn't only show Lang Michener, but I disagree that the articles that mention it do so only 'tangenitally'. Sergio Marchi and Donald Stovel Macdonald, both Canadian Federal politicians, list it as their place of employment, for instance. Anchoress 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those references were specifically what I meant by "tangentially". Fan-1967 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. :-) But my main point above was that it isn't spam, and I stand by that. Anchoress 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lang Michener unquestionably deserves an article, as it is one of Canada's largest and most prominent law firms. However, the version that was deleted did read like an ad. There is thus no need to undelete, but hopefully someone will soon come and write an NPOV article on the subject. The incoming links should also be restored. - SimonP 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restored the incoming links. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fortuna (philosophy) – Deletion endorsed – 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fortuna (philosophy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

This page refers to a contemporary social movement called the Fellowship of Fortuna which is internationally recognized though not widely written about. It seems to me that wikipedia is the place for people to find complete, unbiased information on this movement which is rooted in conepts of fortune and chance. like other 'religious' movements, i think it should be covered here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetologist (talk • contribs)

  • O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis, semper crescis aut decrescis. This article, on the other hand, was in respect of a group with statu minimis no evidence of significance or encyclopaedic notability. A quick search finds that there is nothing "out there" on which a verifiable article could be based. Sorry, but the reason we require a group to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources is that without this evidence of notability, past experience shows that we can't ensure that we maintain our core policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. When you have been featured in multiple mianstream publications, then will be the time to have an article. Meanwhile, this was a valid speedy deletion under criterion A7, and I must endorse it. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7. The article did nothing to establish notability for the group. --Coredesat 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Who is spreading the idea that Wikipedia is the place for all which is true, instead of just sourced things which are true? -Amarkov blahedits 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Wikipedia documents movements after they have become notable. It should not be used to directly increase a fledgling organization's exposure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Better Than – Deletion endorsed – 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Better Than (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

better than is a philosophical principle developed by the fellowship of fortuna. It is in wide use as a meditative tool. the information was procured by contacting the fellowship directly. links were also provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetologist (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional rooms – Deletion endorsed – 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Overturn. Numerous voters for "delete" did so under the argument of unmaintainably infinite, based on a lack of reading of the article's intro paragraph, which limited the scope considerably (fictional rooms in non-fictional buildings). This list is on par with any number of "fictional item" lists as available at Archive of fictional things and its child Index of fictional places, such as List of fictional buildings. However, the article topic doesn't fit in well with any other fictional place or item lists - for example, it would be out of scope for list of fictional buildings because it involves real buildings. Some proposed a name change, which I would also endorse if a non-wieldy one could be created. Furthermore, others endorsed deletion (ironically) because the article was too small; but initial size is a poor reason for deletion. Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 06:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion unless someone can point to the entry on the encyclopaedic concept of fictional rooms associated with real structures with which this list is associated. Guy

(Help!) 07:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

7 December 2006

[edit]
Bodo – Erroneous deletion speedily restored – 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bodo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Deleted version was not the original version of the page; deleted version was severely vandalised version

I created the article here a few days ago as part of my project to add African artists to Wikipedia; originally, it was about this man. Somebody came through after I'd written it, blanked it, and replaced it with "bodo is da bomb and you dont kare" or some such. This was caught, tagged for speedy, and deleted yesterday. I'd like to get the original article back, please, if at all possible. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted, that would be my error, I apologize. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atlético Chorlton – Deletion endorsed – 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atlético Chorlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Notable football team in the Manchester area. No warning to user who created the page prior to deletion and so no idea who deleted it. Article provides statistical data up to date of the team in question and history of its creation. Adamwjeffers 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlético Chorlton. Page was correctly nominated for deletion; notification of page creator is not necessary as it is assumed the creator of a page will keep it on his watchlist. —Angr 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The White Rose Society (student group) – Deletion endorsed – 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The White Rose Society (student group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Notable national group documented in media outlets. All self-promotion was removed prior to deletion. Article is important for the clarity of other articles such as White Rose and White Rose (disambiguation). Significant association with the original White Rose gives readers especially students a contact point for more information on the White Rose. For example if you wanted to see a play about the White Rose or become involved in activism similar to the White Rose there is only one organization that you will find, The White Rose Society (student group).Colinster 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 December 2006

[edit]
Mer – Vandalized page speedily restored – 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

It was deleted as 'patent nonsense' after having existed for almost one year; The discussion that is spread out between here and here also indicates that there has been a normal article at the page (can patent nonsense really be 'infinitely better' than other content of the same page?), so the only way I can explain the deletion is that someone deleted a vandalized page without checking the page history for an unvandalized version first. Since there is already a redirect to something else on the page now, it should subsequently be moved and changed into a disambiguation page, I suppose. - Andre Engels 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was about a French commune, which ended up being speedied after its content was vandalized. I restored it since there's no good reason not to have a page on that. - Bobet 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series and related articles – AfD closure endorsed – 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series)

Before beginning, let me say that I bear no ill will towards the closer, who I believe was working in the best possible faith and should be commended for the amount of work put into this close (roughly 5-6 hours). However, I believe that there were multiple issues with the AfD process and a few with the closing that make this AfD invalid. Chronologically, my concerns are threefold:

  1. Nomination. In order to give a valid opinion in an AfD, you must have read the articles under discussion. In this case, that entailed reading 59-84 (nominator and closer differ on the exact number) separate articles. If the remaining fragments of the category that have not yet been deleted are any indicator, this means that giving a valid opinion which took into account the case-by-case differences between the articles under discussion would require somewhere between 2 and 4 hours of reading. This is an utterly unrealistic requirement to place on anybody. As additional process concerns, not every included article was properly labeled as being under discussion, and no individual reasons were given for the deletion of any specific article in the series. This is in addition to secondary concerns such as the nominator overwriting an existing debate to start it.
  2. Discussion. As a result of this unfortunate nomination style, the vast majority of votes in the AfD were just that: votes. Rather than being a reasoned discussion of the individual merits of the articles, it became an ideological clash between "deletionist" and "inclusionist", with delete votes that essentially read "per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE" and keep votes per "Gundam is a notable anime". A few individuals gave longer versions of the above two votes, and an even smaller group gave their opinions on a specific minor group of the articles, with most of them voting merge.
    To make matters worse, the nominator was incivil throughout the AfD, swearing, ranting, and jumping on every keep voter and declaring their opinion "invalid" and even "nonsense". This conduct was condemned by several users, but he continued to engage in it, creating a hostile and combative atmosphere and further destroying attempts at reasoned discussion.
  3. Closing. When User:Doug Bell closed the discussion, he effectively closed it as "delete with no consensus exceptions". He gave these exceptions to those few articles which a couple of editors (mostly User:Mythsearcher) took the trouble of giving specific keep reasons for. This was in an attempt to avoid vote-counting, according to his closing. While this was better than nothing, it ignored that a blanket delete is of equal validity as a blanket keep. Which is to say, none whatsoever in a protracted argument. The only valid opinions in an AfD are those which are directed at the merit of individual articles, based on the reading of those articles, and of those I see only User:Mythsearcher's comments.
    In other words, the closer took into account minimally reasoned deletes while ignoring keep opinions which displayed similar amounts of thought. Additionally, the comments near the end of the debate seem to agree that the consensus was for collaborative merging under the guidance of the relevant Wikiproject.

In conclusion, and with all respect towards the dedication of User:Doug Bell, I believe that this AfD was flawed throughout its entire founding and execution on a fundamental level. A deletion discussion cannot be concluded without a valid debate. A debate cannot be conducted without valid arguments. Arguments cannot be given without valid evidence. Evidence cannot be gathered without reading the articles under discussion.

This AfD made the most basic step of deletion discussion absurdly difficult, made it impossible to give a valid opinion, and generated nothing productive. Relist in a sane manner. --tjstrf talk 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT FROM CLOSING ADMIN Doug Bell: (Here's why I got involved.)

First let me say that the only personal stake I have in whether these articles are deleted or not is to have some sense that the considerable time I invested in closing this nomination was not in vain. To put it another way, I would have no basis other than the arguments presented by others to have rendered my own opinion in the matter had I chosen to offer my own opinion on the AfD as I have no knowledge of nor opinion of the articles in question. I'd like to address a few inaccuracies in the above request, and beyond setting the record straight on the process of closing, have little else to say on this as I have no personal interest in the articles themselves.

The discrepency in the number of articles is entirely mine as I added the number 84 to the nomination. This number was based on the number of articles listed on the template Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons that was referenced in the nomination as the list of articles under consideration. In the process of closing the AfD and reading the articles I discovered that many of the separately listed articles on the template actually referred to the same article (multiple Gundam's being listed in a single article.) So the actual number of distinct articles was 59 instead of 84.

As to the closing, I take considerable exception to the characterization of my evaluation. In fact, some of these statements make me question if the characterization is based on actually reading what I wrote or on Tjstrf's own personal assessment of how he would have closed the nomination. In particular, the attempt to establish equivalence between the rationales to keep and to delete. You are free to read the 156K worth of discussion to establish your own consensus, as I did, but to state that the strength of the arguments and their basis in policy and precendent are equilvalent is a misrepresentation of the facts. I spent considerable time and effort to not count !votes, but instead reduce the arguments of each side down to their core points and the strength of their positions in reaching my decision on closing this nomination. There was consensus between both the keep and the delete arguments, at least when an argument was presented, that matches the four points I make at the beginning of my closing statement which I'll repeat here:

  1. The level of detail, in-universe style and sources of all of the articles fails to meet WP:WAF and WP:RS.
  2. The information is single sourced with possible copyvio issues from MaHQ.net.
  3. All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
  4. While the Gundam series itself clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:FICT, the majority of the articles listed in this AfD do not.

These points were not generally contested on the nomination and by themselves lend considerable credence to just deleting all of the articles. The only real point of contention between the keep and delete sides of the discussion had to do with point #4 above. Even on this point, there was consensus, with about half the keep supports admiting that between some and many of the articles would qualify as the equivalent of WP:FICT "minor characters" and should not have articles of their own. So the main issue that separated the two sides of the argument was determining a) whether to delete all of the articles; or if not, then b) which articles to keep. My closing was based on what I judged to be the consensus of the keep votes for articles that could be supported by criteria that is in line with WP:FICT. Note that the majority of the delete opinions would not have kept any of the articles, but I tried to err on the side of keeping any articles that might have a claim to notability under WP:FICT.

One last thing to note is that shortly after the closing I had two messages on my talk page, both from proponents to keep all the articles praising me on the manner in which I performed the closing (one even giving me a barnstar) even though neither of them got exactly what they wanted. So obviously Tjstrf's opinion of my closing is just that—his opinion. —Doug Bell talk 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: I was asked to and offered my complete cooperation with recovering any material from the deleted articles needed to create a new composite article discussing the deleted subject matter. Since these articles had not been improved much since the previous AfD in April 2006, I saw no reason to leave the articles in the hopes that somebody would soon be needing the material to create a composite article. —Doug Bell talk 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I made a comment on the original AFD about how it was absolutely impossible for any kind of correct decision in such a large AFD. And that you'd need input from WP:GUNDAM guys over which should be kept and how they should be merged. I was rebuffed by some inclusionist with a really shitty argument, so I didn't bother with this new AFD. However, instead of deleting those articles in the close, at best, they should have been redirected to the merged pages, in order for WP:GUNDAM or Anime guys to rein in the remains. - hahnchen 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per my comment above. —Doug Bell talk 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a peerless example of AfD closure by quality of argument. Yes, it was complex. So Doug spent hours understanding the arguments and then closed to the best of his understanding. Overturning the whole thing would be quite wrong. Any which are individually more significant than Doug rated them, we can debate individually, but in the end the result looks right from both process and policy, as per the reasoning set out in great detail both here and on the AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Doug's promise to provide any deleted material to contributors to use in creating possible articles that are non-crufty and actually verifiably sourced. It might be useful to userfy the articles temporarily so the material can be copied by those involved. Or if it's been transwiki'd to some wiki that revels in this cruft already, then awesome, job done. I think to be clear a statement should be made that recreation of any of these articles isn't speediable, but neither will we stand for wholesale re-cruftization. We do want the verifiable information useful to someone who wants an introduction. We don't want fanboy trivia. Some of both has been deleted. SchmuckyTheCat 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar In the closing statements I said:
      That leaves the following to be deleted with no prejudice against creating a single (or very limited set of) composite article(s) that discuss all of these elements as a group while addressing concerns #1 and #2 above
      and
      The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in locating the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure.
      The point being that recreating the individual articles in not endorsed, but creating redirects is encouraged and creating one or a few composite articles covering the deleted material is without prejudice which mean not subject to speedy deletion. —Doug Bell talk 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I understand how it's easy to jump to the conclusion that no one could possibly close such a monster of an AfD, but I was very surprised at how well it went. I believe all major concerns and points were represented, and that the discussion for the articles, which ones to keep (for now) and which ones to delete, was made with excellent judgement. -- Ned Scott 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:GUNDAM never really got off the ground in the first place. I've actually been doing some house cleaning on that project, changing it from a sub-section of Gundam to include all of Gundam, so that people could have a place to discuss the rest of the 'cruft clean up. (The shortcut WP:GUNDAM was made just last night) WikiProjects are places of collaboration first, and groups of people second. WikiProjects don't have authority over the articles under their scope, but are simply a place for discussion and collaboration to happen. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I have nothing against the closer, closing was fine. But by the nature of such an insanely huge nomination, many issues certainly did not get as much discussion as they should have. -Amarkov blahedits 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to address one other point in this deletion review nomination not related to how it was closed. There is much made in this nomination about the impracticality of reviewing so many different articles. First, had this nomination been made as suggested by nominating all of the same articles in smaller chunks spread across multiple AfDs, the same issue would present itself—namely the number of articles to review does not decrease with the number of AfDs they are spread across. It is true that individual editors can choose to weigh in on only a subset of the articles in question, and there is benefit to that, but it is also true that the amount of discussion they would have to digest to weigh in on all of the articles would undoubtably be considerably greater. Besides, an editor can always weigh in on only a portion of the articles listed in a massive AfD anyway. The fact is that there were a number of editors supporting keeping the articles (or some portion of them, or in at least one case supporting deleting them) that had broad familiarity with the subject matter and contents of the articles without having to spend hours reading them. It was only the opinions of these editors that was taken into account in determining which articles to keep and which to delete. So I humbly disagree that the process was inherently flawed or that it would be a better process to consider these in a mass of AfDs instead of in a massive AfD. —Doug Bell talk 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute number of kb you have to read doesn't decrease, certainly, but the amount you have to do in one sitting will. If it's a decision between A. sitting down and reading 50 articles, taking notes on each of them, and dedicating 3 hours of your life to give a breakdown of why you think a bunch of articles on a series you don't even like should be kept/deleted as individual entries or B. just saying "keep/delete' plus some personal opinions on notability as a whole, which will most editors do? As this and all similar AfD's demonstrate, the latter.
If, on the other hand, you only have to read 5 articles, and then the next day read 5 more, and then 5 more the day after that, and then another 5, the time is split out into pieces. You spend 15 minutes, evaluate the 5 articles, and say "Delete X because he only appeared in one episode, merge Ya, Yb, and Yc into Y because they're just variants of each other, and keep Z because he's the main villain." Then the next day if you feel like it you can go through another 5. (That's right! You don't even have to be the one to evaluate the next 5 articles, you could take a wikibreak and let someone else decide that day.)
The important bit is to keep the necessary level of reading and evaluating that you need to do in order to give a valid informed opinion on the article content low. For a nomination of 5 articles, that minimum is 40-100 kb of article text and a short afd debate. For a nomination of 50 articles, that minimum is 400-1000 kb of text and another 100 kb of arguing. And let's not forget the hours it will save the closer. --tjstrf talk 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The administrator worked very well with what was presented in the AfD discussion. Although the final result was not what I (the nominator) originally intended, it was clear that his decision met consensus. Swaying away from the blind "delete all" and "keep all" arguments (which I admit to being a part of), there was a clear consensus - to keep some, merge some, and delete the rest. tjstrf claims this was simply Mythsearcher's opinion (which it may have been), but many were shown to agree (even though I was not one of them). I understand my conduct was terrible, and luckily I did calm down to leave the discussion, contrary to what tjstrf claims. However, the original nomination was not as bad as it was made out to be - after 4 or so votes, every page was labeled as under discussion - in addition, group nominations are allowed and (apparently) are common place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs).
  • Endorse closure. Doug did a stand up job under the circumstances. That's one of the best closes I've ever seen. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure This seems to me a very reasonable compromise. I see now that some were important to the series, but most wernt, therefore I applaud the closing admin for doing a artfully done closure. Fledgeling 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for deletion in the original AfD. It has been my opinion throughout this process that, at the time of nomination, not a single article listed meets the out-of-universe requirements laid forth in WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. While some articles can successfully be argued for notability, I believe that this notability comes from entirely within the intersection of Gundam hobbyists. What few modifications have been made to the article do not impress upon me any improvement, and my original feelings stand. However, with that said, I believe that the closing admin put in a lot of leg work where others would've been content to say, "Psh. There's no way you can make any sense out of 130kb," and dropped the whole thing. Bravely, he trudged through the carnage and came up with a sensible, compromising solution.
After the nomination was closed, I went through the articles he'd chosen to keep and compared them to the criterion he'd established when starting the closing process. While I don't agree on every article, I believe he found a golden mean that respects both the so-called delitionists and the so-called Gundamcruftists. Beyond that, I agree with the sentiments raised above: either you list 'em all under one article and people get their knickers twisted, or you list each article seperately and people get their knickers twisted. There's really no easy way to excise such a huge mass from the body of Wikipedia. Consequentially 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page" No, not at all actually. Yzak Jule 05:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar I'm not sure what the above person's basis is, but this template shows otherwise. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had bothered more than a cursory glance, you would see that it's months out of date and lacks a majority of the recent information added to the deleted articles. Yzak Jule 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, you are indeed correct. However, I don't see how you can blame me, it's an incredible mind strain to read the terribly-written articles. Someone (like you) really needs to re-write everything for a non-dedicated audience. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could have if the articles on here hadn't been deleted in a hurry :-) Yzak Jule 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many could you have saved over the period of five days, the length of the AfD? It's not as if there were no notice of this. Actually, I was surprised that no one had actually asked to divide the nomination up (nominator noted the regret he/she had for a large set to be considered). The fact remains that the closing admin took the time to analyze all that was thrown in his direction, and he called it down the middle (note that I made no comments during the process of the AfD - and I am here only to comment upon whether or not it was properly closed). Doug Bell took the time to explain the reason (which to save, which to redirect, which to delete) in virtually each case, and to state what can be to salvage the deleted material. Under the circumstances, one Barnstar is certainly not enough for the closing admin - the "decision" was better written than many I've seen from a court of law. Endorse close. B.Wind 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion There should be no "exceptions" when it comes to a no consensus ruling. Doug's deletion of material that should have been kept in order for us to be able to merge the articles properly as was being discussed on the AfD page needs to be overturned so we can actually do the work that was beginning at the time of closure. This AfD has breathed new life into WP:Gundam, and the admin's choice to blatantly ignore the progress that was being made to solve the problems brought to light is disturbing. Kyaa the Catlord 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said on my talk page and above, I will gladly provide the deleted material for the purpose of creating a merged article that addresses issues #1 and #2 above. All you need to do is ask. —Doug Bell talk 07:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antwort Yes, by deleting the articles you are now holding the data needed to merge them captive until we can meet your demands. Bloody brilliant. How are we supposed to work on these articles when you deleted them so we can't work on them? Catch bloody 22. Kyaa the Catlord 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meet my demands? I think you misunderstand. The only "demand" is that you are planning to create a merged article instead of individual articles and that you intend to address the issues #1 and #2 above. However, at this point I'd rather wait until this DRV completes since if the result is to overturn then there is no need for me to supply the deleted material. (This is not set in stone, it's just that if this is overturned, then the merge would be premature.) —Doug Bell talk 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I point at the later discussion in the AfD and the related ones on WP:Gundam. There was an effort being made to address your concerns at the time you closed this AfD, but by deleting the material needed to be reviewed, you built a huge wall against us being able to merge them properly. If we can't view the material required for merging, how the hell do you propose we work on it? Kyaa the Catlord 08:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh>What is it about I will gladly provide the deleted material that is so difficult to understand here? —Doug Bell talk 09:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, it appears you did not take into consideration the work being done to do this prior to deleting the articles. A number of the deleted pages are being discussed on WP:GUNDAM for review, improvement and potential merging. Instead of deleting them, it would have been better to leave them so that the project could work on them without having to beg for you to provide the information that was simply deleted. With this data simply removed, I'm going to face difficulties simply doing planning for proposing merges. *sigh* Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth are you talking about, Kyaa? WP:GUNDAM is still hardly active, and even if it was, a WikiProject does not have authority over a group of articles. -- Ned Scott 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, the WP:Gundam group was actively discussing merges when these articles were deleted from underneath them. They may not have been terribly active, but are we supposed to judge people based on their activity? Sounds damn elitist to me. Kyaa the Catlord 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not judging people. WIkiProjects are places to collaborate. WikiProjects do not have authority over articles, and their existence should never be a reason to keep (or delete) an article. The editors who were discussing things there were also discussing things on the AfD. Some conversation spilled over there, and suddenly that is a reason to undelete articles? -- Ned Scott 10:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In his decision to delete, Doug did precisely that. He judged people based on the number of edits they had made. This betrays a bias towards those who edit a lot against those who simply use wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I used the discussion on WP:GUNDAM as an example that the discussion was ongoing and that there was work which was disrupted by Doug's deletions, not to simply justify undeletion, but to show the circular logic of his "I will provide the information..." statement. If he's willing to provide the information, why delete it in the first place? It simply makes it harder for those of us who intend to improve the articles to do so. Kyaa the Catlord 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. I'm someone who is trying to get WP:GUNDAM going, and I think the deletions are a step in the right direction. Does that not make me apart of that WikiProject and it's efforts? You seem to assume that the conclusion of a separate discussion there would be to keep. This has nothing to do with how often people edit. WP:GUNDAM is a failure of a WikiProject that only now has signs of life directly because of the AfD discussion. There was no previous serious effort to improve those articles before hand, and the only activity on that project was spill over from the AfD (in other words, without the AfD there wouldn't even be that discussion). Someone created the project in an attempt to boost collaboration, and it didn't really happen. It might happen now, and if so, great. You're trying to make the existence of WP:GUNDAM significant when it's not. -- Ned Scott 10:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the WP was rather dead prior to this... Grrr. I'm not saying that the WP was significant. I'm saying that the WP and its spillover from this AfD was significant and that these articles should be made available again so that the work that was beginning can continue. Without the background information, it is harder to propose merges and coordinate. Based on Doug's willingness to provide the deleted material, it shows that his decision to delete in the first place was weak and that overturning this should not be a big deal. Kyaa the Catlord 11:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might not even possible for these articles to improve enough based on their 'crufty nature. Nothing of value has been lost. Don't get me wrong, I watched every episode of SEED and a good deal of the other Gundam shows, and I can still honestly say that. -- Ned Scott 11:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment. I hate the word "cruft", its inherently POV and should be banished from Wikipedia. But I do agree that these articles need serious work and major merging. The only ones which should remain are those tied to characters worthy of having their own articles and even then, they should be grouped on a "list" sort of article with a couple of exceptions. The problem with this mass delete is that it deleted major weapons (Duel and Buster for instance) which should have been merged into a smaller, tighter article on the G-Weapons. I'm not suggesting we keep all these articles, but in order to do the major amounts of work that is needed, we need some of these back for it (temporarily imho). Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, for 2 reasons: firstly that this was a trainwreck of epic proportions, and re-opening it as is will simply continue the carnage and (to a lesser extent) the utter bl**dy-minded snarkiness of many contributors; secondly, because the closer followed (as far as I can see) the approved processes -- no accelerated closure, no keep/merge/delete-only mindset, reduced attention paid to sheep-votes and so on. I agree (with both sides) that this is an emotive issue, but I don't think that restarting the whole epic from day one will acheieve anything. And if the articles are already transwikied elsewhere, then (as I understand it) the content has not been lost, and can be resubmitted as approrpiate -- Simon Cursitor 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, and give Doug a cookie. Proto::► 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as I see no abuse of discretion. While some mass nominations are trainwrecks, others are not. It is up to the discretion of the closing admin to decide if a particular discussion is a trainwreck. Those that really should go the trainwreck route are those where either people generally agree that the articles are radically different or where several overlapping subsets get discussions that differ in reasoning and/or consensus outcome, such that consensus is not discernible to the closing admin. At this time, WP:TRAINWRECK is a redlink, and mass AfD nominations are explicitly authorized, so arguments that a mass nomination is sufficient reason to keep are contrary policy and should be ignored. GRBerry 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, I vote to keep those pages, however, I have seen that problems exist for some pages. I do regret some errornous (IMHO) parts of decision, like ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam, which is quite major MS-es. However, I admit that Doug had tried the best effort and appreciate such good (despite not perfect) efforts, and understand that his minimal knowledge on the subject may lead such errors. I am against mass AfD, but I admit there is no such policies control over this. Repeating that mass AfD with mass RvD, IMHO will lead only to flamewar as well as mass AfD. I would rather RvD on per-article basis. Despite all of these, I choose to work on planning the Mobile Suits pages structure, first before any RvD. And don't forget, the RvD doesn't always need to be done, rather... use Temporary Undeletion. Remember, that we have such processes, I have asked Doug, and he accepts to help. And if you ask, until now, I still stand on keep stance. I am one that against for merging too much, since that will be "explosion". We still accept stub, why not clean-up. Anyway, as I said in Doug's talk page, I must thank him and wish him good luck, though I can not give him any barnstar since the decision still not exceptionally good despite it is good solution (Sorry, Doug ^^ ). To all inclusionists: Our "enemy" may have hot-head. Our heart may hot. But our head must remain cold. Cheers...(^^)Draconins 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary undelete and move to userspace or project space to facilitate merging. Then move back and delete. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this request needs to wait until this DRV has concluded. I would point out that if you want something to work on, the no consensus articles still require a lot of work as outlined in the AfD closing statement. The no consensus status is not going to prevent a future AfD from deleting these articles nor serve as an argument against their deletion, so perhaps it would be worth some effort to justify the articles that were not deleted. Not trying to suggest what you should work on as that is up to you, but I don't want that point in the closure to be lost. It was a close call to just delete everything, but as I say above, I tried to err on the side of not deleting where it wasn't clear. —Doug Bell talk 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. In my view, the closing admin did an exceptionally good job in teasing out the various strands of a complex and confusing debate. As this is an appeal, not a de novo re-hearing of the substantive issues, we should ask ourselves (a) whether the closing admin applied policy incorrectly; and (b) whether, in dealing with the issues, he made any major errors of fact which would necessitate the decison being overturned. As far as I can tell from the discussion above, under (a) the primary issue being alleged is merely that he shouldn't have accepted the case as it was too difficult. But that doesn't amount to a misapplication of policy. Nobody has so far alleged (b) with any conviction, and in particular no-one has provided a reasoned list of the specific articles on which they think the decision went the wrong way (and to provide support for such an allegation would mean having to re-do the entire thing from scratch). Note that it should not be a reason for overturning the decision to argue that "I would have not have accepted the AfD" nor "The conclusions might have been different had I done it". Unless an admin does something demonstrably incorrect, which this one did not, the community should accept his decisions with good grace. --MichaelMaggs 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above people who said it much more eloquently than I can. Whispering 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure -- I just spent over an hour going over the AfD discussion myself to see what the actual points raised were, and to see if I could find any obvious flaws in the closer's reasoning. I could not. This was a truly remarkable job of finding the threads of good debate from amongst the irrelevant yammer (e.g. mere voting) posted by both inclusionists and deletionists alike. I am awestruck! I think no one would have faulted the closer if he'd simply closed the debate as "trainwreck, no concensus", but he rose to the challenge. If we don't have an Avoiding-a-Trainwreck Barnstar, we may have to create one just for Doug! :) Xtifr tälk 09:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as an all-too-rare example of going with the emerging consensus, not defaulting to "no consensus" (which both sides often claim as a partial win) or letting somebody else suffer through it. Somebody should buy Doug a beer. -- nae'blis 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Many of the people endorsing closure are claiming that the closer looked at all the points people made, that he worked well with the material that was said, that he considered the good debate from the discussion, etc.
The whole problem with mass deletions is that it's so unwieldy to read and comment on 59 separate articles that people won't be able to present good arguments for all of them. So the fact that the closer carefully analyzed all the arguments that were presented is irrelevant; the nature of mass deletions means that those arguments will be far from complete. Ken Arromdee 05:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this particular case, the articles were more or less identical as they were mostly paraphrases of another site. I'm sure anyone familiar with the series could guess the content of any given article from its title--I don't have to read an article on the Greased Up Deaf Guy from Family Guy to know he's a one-joke character with about 3 appearences. Some people seem to have picked out the units important enough that it'd be credible to write a good article on them. At least one person asserted that they at least skimmed every article, and I'm sure many more read a few at random like I did. 59 is not so large that a hidden gem would be missed. BCoates 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Now, as I see this, there is no use crying over spit milk, especially the milk is already rotten. These articles are poorly written and is hardly anything that could be called following wiki's guidelines. They have to be rewrited one way or another. I suggest the following actions that could mend the short empty period ASAP before some new fan pop up and recreate the pages. (While one already keep on bashing about this on a lot of related page, try going to Talk:List of Gundam SEED characters, this person have posted the same thing on a lot of major characters talk page, too.).
First, someone please create a list page, containing no description at all, with only listing of names of all the mecha that is present in the series. (Seed, Seed-Destiny, Stargazer and Astray should all have separate pages for easier follow up.)
Second, redirect all the deleted pages to those coresponding lists and point people to WP:GUNDAM in the talk page of those lists.
Third, slowly rebuild the necessary information following wiki's guidelines and policies.
This will take time, but the first two steps will reduce chances of the pages being recreated.
MythSearchertalk 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an excellent plan of action. I think this is a better approach even than trying to start from the deleted articles as there was far too much detail and, as MythSearcher points out, these articles would have required complete rewrites even to stand as their own articles. This plan creates a framework to create a suitable article covering the material and also addresses the concern of having the current void filled by more inappropriate articles that will be candidates for speedy deletion. I endorse this plan. —Doug Bell talk 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page exists at Cosmic Era Mobile Units. Its full of redlinks due to this deletion, however. Kyaa the Catlord 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that page isn't exactly what you suggested Mythsearcher, but... its a good jumping off point. Kyaa the Catlord 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I also think many has to be rewritten, but still, old informations may be useful, so it may be a time I request such temporary undeletion. For me, it is easier to cite source based on statement than find really new fact. I don't say find new fact is hard, it is just harder. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a paper, it had no problem if you put it in userspace for a while, if needed. Sorry for being inclusionist. (-_-) Draconins 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PERKEPIS – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PERKEPIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

PERKEPIS is a notable society, since it is operating throughout Sarawak, catering the needs of Muslim students there. Pls reconsider deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed niz89 (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Neil Woodford – Deletion overturned, AfD optional – 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Neil Woodford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

The article was originally deleted as it was claimed it was not notable. However, the subject has numerous online and newspaper references, controls Britain's largest investment fund, and has considerable influence due to his control of £12 billion of UK equities. Accordingly I rewrote the article with a few more references. However, this was listed for speedy deletion on the grounds of being 'advertising' (it was not, as I have nothing to advertise). I took out content that said the funds were first and second in their sector for performance over 5 and 10 years, as although this is as factual as claims about say Warren Buffet's investment performance, I can see some people might find this to be advertising. I also added in a little more content. Nonetheless, the article was added for speedy deletion as 'advertising' a second time. I added something to the talk page asking exactly what about the article constituted advertising, and beseeching somebody to provide some justification before deleting the page, as having to go through endless process to get the page undeleted is a little boring. However, the page was still deleted within a few hours, along with its talk page, and no one attempted to provide any justification to me what was supposed to be wrong with the content. The page's speedy deletion was clearly inappropriate, as the deletion template said that the page should only be deleted if the article "a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article", and this blatantly was not the case: no substantial rewrite was needed, and the speedy deletion was inappropriate. Nssdfdsfds 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, no opinion on sending to AfD - the article can be viewed here, the last version before it was speedied.[23] Although there is a little bit of weasley content, it certainly doesn't fall into the category of "blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Really, all it needs is a copyedit, a serious look at the relevance of paragraph two, some internal links, and some categories. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Daniel Bryant. Probably should go to AfD if there's argument, but speedying wasn't proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar: This was originally a short and spammy article written by a user with no other contributions. I advised that if he wanted the article his best bet was to rewrite citing good sources, making it less like a personal fan-piece or vanity. That is what he seems to have done; it's not of featured standard to be sure but it does not look irredeemable to me. I will undelete the history so people can have a look; I think we are biting the newbie here and should at least try to give the guy a chance. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. This was how I perceived the article when I deleted it. This should have been brought here the first time (or even the second time) instead of recreating the article however. See the logs. I also undeleted the talk page while this process takes its course. --ZsinjTalk 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and clean-up the deleted version. Catchpole 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AfD: With the recreation and reconsideration, we should at least let AfD take a crack at it. I'm on the fence about biographies of people who are high up in finance but not really acting publically or significantly. Geogre 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - But I suggest that the effort is put into the Invesco Perpetual article instead. - hahnchen 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete iff rewritten. The original version was pure spam, and the last sentence bordered on an attack. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and allow for improving Yuckfoo 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion, did not meet the speedy criteria it was deleted under, and I don't see any other that it meets. I do see links to two sources that I believe are independent and might contribute to meeting WP:BIO, however I have not followed them to see if they are themselves non-trivial enough to meet the WP:BIO test. I do expect that there are additional sources not linked. GRBerry 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per above. --mathewguiver 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. – Deletion overturned – 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. (edit | [[Talk:WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history) - (RfD)

This RfD was closed by User:Freakofnurture as 'delete', after the nomination and one 'keep' opinion (it's not clear to me which side the balance of arguments was on; remember that RfD has a lower deletion threshold than AfD). The redirect itself was not deleted for over a month; since then there has been an edit war over whether the redirect should exist or not, and whether it should be linked from WP:NCR (either linked directly as a shortcut, or piped to go to some other page). Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man currently has views in favour of the redirect which didn't come up at the RfD; presumably views against the redirect will also appear. Therefore, I'm asking for the RfD to be relisted so that the consensus of the community can be made clear. (As the redirect's purpose is to make a joke in the main WP:NCR project page funny, this could be seen as an editorial decision on that page rather than a deletion; in this case, I'm asking to allow recreation if the editorial consensus is to do that.) --ais523 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, note this redirect has already been undeleted but I'm commenting here in case it is deleted again. (→Netscott) 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it, it's a harmless joke and redirects are cheap. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Limecat – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Limecat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

The the limecat article was deleted and protected from recreation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limecat shows six votes to keep and three votes to delete. For some reason it was decided that there was no consensus despite there being double the votes to keep than to delete, and was then deleted. Further, the only claims the few "delete" votes put forth is that limecat is "not notable," "non-encyclopedic," and "just a joke." These claims, which, once again, are in the minority, are unsubstantiated or irrelevant.

  • The fact that limecat may be a joke (though it is more correctly categorized as an internet meme) does not preclude it from having a wikipedia article.
  • "Non-encyclopedic," as everyone knows, is just a term of art which really means "I don't think this is worth anyone thinking about but I don't have any factual argument to present to defend that position."
  • Limecat is absolutely notable, and far outside the GameFAQs message boards where it was supposedly formed (note that I'm not sure this is true, because the article I was going to, to look up such information, was deleted).
    • A search for "limecat" on google returns over 34,300 results, with a few variations of the limecat image displayed. Note that the first result on the google search page (ignoring the obviously spamdexed one) is the Wikipedia entry, which is now empty. Users who want to know more about the limecat meme and do a google search on it are sent to a page telling them it isn't notable enough to be worth talking about. [24]
    • There is a limecat myspace account, with over 500 "friends." Limecat's Myspace
    • There are users and communities on LiveJournal who list limecat as an interest [25], there is a user who has taken the limecat user name, complete with limecat avatar [26].
    • There exist YTMND tributes to limecat [27], and limecat is well known on 4chan.
    • The delete voters themselves were well aware of limecat, as is clear by their joking comments about limecat not being pleased with the quality of the article.
    • I work part time as a technology consultant in a computer lab at my university, and there is a large, 36x56 inch poster up with the limecat picture and the text "Food and drinks in the computer lab? | Limecat is not pleased," which both the staff and users appreciate, it being a nod to the huge popularity of this Internet meme.

Because the articles of deletion votes showed a two thirds majority in favor of keeping, and because the reasons the minority of delete voters expressed are shown above to be invalid, I respectfully request that this article be unprotected and, if possible, restored to the state it was in before being deleted, with full history intact. If the previous quality of the article was not up to Wikipedia's standards and contained original research, this can be fixed, and I would be willing to clean up the article myself. Deleting it for want of quality is not a solution when there is a clear interest in the subject and people willing to improve it. If for some reason someone feels the article is subject to vandalism, it would of course be reasonable to protect it from unregistered users and new users, but please, at least unprotect the article and give us a chance to fix whatever problems existed. --stufff 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The other afds and deletion review Okay, jeez. Not this again. The limecat "cute kitty pic internet junk" issue has already been through 2 other afd/vfd discussions (plus a speedy delete in the 3rd afd nom for a recreated article after a deletion consensus in the second afd nom) besides the one cited in above by stufff. In addition, the outcome of these have already been subject to a deletion review which endorsed the deletion Bwithh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other afd discussions :
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Limecat
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Limecat_(2nd_nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Limecat_(3rd_nomination)
Also, I suggest that you focus your enthusiasm and energy on contributing to Encyclopedia Dramatica's detailed article on Limecat instead (which also has a tremendously witty parody of the Wikipedia afd discussion, including a parody of yours truly apparently). That kind of site is much more appropriate for Limecat than Wikipedia. ED is blacklisted as a spam site by WP, so here's the non-hyperlinked url with "nospam" that you have to take out: http://www.encyclopediadramaticanospam.com/index.php/Limecat Bwithh 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and here's a bonus site that you might enjoy (suggested by User:Calton in the 2nd afd): http://www.stuffonmycat.com/ Bwithh 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The thing about fads and crazes is that they're ephemera. What made All Your Base encyclopedic is its longevity. Long years after the joke, people still use the phrase (though few know why they do, I suppose). Dancing hamsters and boogie babies and ceiling cats come and go in a very transient manner. The article in question is a report on a negative as much as on a positive. It says this photo has appeared here and here and here (with page rank boosting links to each), but nothing about why oder what is going on. There is no meaning, merely the noting that a thing happened. Geogre 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the full articles on Dancing baby and The Hampster Dance. Your point fails. Further, it is hardly possible for more information on why or what to be added to the article when the article in question was not only deleted, but protected from recreation so that even if someone did have such information to add, it would not be possible to do so without bending over backwards and trying to make reasonable arguments to people who have no concept of logic, and think circular reasoning justifies their actions. --stufff 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's two wrongs making a right. I actually can see both the baby (which was imported into VH1 promotions) and the Hamster dance (parodied on The Simpsons) have some greater justification, but the point I was making was inescapable: we need time and spread outside of verbal and personal media to achieve something that can be commented upon. When we do have commentary, we need to have actual commentary, and not simply, "Look, there it is! Oh, and it's over there, too!" If we were Gawker.com, or The Register (with its "everywhere girl"), then we would cease to be an encyclopedia in any sense. Geogre 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. 1) AfD is not a vote. See Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Background. 2) Googlehits, Gamefaqs.com message board, Livejournal, Myspace, YTMND, 4chan, and random University lab students are not reliable sources. There's no way to hold any of those people accountable for what they say. 3) "Not notable" in this case is usually a shorthand for "does not have enough reliable sources to write an verifiable article on this topic that conforms to WP:NOT." It's not an equivalence to "I've heard of it" or "it's very popular". Find reliable sources. ColourBurst 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Background yourself, you are apparently unfamiliar with it. Allow me to clarify for you: a) An administrator will delete the page if a Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus] for deletion is reached." b) "Consensus," as defined by the Webster's Dictionary sitting on my shelf, means "majority of opinion." It's quite clear what the consensus for that AfD was, six said keep, three said delete; the three who said delete did so presenting points which I have refuted above. The admins who reported "no consensus" and then deleted the article did so in bad faith, there was a clear consensus and they ignored in favor of invalid and poorly thought out reasons to delete. 2) 3) I have to assume you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose here. Please explain to me how Chuck Norris Facts, Star Wars kid, Milk and Cereal, N64 kid, Dancing baby, Xiao Xiao, Dog poop girl, or O RLY? conform to your rigid standards for notability and verifiability of Internet memes. The very nature of the articles is to note that they are popular, describe various appearances they have made and how they have spread, and provide some history on how they were started in the first place. The only ways to do that are to show hit results and point to actual locations where they have spread, and to the location where it first appeared. For these purposes, those kinds of sources are absolutely verifiable. The standard you are trying to apply simply is not suited for the topic, and you are fully aware of that fact. If you applied the same standard to everything in internet meme, I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more of it would be out the window. --stufff 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kommentar. See WP:CONSENSUS, specifically the sections concerning consensus versus other policies, and consensus vs. supermajority. Consensus never overrides policy. By the way, the WorldNetDaily has written about Chuck Norris Facts, Globe and Mail and several other newspapers have written about Star Wars Kid, the Washington Post has written about Dog poop girl, so your assumptions that they aren't verified are wrong. ColourBurst 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You neglected to address the Milk and Cereal article and the N64 Kid article, which do not fit this requirement yet are still there despite being of much lesser prominence than limecat. Please don't pick and choose only those examples that suit your purposes, doing such is a dishonest form of argumentation; if this is a policy, then why is it only enforced selectively? WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that there should be negotiation and discussion, this didn't happen in the AfD. Six people said keep, three said delete, there was no debate over the merits of any argument, the article was deleted. --stufff 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a much stronger consensus for WP:WEB, our guideline for web-related content. The difference between the ones you listed and Limecat is that the ones you listed meet the guideline. There's no reason to be nasty about it (we have a policy regarding civility as well), but there's a lot beyond the AfD the closing admin has to look at. My suggestion is to work to get the guidelines changed rather than continue to hammer away at this single article. Until our flawed guideline/policy is fixed, we're not going to see much traction on articles like Limecat. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to the lunacy that is our verifiability policy, Limecat isn't pleased about it, either. I can't in good conscience endorse this closure, but you're not going to get any traction on this until our reliable source/verifiability policy gets updated to a more logical place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Welcome to an encyclopedia. You're not going to get any traction on this until our standards are lowered dramatically to include your neighbours, favourite neckties and articles on singular knock knock jokes. Whereas some of the things you've mentioned such as Xiao Xiao and Dancing baby have had a wider cultural influence (see the Xiao Xiao v Nike lawsuit), and mentions outside of "internets lol", Limecat, hasn't. I have no idea why we have an article on LUEshi, literally, no idea. - hahnchen 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. YTMND Wiki exists for documenting this kind of thing, we don't, because we can't do it without violating fundamental policies. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sensible guidelines protect us, at least a bit, from poor judgement and WP:ILIKEIT. Sensible decision. --Improv 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and protection per WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INN and WM:PIE, as well as the policy of WP:V and the guideline of WP:RS. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Let's see... AfD is not a vote, WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep criterion, neither is WP:SHOULDHAVEIT (without reasons grounded in policy), and "Keep" with no explanation does not, and should not, count NEARLY as much as "Delete per WP:V." -Amarkov blahedits 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There's no way such an article could possibly pass our current verifiability/reliable-sources rules. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those rules are ridiculous when applied to an internet meme. What better way to show that something exists than to point to it and say "there it is?" You also ignore applying this standard to half the things in the internet meme category, for example, Milk and Cereal and N64 Kid. Please explain what those articles are doing up if Limecat doesn't belong. --stufff 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They have reliable sources. This doesn't. Complain about how it's unfair that we require verifiable sources for things that are so cool all you want, even maybe form your own wiki where reliable sources are unneeded. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so you must have verifiable sources. That isn't negotiable. There is a list of like 10 things that Wikimedia has as Foundation principles, and which can never be overruled by any type of consensus, at all. Verifiability is one of them. -Amarkov blahedits 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry. We'll delete those other articles too. Your's just happens to be on the chopping block now. That being said, I'm of the opinion that internet memes should be forced to meet a far higher standard of notability since so many of them end up resembling things made up in school one day that someone else happened to find cool. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse Nominator needs to go through other afds and prior deletion review and make an argument challenging those, rather than base his argument on an outdated afd discussion. Bwithh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice against a sourced article, should such a thing ever become possible. The reason we have articles on other internet memes is both longevity and verifiability (though they do tend to go hand in hand). Nominator seems to have made the common mistake of going to the link provided on the deletion screen, seeing the original nomination, and basing their argument on that. Perhaps it would be useful to newbies if we linked to future discussions from old ones? The naming structure makes this relatively easy, and any prior discussions should be mentioned in newer ones, this just extends the courtesy the other way. I know I've gotten tripped up before by outdated deletion discussions; but this is really ranging far afield of the scope of Deletion Review so I'll shut up and eat my lunch. -- nae'blis 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Moon Ball – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Moon Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

SpeedyDeletion? Inviso 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) "15:09, 2 November 2006 NawlinWiki deleted "Moon Ball" (g1 a1 wp:not Moon Ball is a game of skill. It is not only hand eye skill but a game of brains and deception. Moon Ball is played with the players choice of ball Ex: tennis ball, raquet ball, lacrosse ball ect. The choice of playing area is also the player)"[28][reply]

I see no reason why the artice was deleted, nor can find any discussion for deletion in the del review archives. I am requesting that you store the page, and check the logs to see that vandalism has occured in the past, which I have restored from computers at school and home.

  • Comment: the article was deleted because the administrator who reviewed it believe it to be "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content" (CSD G1) originally, and then the second time as an "Article that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" (CSD A7). No debate is required. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Article was not patent nonsense or gibberish, but rather a description of a variation of the commonly played high school games such as 'wallball' and 'beamball' The article was being prepared to be updated with pictures and a video from an upcoming game. If it was random gibberish or did not make coherent sense, then it is not the fault of the author, but rather the fault of someone who may have edited it, as has been done in the past and had to be fixed. I request that it be reinstated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inviso (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse: Look at the article and then look at the justification offered by the deleting administrator. The person deleting explained that it was G1. The article says X is Y, and then it offers a modifier, and then it gives a negative (there is no ball used). What on earth can anyone learn from that? It exists. Use your brain. Pick any ball. Wow. It's as much an A1 as a G1, but the article offers absolutely nothing, and so it is a proper speedy deletion. Geogre 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

5 December 2006

[edit]
Floro Fighting Systems – Deletion endorsed – 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Floro Fighting Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I orginally wrote the page and I did it badly, it was quite spammy. Page has been reformatted to follow Wiki guidelines, and includes references and annoted sections. With the proper formatting and references I would ask that it be overturne.

Marcdscott 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
8mm Fuzz – endorse deletion without prejudice – 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
8mm Fuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I am not entirely sure why this entry was deleted; it actually easily met some of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music) page WP:BAND. It specifically meets the following with ease:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

The following features in the Boston Herald are great examples: [29] [30]

as well as the following feature interview in Boston's Weekly Dig: [31]

Both of these sources are considered noteworthy by Wiki's standards.

It was particularly strange as the order of said criteria changed in the course of said AfD debate, causing one third-party editor to turn against his initial decision of "keep". Quite honestly, none of the editors seemed to address the criteria that was suggested as being legit (as noted by two other editors).

Also, Rule 7 may also be relevant; 8mm Fuzz are a visible and active part of the Great Scott scene that also produced such worldwide touring acts as Protokoll. Psilosybical 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse delete - AfD ran its course. I recommended its deletion because the article was spam as it was written. Rather than fighting the deletion, I'd recommend writing a sourced, neutral, third person article that is far less promotional in nature. There's nothing barring the writing of a new article on the band, and it would be less contentious this way. B.Wind 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. We rewrite spammy-looking articles that otherwise meet our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as I'm behind the appeal, I can't really comment. However, what do people find to be "spammy" or "promotional"? Send me a message and I would be happy to oblige with any requests. But I honestly feel that I did a decent job of being neutral, "This is what happened" when I wrote the entry. Psilosybical Psilosybical 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group's diverse instrumentation and intense, neurotic live shows have made them a unique addition to the Boston music scene sure reads like spam to me. And do not overturn a perfectly legitimate AfD. If you want to write a non-spammy article which proves the band's notability, do so, but there is nothing in policy which allows an overturn of a validly-closed AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, the line can be removed. It's otherwise valid. Psilosybical Psilosybical 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion, endorse request for recreation outside of CSD G4, the deletion was fine. As such, if a NPOV, non-spam, verified article can be written, DRV should exempt it from CSD. However, as a tip, it might be better to write it on a user subpage (eg User:Psilosybical/8mm Fuzz) and get an experienced writer to check over it, before moving it into the article space. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion followed through AFD correctly. Per every AFD it isn't a "not ever", if someone writes a better article they shold do so and put it up at the right place provided it is substantially different from the original then there is no problem. If you want a restore of the original to work on in your user space then let me know and I'll do so. --pgk 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the AFD was valid. It wasn't salted, so if you can write a non-spammy version that asserts notability, write it. --Coredesat 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Editors can reasonably disagree over what constitutes multiple. (E.g, in my book, two does not constitute multiple.) So if a rough consensus exists that the sources are insufficient and there is no indication of bad faith delete is a perfectly fine closure. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse precisely as per Daniel. Try a new version with good sources, if they aren't good enough we can have another look. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit iffy on this one, mostly because I can't read the Boston Herald articles without spending money; are they actually features? I can't tell. The Weekly Dig article doesn't really say a whole lot about the band, unfortunately. I'm going to say endorse, and suggest, as above, a more well sourced article be produced (preferably using sources that can actually be read). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to reiterate that, if the line mentioned above as sounding "spammy" is removed, that there doesn't strike me as anything else that could be considered spam. Also, are there any suggestions as to how to cite a source that may only be available online temporarily for free? I mean, the features were published by two reputable sources and can be viewed (albeit not for free online) and it's my understanding that this is criteria for inclusion. I could get scans within a couple of weeks, but I'm willing to bet that that is a copyright violation. Psilosybical Psilosybical 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
University Hill Elementary School – undelete without relisting on AfD – 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
University Hill Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article survived an AfD on 25 September 2006. However, reviewing the deletion log, I see the article was speedy deleted per CSD A7. I do not think that A7 should apply to schools (in fact, its application to companies seems to be an end-run around G11, which itself has been debatable). While my opinion in the AfD was "delete", I can abide by the consensus. An article that has undergone an AfD discussion, in which notability was consider, ought not be speedied so soon thereafter. Agent 86 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) – Nomination withdrawn – 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

:Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

This one is complicated. There was a move war between Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) and Dragan Nikolić (commander), which resulted in both the original article and the redirect being put for DRV. The discussion of the article was at Articles for deletion/Dragan Nikolić (commander) resulted in Speedy Keep after the nomination was withdrawn. It was then moved back to the other name, and was deleted there, presumably by mistake for the redirect, which was somewhat sporadically discussed under this name. . The question of which name, while interesting, should have nothing to do with the deletion.

Fixed now; thanks, Husond. Septentrionalis 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zanta (now moved to David Zancai) – Speedy deletion overturned, sent to AfD - 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Zanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Allow me to start by refering all interested parties to Talk:Zanta#Proposed_deletion, where I responded to a prod tag placed on the article by User:Alkivar. I have created an entry here because I don't feel due process has been followed with the deletion debate on Zanta. I was not given opportunity to respond to User:Alkivar's concerns before the page was deleted.

First of all, let it be known that the Zanta article is sourced, contains verifiable (and indeed verified) claims, asserts notability, and possesses a neutral point of view. The argument for proposed deletion is grounded solely in the issue of whether a subject of predominantly local interest can be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion.

I wish to take the opportunity here to respond to each of User:Alkivar's arguments in sequence, for the consideration of the broader community with the intent to reach consensus:

Challenge: "Ahh but you see the problem is that his "fame" is entirely local to Toronto. I would sy there is sufficient notability if say a newspaper in India or Japan reported on him. But as all sources for notability are local to toronto ... Lets break it down shall we from WP:BIO:"
Response: First, I never asserted that Zanta was "famous" or had any "fame", nor does the article make any assertions of the like. This is a distortion of my statements. I asserted that he was of "local relevance and interest" to Toronto. It is an exceedingly weak argument to say that a subject is notable if and only if that subject has been reported on by foreign newspapers and I don't want to believe that User:Alkivar honestly wishes to stake that claim. The question at hand is not whether the Zanta article is currently of interest to India or Japan, the question is whether the Zanta article meets the basic criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Challenge: "[Quoting from WP:BIO, User:Alkivar writes:] "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." — it doesnt really count if its only the local/regional paper. The local newspaper in my town of residence (circulation around 35,000 copies) has had 12 stories in the past 10 years with my name in them, and 1 of those 12 was entirely about my business as a DJ... does that make me WP:NOTABLE? I think you'll find just about everyone would agree thats a no."
Refutation: User:Alkivar's interpretation of this section of WP:BIO leaves something to be desired. The quoted section contains no reference to circulation numbers or whether the source must have local, global, or any other kind of distribution. Alkivar furthermore makes an unfair comparision between a subject (A) of contested notability and a subject (B) of no notability, then concludes that since (B) is non-notable, (A) is also non-notable. This is not valid reasoning. Drawing your attention back to the citation from WP:BIO, I challenge Alkivar to prove that the sources cited in Zanta are (a) trivial or, (b) not independent of the Zanta himself. You might argue that one of the sources (the video documentary) is trivial, but then we should be editing its information out of the article, not deleting the article entirely, as the majority of the content within the article is drawn from non-trivial, independently-written newspaper articles.
Challenge: User:Alkivar then goes on to point to different items listed in the notability guidelines of WP:BIO, pointing out all the instances in which Zanta fails to meet the criteria. E.g., "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors", "Notable actors", "Political figures", etc.
Refutation: The implicit argument here is that since Zanta is none of these things, he is therefore not notable. This argument is completely without merit. As stated near the top of WP:BIO, "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."

In conclusion: I refute the claim that the article should be deleted because it is of predominant interest to residents of Toronto. Local persons of interest are analogous to local places of interest; and unless the articles are poorly written stubs with no potential for future expansion, there are no absolute grounds for deletion on account of localized interest. Citing from Wikipedia:Places of local interest: "If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." The same spirit of law which presides over articles of local places applies to articles of locally relevant people. I submit that enough reliable and verifiable information exists about Zanta to write a full and comprehensive article about it, as evidenced by the progress of the article to date. It makes sense for the subject to have its own article, in spite of the fact that it is not of global significance at this time.

Bottom line, although the subject of the Zanta article is not known world-wide it does not follow that he is non-notable. My argument is that Zanta is of relevance and interest to the largest city in Canada and that, since wiki is not paper, the mere fact of localized interest is not sufficient for deletion. Let me restate this: just because someone in the U.S. does not find a particular article notable, it does not make that particular article a waste of wikipedia's storage or any less relevant an encyclopedic entry.

Thanks for your consideration, and I welcome the input of as many editors as possible in reaching consensus on this issue. BFD1 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hi, thanks for your input. You have misundersood my point. Notability is asserted; "fame" is not. There is a difference. This argument revolves around notability, not fame. BFD1 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't asserted that either. Have a nice day. Chris cheese whine 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above: First of all, let it be known that the Zanta article is sourced, contains verifiable (and indeed verified) claims, asserts notability, and possesses a neutral point of view. Please refer to the article (for which I have requested a temporary restoration for precisely this reason) for the assertion of notability. Thanks. BFD1 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The Criteria A7 deletion requirement states that the article should assert the importance or significance of its subject. Criteria A7 deletion does not require BFD1 to assert the importance or significance of the subject of the article. -- Jreferee 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as i am the original deleter my opinion doesnt really matter that much here. I am not denying that to residents of toronto the guy has relevance and some notoriety, but as EN wikipedia is a global resource, I cannot see that Zanta has any relevance outside of toronto. I guess the argument boils down to "do local niche subjects retain notability outside of their region?" I would argue that no they dont and therefore do not have global relevance as far as WP:BIO is concerned. As such I concluded this to be a valid Criteria A7 deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then, by your reasoning, half the stuff in New York or Tokyo or Paris would be deleted because it is only of seemingly local relevance. This makes no sense. How is wikipedia a "global" resource if it doesn't touch upon interesting and noteworthy aspects of cities across the globe? Would you have wikipedia touch only on international/universal phenomena? And why delete it instead of marking it for review? --Xfireworksx 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not from New York, yet am aware of the Times Square Naked Cowboy, whose own wiki entry isn't in question. I am also aware of many people outside of Toronto who are aware of Zanta's existence (in part due to his many youtube videos and hundreds of flickr sets). The fact that he was recently featured on a television show that is shown nation wide in Canada AND the United States shows that perhaps he isn't just a local icon. Ruteger 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Wikipedia requirement that topics have global relevance to meet WP:BIO requirements. The Criteria A7 deletion requirement states that the article should assert the importance or significance of its subject. Both your apparent manufacturing non-Wikipedia criteria to justify your speedy deletion and your acting on it appear to be shocking behaviors for an administrator. Your apparent attempt to hide this from others by failing to provide links to the Wikipedia policy/guidlines you used to justify your actions also appear to be shocking. There may need to be a review of your conduct.-- Jreferee 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The scope of Wikipedia is large enough to allow, for instance, notable statues, notable landmarks, and other such features of any city their own pages. Any tourist or torontonian encountering this loud, santa-hatted downtown fixture, clad in shorts in the dead of winter, would find him puzzling enough that an explanation from an encyclopedia would be of great value. People years from now encountering photographic evidence of this man would also appreciate it. The article had the correct tone, and included a number of references, at least one from a newspaper with international ciruclation (the Toronto Star). It is, at the very least, worth an proper debate and not a deletion "as per our IRC conversation".Xtormenta 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to AFD sounds good to me. When can I expect it? Thanks. BFD1 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and move to AFD so that more people can have a look at it. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list on AFD per the roadster. Silensor 07:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. Upon reviewing the article myself, A7 may not have been the best idea here, because it's definitely disputable whether the article asserts true notability (per WP:BIO) or not. At least give it an AFD run, and let it be decided there whether it should stay or go. --Coredesat 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist on AfD, a contested speedy which may survive AfD. Give it five days in the light to see whether it will. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, Zanta is a cultural icon with notability in Canada. I also find it strange that a similar article, Naked Cowboy, is not being deleted which could seem as a cultural slant to the United States. Whatever the response here, there should be a similar response on Naked Cowboy, unless appearing as a 'character' for the USA network is enough for notability. --TaranRampersad 08:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, Zanta has appeared the on the well-known Canadian television show Kenny vs. Spenny, which gives him a media appearance. If I'm not mistaken, this is the same reason the Naked Cowboy (who is very similar to Zanta) has a reason to stay on Wikipedia. This program is the best selling Canadian tv series of all time; it's not a minor program.Sarnya 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD for a full discussion. Frankly, he's what is called euphemistically local colour, aka nutjob, and almost certainly fails WP:BIO although WP:LOCAL may apply. Anyway, air views properly. Eusebeus 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, Per WP:BIO, people who satisfy at least one of the items in WP:BIO may merit their own Wikipedia articles. Per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Zanta has been the subject of (1) McLaren, Leah. (April 30, 2005). Globe and Mail. Who is that capped man? Meet Zanta Ho Ho. Page M1 and (2) Gerson, Jen. (September 12, 2006). Toronto Star. So close to the stars, yet so far away; Tiny Penelope transfixes crowd Going with the Flow nets no result. Section: Entertainment, Page C3. Since Zanta has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself, Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE. In addition, per WP:NOTABLE, "Published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms. Both Globe and Mail and Toronto Star are Published works per WP:NOTABLE. Further, WP:NOTABLE does not require a minimum geographic region for the fame. The opinion that "his "fame" is entirely local to Toronto" as posted by an annomous Wikipedian is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO. Moreover, whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE. Failure to satisfy all of the items in WP:BIO is not a justification for speedy deletion and not a justification to conclude that Zanta is not WP:NOTABLE. In particular to the speedy deletion, there is no identified WP:CSD#General_criteria for the speedy deletion as required by WP:CSD#Procedure_for_administrators. Because the topic fails to meet the speedy deletion requirements and the speedy deletion procedures were not followed in deleting the Zanta article, the speedy deletion needs to be undone.-- Jreferee 13:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good morning everyone. I'm seeing no new arguments in favour of endorsing deletion and a flurry of established editors recommending this to AFD. Would someone please undelete this article already and move it to AFD? I guess I'm asking for a speedy restoration after an unfair speedy delete. Thanks. BFD1 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IPhone – Duplicate DRV. – 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

In August, this article was deleted per AfD, and (later?) protected against recreation. I contacted the admin who protected it, Nihonjoe, and he userfied the old article content at my request. I have since re-written a whole new article in user space, at User:Schi/iPhone. I have requested comments on the page on the iPhone talk page and on Nihonjoe's talk page and haven't gotten any responses yet. I think the article in user space is currently acceptable for Wikipedia main space, where it will hopefully draw more contributions from other editors. The original article was appropriately deleted as pure speculation, but the new version consists of facts drawn from an array of reliable sources reporting on analysts' predictions, patent filings, and business deals. I believe this should survive the "crystal-ball" claim; in WP:NOT it says (my emphasis): "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." schi talk 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination per undeletion below. schi talk 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been undeleted as I believe it now meets WP:V and WP:N. I've restored the histories as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have re-deleted it as this discussion had barely begun and as of yet "rumored" is not a valid verification. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the article? The article included was entirely based on reliable sources reporting on analysts' predictions and patent filings. schi talk 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this discussion is going to be pretty ineffective considering you've deleted the article so no one else can evaluate its content. If nothing else, can you restore it to user space (previously was at User:Schi/iPhone before Nihonjoe moved it to main space) so others can read it and evaluate it themselves? schi talk 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, :*User:Zoe - I am unable to comment on what you mean by as of yet "rumored" and am unable to review your speedy deletion justification. I also question your speedy deletion over another administrators decision to undelete the article.-- Jreferee 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Critical Mass (band) – New version moved into mainspace, AfD optional – 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Critical Mass (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was deleted per this AFD. Admittedly, there were more delete "votes" than keep "votes", but if one takes a look all the delete "votes" were made on the 24th of November. No additional comments were made until the 26th of November and all comments after that were keeps. One person who commented on the 24th returned on the 28th and commented to keep. The article has been restored and moved to userspace, so here's a diff showing the change that the article went through between the version that was nominated for deletion and the version that was eventually deleted [32]. Note that although the unreferenced tag is still at the top, there are references in the the deleted article. It's always being said that AFD is not a vote, and in this instance it seems that the article changed enough that any consensus to delete may have been outweighed by the change in the article, and the apperance of sources. I asked the closing admin to clarify the process he went through in deciding that the AFD showed a consensus to delete, and the only respose I got was a reminder to assume good faith and a suggestion to go to Deletion review. Perhaps I could have phrased my question better.

Since being restored to userspace the article's creator and I have continued to work on it. Here is the article as it now stands. I would like to move this back into article space without fear of it being deleted again. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the name; it was originally at Critical Mass (rock band) and was moved right before the AFD debate to Critical Mass (band). I agree that "rock band" or maybe even "Christian rock band" is better because there are other bands called Critical Mass. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've moved it into mainspace at Critical Mass (Catholic rock). I've made a disambiguation page at Critical Mass (band) where I listed this band, the ska band, and the eurodance band. Does the eurodance band have an article? I tried to link to where I thought it ought to be but it's a red link. Perhaps that's the expired prod? Someone's userpage links to "Critical Mass (band)" and says something about the Dutch band being an article they wrote. Oh well. If someone finds it they can fix the link. I've pointed re-directs at "Critical Mass (Catholic rock)" from the rest of the previous and proposed names. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blak Jak – Deletion endorsed, unprotected to allow rewrite – 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blak Jak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

You have articles on several other rappers with as much (or as little) info. Also, the fact that there was only one contributor does not make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. The rapper has certainly become notable as of late, with his two hit singles "Swervin'" (featuring Project Pat, who you do have an article on), and "Bobbin' My Head". His debut album, Place Your Bets, is set to be released December 19, on major label Republic Records.

Also, you have this article protected, so no one with any notable info can create a page. I think this article should be undeleted, or at leat unprotected, so someone with more information can spruce up the page. Recreate, or at least unprotect. Tom Danson 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia – Overturned by slight majority, back at AfD – 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This AFD was closed as 'no consensus' by User:Glen S, despite there being a clear consensus to delete, based on both (spit) numbers, and, far, far more importantly, Wikipedia policy. Does WP:NOR get thrown out of the window if a few people make a fuss? Apparently, the answer is yes. Accordingly to many of the keep !votes, 'WP:NOR does not apply to this article', which is, frankly, ludicrous, and shows a basic failure to comprehend what an encyclopaedia is. Many more said 'it's not OR as it has references'. It was a synthesis of references to produce its own conjectured suppositions - which is, by definition, original research. This was a poor close, failing to take into account any kind of consensus in the AFD, and failing to consider the quality and validity of the arguments. Overturn and delete. Proto::► 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, and transwiki to Memory Alpha per Alkivar. The speculative nature of the content makes it a very uneasy fit for Wikipedia, and those who assert that it is sources rely on defining fan sites as reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, although I was leaning toward overturning. Why endorse? Because this is a textbook no consensus. One set of editors claimed that there was an OR violation, but the other set noted that there were sources. When in doubt - and I think there's significant doubt here - don't delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote a bit of a rant about how a 'no consensus' call in this situation is worthless, and counterproductive to both sides of the debate, then lost my train of thought. Jeff, one set of editors understood policy, the other set did not - having sources is not magical pixie dust that stops original research being original research. A synthesis of sourced facts to produce conjecture with no basis in the sources is OR, no matter if it had 17 sources, 170 sources, or 17 thousand sources, and I'm not sure if the minority of those in the AFD who argued for keep, nor the closing administrator, understand that. Apologies to those who did, but if you did, how could you justify using 'it has sources' as a reason for keeping the article when that wasn't the accusation leveled at it? Proto::► 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A disagreement on interpretation of policy is not a reason to delete, and an admin should not use his extra tools to force a certain interpretation over another when no consensus on an interpretation such as here exists. For the record, I don't think the side that claimed there wasn't OR misunderstood it at all. I don't think either side did, honestly, a good case can be made in either direction, with or without pixie dust. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're suggesting that a group of people shouting objections to deletion, no matter how poor their reasoning is, should prevent deletion just because there was disagreement? If this were what we did here, we would not bother doing Afd. The core goals and policies trump baseless objections every time. This is by design. Friday (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that, in the event of two legitimate interpretations, we shouldn't be deleting. Read what I'm saying, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but not relevant to a situation where there is only one legitimate interpretation, as we have here. Chris cheese whine 19:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't true about this one, actually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. A couple people saying "but this CAN'T be original research, because there are sources!" should not count. Most fancrufty original research comes from sources. -Amarkov blahedits 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of course by nature makes it non-original research since it is 'researched' by someone else already and hence no longer can be original. --Cat out 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or make into a protected redirect to the not-intended-solely-to-be-OR version of this, at Starfleet ranks and insignia. Having a seperate article intended for fan speculation and original research is not what Wikipedia is about. There was a consensus among editors who understand the goals of Wikipedia to delete this. Friday (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I tend toward inclusionism on pop-culture topics but I do draw the line when it comes to non-canon stuff. The way I see it, even Trek-specific wiki Memory Alpha has a fairly strict canon policy and almost certainly would not be accepted there: they have a Starfleet ranks article with all the canonical insignia and the conjectural ones simply say "No known insignia". If a Trek-specific enyclopedia won't cover this, I see no reason why a general-interest encyclopedia should. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Sigh... It appears that this senseless drama is going to last all eternity... --Cat out 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. There was no consensus. Yelling things loudly, i.e., obsessively typing more words than those with whom you disagree doesn't make you right. There was a very large disagreement among worthwhile contributors, in spite of Friday's and Proto's insulting language above to the contrary. Also suggest that Friday and Proto temper their language to not disparage individuals who disagree with them. Bastiq▼e demandez 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Both counting noses <grimace> and policy clearly support deletion. The entire article was conjecture (as the original title of the article admitted) based on sources. JChap2007 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Deleters charged WP:OR, keepers were unable to defend. Since WP:OR is immune to the effects of consensus (or lack thereof), this should have been at best a no consensus, default to delete rather than no consensus, default to keep. Chris cheese whine 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Close but fits within the boundaries of admin discretion. Numerically it roughly hit the deletion line, but that's where the admin gets to decide. I do find the sudden concern with numerical consensus from this nominator somewhat ironic given his frequent delete closes against keep majorities (of course, those decisions tend to get overturned here). -JJay 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorities are meaningless, because AfD is not a vote. Chris cheese whine 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your opinion. Make sure you tell User:Proto, who starts his renom by indicating the "clear consensus to delete...based on numbers". --JJay 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason why I should not comment on your deliberate misrepresentation of Proto's comments? It actually says "based both on numbers and ... Wikipedia policy". There's no way that your comment could possibly have been made in good faith. Chris cheese whine 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your failure (or is it inability?) to assume good faith is quite impressive, along with the dramatic italics and accusation- but just reinforces my previous comment. User:Proto says a lot of things. I mentioned how he "starts" his renom. --JJay 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He actually says "(spit) numbers", making his distaste for doing AFDs by numbers very clear! To then portray this as him advocating a vote is twisting his words beyond belief, intentionally or no. Morwen - Talk 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He can spit all he wants, but he still mentioned it. Of course, your claim that I portrayed him as "advocating a vote" is twisting my words beyond belief. --JJay 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, JJay, you are the one who is the word-twister. I'll take this up with you on your talk page, as you've reached a new low, even for you. Well done. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: Article contains 17 sources, pure and simple. There were also some personal feelings going on with the nomination itself, in my opinion, as a previous AfD on Warrant Officer (Star Trek) was overturned for its deletion and, to be very blunt, I think this POd some people and they next targeted this article for deletion. Way too many feelings, in both directions about this article, to say it was a clear concensus for delete. -Husnock 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The keep arguments were not sufficiently strong to suggest any reason for keeping it. Consensus is irrelevant, because WP:OR and WP:V are explicitly above consensus. Chris cheese whine 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right. Since article is neither original research (it is based on freaking sources) and that it is verifiable (see the books). It is automatic keep. --Cat out 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Based on sources" does not mean "not original research" (as was pointed out to you repeatedly in the AfD). That it's in a novel of some kind does not mean it's verifiable (see WP:RS). More importantly, it's clearly not verifiable if to check the information you need to repeat whatever steps you've taken to find the information in the first place. Either way, whether or not the article was oder wasn't is not what we're here to discuss. What we are here to discuss is whether or not the claims were meritous. Those claiming it was OR put forward their case for it very clearly. Those claiming it wasn't, didn't. They just said "It's so not OR", leaving the whole part about the conjectural nature of the material, and the filling in the gaps, unanswered. Since they weren't answered, the correct conclusion to draw is that the claims of OR are valid. Chris cheese whine 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok so if the people who make star trek write a book about star trek, that makes it an unreliable source. So DO tell me, what would be a reliable source (for the sake of argument)? --Cat out 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything that meets the criteria in WP:RS (which excludes self-publication). You seem to be making the mistake that every small detail about every book ever published on the subject merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Chris cheese whine 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not change the subject. So I ask you again. What would be a "reliable source" for star trek rank insignias since I can't use The Star Trek Encyclopedia (as per your argument). Don't cite a policy cite the types of sources you feel I should be using. --Cat out 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wanting to rehash the AfD itself, the onus is on you. Chris cheese whine 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence has been provided. If you're challenging it, explain why. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Husnock's stunning display of bad faith in deciding why people voted to delete at AfD, and per Proto's arguments. It should be noted that the original title of the article was CONJECTURAL Ranks and that during the course of the AfD many keep votes displayed a certain level of disdain for policy simply because they liked it. The arguments used to suggest keeping (which would ostensibly lead to no concensus) should have been overlooked by the closing admin as spurious with the possible exception of Newyorkbrad. Most tellingly, in terms of is this a proper close, is that many keep votes denied there was any original research in the article whatsoever. If the article is undeleted, and people go to remove the OR, what will remain will not be an article. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't live in Cuba. If I have a personal opinion that there were some personal motiviations for the AfD, then I have every right to say so. And I never called a specific person to such a charge nor called anyone names, unlike you who spoke of me as "contemptible" on the Admin Noticeboard [33]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)
Yes you did. You called me a joker, and you accused everyone in the AFD of bad faith, repeatedly. Proto::► 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plea: Please, everyone, can we not repeat the Afd? Anyone who wants to read people arguing about sources can see this all very plainly in the Afd. We're not trying to repeat the Afd- we're trying to evaluate the closure of it. Friday (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which seems to be the source of the problem, isn't it? --Cat out 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A story: back in the town where I used to live, there was a fellow who used to go around downtown and on campus with signs declaring his belief that John Lennon's death was the handiwork of an unholy conspiracy between Richard Nixon and Stephen King. Quite a story, and I can understand your skepticism, but he had proof! From reliable sources! which he would display, namely newspaper headlines from the New York Times and other (very respectable and reliable) newspapers, from which he had helpfully decoded the secret messages demonstrating the depths of this conspiracy. Eventually, he wound up in King's hometown, where the local police, for some reason, remained entirely unconvinced by his copious references. (Hmmm, checking Google, it looks like he's joined the 21st century and now has a website.)
  • The moral: it's not the lack of footnotes you have or the sources you cite, it's what you do with the information that makes original research. So overturn and delete, per my original recommendation. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure I see nothing wrong with the closure of this AfD. VegaDark 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close (keep) If there is this much effort to the discussion it must be that the subject is both notable and verifiable, because otherwise there wouldn't be anything much to argue about. It's not a vote, but if so many people from various places in WP think it is worth keeping, it is. Keep is the safe policy when in doubt.DGG 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "If there is this much effort ... it must be that the subject is notable and verifiable". No, that is very, very, very much not the case. Have you seen some of the AFD discussions? The more worthless and unsuitable (for an encyclopaedia) a subject is, the longer the AFD seems to get. "Keep is the safe policy when in doubt" - no, Wikipedia policy is the safe policy when in doubt. Proto::► 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and delete, improper close. !Votes to keep do not trump the policy of verifiability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete WP:OR is policy that can not be suspended by a minority (or even a majority) at AfD. Eluchil404 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close result seems about like what I expected... was unaware we couldnt direct transwiki to Memory Alpha or I wouldnt have suggested it. Since we cant do that ... It should remain on wiki.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Like I said in the original discussion, some parts of the article are properly sourced, while the rest is OR that just happens to be based on proper sources. And the more I read it, the more bits and pieces of OR appear. So let them get rid of the OR, tidy up the rest, and show us what's left over. If they don't improve it anytime soon and insist that none of it's OR, fine, we'll go for another AfD joyride and I'll probably vote delete. But starting this up again half a day after the original thread closed seems a bit soon. Quack 688 09:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the AFD closure is clearly wrong in your opinion, or is very questionable in your opinion, then going to DRV is entirely appropriate - this is what DRV is for. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete This should have been closed as a delete, whether you weigh the opinions of all of the editors- OR is OR is OR- or simply take a head count. -- Kicking222 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete completely OR. ViridaeTalk 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close I did not vote in the original AfD, since I don't really think this stuff is all that important. But from a procedural context, it is clear that claims of "original research" in this article (as distinct from a few sections of the article, which would be a cleanup issue, and not grounds for deletion) are utterly without merit. Thus, the decision to keep is entirely correct. (Complaints about notability have some validity here, of course; but there did not appear to be any consensus on that point either.) Ben Standeven 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:OR. Please, especially, read the section on synthesising referenced work of others to produce your own original work. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. "Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed." Why was this article not deleted, if it contained original research? In any event, Alternate ranks and insignia of Starfleet does not contain any "synthesis" that I can see, only a list of hypothesized ranks. Would you care to give an example of this supposed synthesis? Ben Standeven 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'A list of hypothesized ranks' - this is synthesis. The known facts (occasional mentions in various canon books and fanon websites) are used to hypothesize ranks within Starfleet. That is a synthesis of referenced facts - the article consists entirely of 'This character wore a badge, and it has been conjectured (in fan sites, if referenced at all), it means he was rank X. It barely even reaches the lofty heights of synthesis, it's just conjecture. Proto::► 09:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if a book mentions a "Grand Admiral" rank (say), and describes its insignia (I confess, I don't remember ever seeing a description of Thrawn's insignia), it's "original research" to say so? Don't think so. And there is no policy against "synthesis" or "conjecture" by third parties in Wikipedia, only against original synthesis or conjecture. Ben Standeven 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the conjecture isn't by third parties, it's by the article creators. In your example, to mention a Grand Admiral rank would be fine as it's referenced to a official book. The conjecture is then creating lovely big images of what the image might look like, or borrowing a Star Trek fan's website (not a reliable source)'s lovely big image of what Thrawn's insignia 'might' look like, and using that on Wikipedia. Particularly when an assemblage of various people's speculations about insignia is then used to assemble - to synthesize - a whole series of alternate conjectured ranks. Even the Star Trek wiki has higher standards for Star Trek cruft than that. Proto::► 10:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then we do seem to be on the same page; but I feel we should keep the article (which is not inherently OR) and axe the unsourced pictures (which presumably are OR). I also don't agree that "a whole series of alternate conjectured ranks" is any different than a single conjectured rank. Ben Standeven 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close of this one there is a difference between original research and using references Yuckfoo 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yuckfoo, also, please read WP:OR. Please, especially, read the section on synthesising referenced work of others to produce your own original work. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - WP:NOR is not negotiable. Original research requires references to be done properly; that's why the word "research" appears there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - The article represents a clear breach of WP:OR. The article itself accepts that the alternate ranks are non-canon and the discussion of conjectural ranks seems to be admitting OR in its title. This debate seem to be the classic example of the fact that AfD should not be a vote- no number of keep votes can disguise the fact that this article is inherently and unsalvageably flawed. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete under both WP:NOR and WP:FICT, why should fancruft of non-existent attributes of fictional universes gum up an encyclopedia merely because of the popularity of underlying subject matter. Carlossuarez46 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Clear case of no consensus. --Fang Aili talk 22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - not just because I agree with the decision that it was no consensus, but because I don't think we should appeal to DRV every time we get an AFD we don't like. I'm not at all necessarily saying that's the case here, but that's how it seems. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, Pat? Are you endorsing the closure because you don't think Deletion Review should review deletions? Proto::► 10:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm endorsing closure anyway. I think the closure was proper, is what I'm saying. -Patstuarttalk|edits 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, let them try to clean it up under the new name and then revisit it if needed. No consensus was a reasonable conclusion from that mess. -- nae'blis 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was only a mess because the Trekcruft editors deliberately turned what should have been a relatively straightforward deletion of an OR article into a morass of whining and accusations of bad faith to obscure the issue. It fooled the closing admin into closing an obvious delete as 'no consensus'. Proto::► 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dekoy – Deletion endorsed, unprotected – 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dekoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Overturn 69.61.253.106 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This article was deleted as unnotable, however several of the rules from the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page WP:BAND would seem to apply here as defining the band as notable.[reply]

Specifically "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

The following reviews would qualify - there are others as well. Side-line Music Magazine, a print and web magazine [34] Regen Magazine [35]

2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country. As referenced in the wikipedia entry, Dekoy debuted with their first album placing on the Deutsche_Alternative_Charts.

Additionally, it can be noted that Dekoy is very well known in the Cincinnati Area Futurepop/Goth/Industrial scene - such as it is. Rule 7 may have bearing as well.

Retrieving the DAC report now, I should have it within the next day or so.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone please temp-undelete this (and protect blank, as usual) so that nonadmins can comment on the debate? --ais523 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, allow recreation The article that was deleted deserved to be deleted; the sources were low-quality, the page was mostly advertising, it didn't assert much notability, and it was written in an unencylcopaedic style. If the sources given in this DRv are correct, though, the subject is notable and should probably have an article, just not the one that was deleted. Allow undeletion to userspace if a user thinks the information here would be useful in writing another article. --ais523 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, allow recreation, the AfD was fine and utterly indisputable (and the old version absolutely deserved deletion). There were no procedural errors here at all. But the new sources sound promising, and, as Jeff points out, if the chart info can be verified, this should be a cut-and-dried keep in future. I recommend against userfying the old, bad, version (I suspect that a better article would be created without its influence), but won't actually object. Xtifr tälk 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ali Sina – Deletion endorsed – 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ali Sina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history) — AFD 1, AfD 2

The administrator who deleted this page said the result of the vote was to delete, but I counted the votes and it was a tie.--Sefringle 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was re-created by Karl Meier, not as a repost but as a stub, but I think we probably ought to finish this first. I have undeleted the history so people can review it. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote. I stand by my close. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mackensen, you wrote: "If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website ...". You deleted the page because it doesnt have reliable sources? How is that a reason to delete a page? --Matt57 03:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're kidding, right? Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Matt, independant reliable sources which assert Ali Sina's notability to a satisfactory degree are required. he currently does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. ITAQALLAH 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mackensen, you could have kept the article and told people to find reliable sources. Its not that reliable sources dont exist for this article. Its just they havent been included in the article yet. Give people some more time to include reliable sources. There are hundreds of articles that are in development and dont cite third party sources such as Zakir Naik, which is also under review for deletion. If Ali Sina was deleted due to lack of third party sources, it would be fair for Zakir Naik to be deleted as well. --Matt57 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article was nominated for deletion a year ago as well, but in a year's time, no one found any reliable secondary source. Actually, this is true for the last two years, since creation of this article. TruthSpreaderTalk 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how long do we wait for people to find and add these sources? A day? a week? a month? As pointed out it had been in existance for a long time and no one bothered, it was on AFD for a week and no one bothered. If material in an article isn't verifiable it should be removed pending the sources, if that means the whole article it is deleted. If someone later finds sources then the can come to WP:DRV specify those sources and if need be the material will be restored to resolve that issue. (Assuming there weren't any other issues in the AFD). We don't keep stuff hanging around indefinitely waiting for someone to put it right, quality not quantity. --pgk 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually was a keep by vote count Keep 18 Delete 17 Neutral 1 . Mackensen please reverse the delete since the results are contrary to your claim.Clearly there was no consensus reached thus its a keep per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion which states: An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to KEEP --CltFn 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion it is quite surprising to see that this article failed to have much in the way of reliable sources given that the hit counter for FaithFreedom.org (his site) is showing over 4 million hits. In light of that User:Mackensen correctly determined that deletion was the proper course of action. (→Netscott) 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The arguments to keep are extremely weak. Many of the people voting keep seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is simple very little that can be found about this personality in reliable sources. BhaiSaab talk 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - I'm not wasting diskspace copy pasting what Netscott said -- Tawker 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - as per →Netscott. --TruthSpreaderTalk 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Although there currently are few reliable sources found on the article other than his website, he is notable, and for that reason he warrents an article.--Sefringle 03:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he is notable then you should have no difficulty finding reliable independent published sources; notability on Wikipedia does not mean "I have heard of him". There has been almost a year since the first AfD, in which reliable sources could have been found, and there has been more than 2 years since the article was created. If you think the article should exist on Wikipedia, you are welcome to find reliable independent sources, but given the length of time in which those sources could have been found, it looks like they do not exist. —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you're supposed to be commenting a second time, Sefringle. Although I do not agree in saying that he is notable, if for arguments purposes I did agree, an article about a so-called notable person that has no reliable sources can serve no meaningful purpose on Wikipedia other than to advertise his website for him. BhaiSaab talk 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn He is very notable, having debated famous Muslim leaders, and produced a very influential website. At the very least we should make it clear that the author of this website calls himself Ali Sina, and have Ali Sina be the title of the article about the owner of the website. Arrow740 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn How can you delete the page when the result was a tie, the result should be NO CONSENSUS.--CltFn 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per "You're kidding, right?" --Striver 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — independant reliable sources, anyone? ITAQALLAH 03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and shiver at the thought of what Wikipedia would look like if mindless headcount were a substitute for valid arguments. -Amarkov blahedits 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and applaud Mackensen for taking a little initiative. -FunnyMan 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Netscott--Aminz 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: In total there are 36 votes. 18 Keep, 17 Delete and one neutral. The result is Keep. OceanSplash 08:05, 5 December 2006
    • No keep results comes when 75%-80% people say it keep. The result was neither keep nor delete. ---- ALM 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he does not exist how his articles can appear in books and why in the editorial review he is called A Major Scholar Check out [Amazon.com?] Can you show the rule that says 80% of the votes must be keep in order to keep an article? Are you saying only 21% of the editors can overturn the vote of 79% of the voters?OceanSplash 08:26, 5 December 2006
        • It is not a poll. What the above comment means is: in practice, if 80% of the people think it should be kept, it is usually an appropriate encyclopedia article, whereas with less than that amount it is more common that the article may not meet Wikipedia content policies yet have a majority that are not considering those content policies. —Centrx→talk • 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion We always says that AFD is not a vote and your comments count. I have seen it happening for the first time and I am impressed with the admin who has done that. If we cannot prove the existance of a person using reliable resources then all the other comments set aside, the article does not has any rational to exist. --- ALM 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per my AfD vote. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 09:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, closer made the correct decision. Proto::► 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Another revolting piece of evidence that some admins here doesn't respect the opinions of other Wikipedian's and believe they can make such decisions on their own, despite no consensus being reached. Properly around 90 percent of Wikipedia's articles should be deleted if we should act and delete articles according to Mackensen's criteria, and the article did have a lot of valuable information that could have been developed instead. It's too bad. But the Faitfreedom.org article will be interesting to work on instead, with Ali Sina as a redirect to that page. -- Karl Meier 10:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I read through the AfD, and it seems to me that the keep arguments are that because he Googles well we should ignore the fact that all the sources track right back to himself. There appear to be none (0) reliable sources of biographical data on this subject. It is the site, not the person, who is notable. The article has been around long enough that if the lack of sources was fixable, one would have expected it to be fixed, so the close seems to me to be valid per Mackensen's closing arguments. As to Karl's comment, allowing opinion to override policy would be revolting. It would also make this entire endeavour completely worthless. Feel free to fix the sourcing issues, at which point we can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously believe that we shouldn't have articles about writers that want to remain anonymous? Anyway, I just did what the deleting admin recommended and fixed the problem with the sources and recreated the article as a stub, but for some reason that was removed too... -- Karl Meier 11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As I said in the AfD page, he isn't notable, he's anonymous, runs a site which claims to be an 'organization'. Overall It's a good thing for the article to have been deleted so that wikipedia is no longer used as a traffic generator. His 'debates' with people are like someone posting their IRC chat logs and saying "I have discussed with 100+ people the benefits of sleeping late". And - the AfD isn't a vote, there were no convincing arguments to keep the article (from my observation). thestick 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It very well might be the article on wikipedia that was taking traffic to his website, as his article (if I can remember) had the full agenda of his website. Hence, search engines would give his website a higher ranking when the description on his article was matching with website's description. Heraldreply 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Not enough sources independent of the person (see WP:BIO). Raphael1 12:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There are a lot of people who are far less notable than Ali Sina, but who neverthless have their own article. So either delete all the articles about bloggers, webmasters, and online famous persons, or just keep the article.--Vincent_shooter 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    see inclusion is not an indicator of notability, we don't set such precedents and a mere assertion that they are "less notable" doesn't mean much. If for whatever level of notability they have more verifiable third party reliable sources, then they are already well ahead. --81.19.57.170 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Mackensen said, we can recreate the article if we can bring reliable sources. Thats what we'll do. --Matt57 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you provide these reliable sources now and stop this article from being deleted. TruthSpreaderTalk 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hold on? It will happen with time. If enough sources are brought in the article will be undeleted. --Matt57 03:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the history of the article. It has already been given one year to prove its notability since its last AFD. Actually, the article has been on wikipedia for more than two years. No body can do much about it. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Not enough sources, Identity Disputed, Existence Disputed, and i think matt57 is very fascinated by this disputed Ali sina group work and anti muslim bias.Mak82hyd 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd point out that the sources just listed above were recently decided to help toward "reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB" by the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International, and the first criterion (the one these sites satisfy) of WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", is substantially similar to the first criterion of WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." The important point is that all these citations focus not only on Faith Freedom but also on Ali Sina himself, and TruthSpreader (who has voted "endorse deletion" here) said in the AfD, regarding the FrontPageMag symposium, "This event adds notability to Ali Sina, not FF." So that's agreement from TruthSpreader that it's notable for Ali Sina's article, and certainly even more so if it was notable for Faith Freedom in the end. — coelacan talk — 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? — coelacan talk — 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Traditional Britain Group – Deletion endorsed – 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Traditional Britain Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

How can a minute group of four or five people get a reasonable information page like this deleted so quickly? The Traditional Britain Group is fairly well-known. People like Simon Heffer just don't accept invitations as dinner guests-of-honour for minor groups. The quip by one of its detractors that their dinner notices must be paid for is pathetic. Firstly, notices on the Court & Social pages are not always paid for (although they may have paid for theirs). It is at the discretion of the page editor. Secondly, all major dinners, memorial services, etc., appear on these pages under the same terms and conditions. It is not "advertising". I think you need to reassess some of you notability terms and conditions. Total and absolute reliance on the press is not enough. You might be hard-pressed, for instance, to find anything at all on the Chelsea Conservative Association, but it has been very active for over a century and is notable. I think you ought to reconsider this deletion which appears somewhat spiteful. Chelsea Tory 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note This was at the bottom of the November 29 log, but seems to be new from the time stamp, so I'm moving it here. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:IDONTLIKETHEARGUMENTS isn't a reason for overturning. -Amarkov blahedits 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AFD process looks fine to me, and the reason makes sense. From an individual's point of view, it would seem to be a big and powerful group, but in the Grand Scheme of Things, it's just not an important enough group to meet notability. This kind of organization are a dime a dozen. -FunnyMan
  • Endorse deletion, perfectly valid close. This appears to be more vanispamcruftisement from the Lauder-Frost fanclub. A redirect to Western Goals Institute would be OK, although I note that the WGI article is a vile piece of soapboxing and needs a Wikihatchet taken to it. At least some people will have heard of the WGI, I live in England and can't recall ever having heard the Traditional Britain Group mentioned in the media (which, given their minimal Google presence, is not all that surprising). Guy (Help!) 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E-Sword – Deletion endorsed – 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E-Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Out of process clousre. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination), the only comment calling for deletion was from the nominator. He raised notability concerns. Multiple comments called for keeping the article and addressed those notability concerns. Closed as delete due to no cited sources, but this wasn't raised in AfD & should lead to cleanup, not to deletion. As there was no consensus for deletion, it should either be kept or sent back to AfD to discuss any WP:V concerns. Karnesky 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This debate turned on an assertion of notability. Keep voters asserted notability without providing a measure of proof, which is no assertion at all. I saw no other honest way to close the debate. Of course re-creation with actual sources, in an encyclopedic tone, remains a valid and encouraged option. I endorse my original close. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If there are no sources, there are no sources. It doesn't matter how many people discuss that. Articles with no sources get deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. This is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My objection was the AfD process, not whether the content of the article satisfied WP:V. Isn't AfD about WP:CON and not one admin's opinion?
However, allow me to provide a few sources here--I have no interest in recreating the article myself, but these could improve a restored or recreated article. It demonstrates that an article COULD satisfy WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. It was awarded a best software award by PocketPC Mag in 2004 and was a finalist in 2005 and is nominated in 2006. It has been reviewed by "Dr. Gizmo" Al Fasoldt of The Post-Standard (August 11, 2004, but I don't have an electronic subscription) and in York Daily Record (again--no subscription, but google news archives had an excerpt). --Karnesky 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not trump policy. Verifiy with reliable sources, or delete. No reliable sources of notability have been forthcoming. Endorse closure. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually DON'T use it (and don't think I could--I use Linux). And many of the people who claimed to use it on the AfD were anonymous or brand new accounts. I don't think you should even recognize those claims here. What harm is there in undeleting and cleaning it up or undeleting and actually discussing whether deletion is warranted? --Karnesky 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion already happened. The article as it stood was an advertisement with no sources. That is not acceptable. You are free, of course, to create an article with actual sources, although you've indicated that you have no interest in doing so. In that light, your insistence that the article be undeleted is perverse and borders on the irresponsible. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--and the discussion reads to me as "keep" after notability concerns were raised. WP:RS and WP:V weren't raised. It is not that I have no interest in recreating it--it is that I am unqualified to do so. I know what I've read from a few reviews. I don't think I'm being perverse or irresponsible in wanting process to be followed. Why contribute when people ignore WP:CON? Perhaps I do protest too much, but it is because I don't see anyone talking about process. --Karnesky 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they were--by the nomination, even if indirectly. As an administrator I'm expected to be capable of adding two and two together and producing four (or five, for very large values of two). I didn't ignore WP:CON, I ignored the arguments that ignored policy. If there were sources you should have added them to the article. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree, I guess.WP:SOFTWARE does state that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" is a criteria for notability. I don't think my argument in the AfD (which made that point) should have been ignored--I think someone should have asked me to provide actual references for the published works I found through the search I cited. That--to me--is consensus building. --Karnesky 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't provide references when asked. You don't provide references when the article is at risk of deletion. You provide them as a matter of course. This is a basic requirement for building an encyclopaedia. Chris cheese whine 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can point out where I was asked? The first time I saw this article was in AfD. The AfD didn't ask for references, but I pointed out that there were references. Yes--I could have added them to the article or to the AfD, but there was never any call for that. --Karnesky 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part where I said you're supposed to provide references as a matter of course, not wait until you're asked for them? Chris cheese whine 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood what you wrote. At the risk of wiki lawyering, WP:Deletion policy states that the correct procedure is still to follow WP:V and to tag the article with {{cleanup-verify}}. I am not an admin (so can't see the page), but I don't think that was done. It states that "if it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Arguments in the AfD said that it would be verifiable. Why recreate from scratch when we could just cleanup? --Karnesky 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and a Farepak hamper to the admin. Keep arguments had no grounding in this or any other reality. Chris cheese whine 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and improve, per Karnseky. This may not be the usual way of looking at these questions , but I'd say that the very fact of this much disputation about the question this would indicate a sufficient probability of notability and suitability in general to keep the page and improve it. I tried to add a little based on the web site, but I'm no specialist.DGG 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per WP:V:

    The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (emphasis mine)

    Although I can't see the deleted article, judging from the close, I'm going to assume there were no sources. During AfD, even when requested, no sources were brought up. During this DRV, to this point, no sources have been given to assert notability. Sorry, but until you can, Wikipedia doesn't want an article on this, per official Wikipedia policy. This is non-negotiable. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, reading this AfD is like going back in a timewarp to the time when AfD was called Votes for Deletion and you could still cite WP:ILIKEIT without being ignored. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the closing admin was kind enough to allow re-creation as long as it fulfills WP:V/WP:RS. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important comment - This software is part of a package known as The Sword Project which recently also underwent an AFD - however, this one was closed as keep or merge. Perhaps it could be undeleted for the sake of merging. -Patstuarttalk|edits 18:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have voted to Keep this article---but my vote appears to be too late.

[I didn't know it was a candidate for deletion until after it was deleted.] [I'd provide citations in this response, but I am on a 2400 baud line --- Yes, the speed that was considered fast back in 1989.]

I don't remember ever seeing any tags on the article, or talk page about anything.
  • From my reading of the Wikipedia Deletion policy, an article has to be tagged with the appropriate tag, prior to deletion. In this instance, I'm guessing that the _apparent_ lack of sources is the issue. The sources were listed under guidelines that were acceptable back around 2002.
  • A simple [cleanup]tag would have indicated that an editor thought something was amiss with the article. It might not have cleaned it up, but it would served as notice.
From Notability [Software guidelines]
  • Newspaper articles. It has been reviewed in some seminary newspapers.
  • Books: The e-Sword license pretty much prohibits any books about this software from being commercially published. Non-commercial publication is acceptable.
  • User Guides: Official user guide is available from the home website. Unofficial user guides are available in English and Spanish, usingthe Internet. These are all distributed under a free (gratis) license. Documentation in some Indonesian and Philippine languages is not available on the Internet,but uses other distribution channels. Translation of the user guides into roughly 15 other languages is underway.
  • TV Documentaries: None known.
  • Magazine reviews. Karnesky (17:10, 5 December 206) mentioned some awards and nominations for this software. Both e-Sword, and Pocket e-Sword have been reviewed in articles that were either about the category (Bible Study Software) in general, or the product by itself.
  • Notable Software Vendor: I'll let somebody else decide whether or not Equipping Ministries and/or Rick Meyer is notable.
  • Included with a distribution: a) e-sword runs on Windows, so that is one barrier to being included; b) the e-Sword license prohibits commercial distribution, so that is a second barrier to included in a distribution;
  • Numbers: e-Sword claims five million downloads. I've forgotten how many Pocket e-Sword claims. Since both are freeware (gratis) there is no telling how many copies have been distributed by third parties. Likewise, there is no way of knowing how many copies were deleted by people who downloaded it. By Contrast, Findex claims that one million certified copies of Quickverse have been sold.[That is their website --- probably the "about us" page.]
    • e-Sword has been downloaded by inhabitants of over 160 countries. The "missing" countries are, with the exception of Greenland, in the 10-40 Belt. Organizations that used to smuggle Bibles into the Comblock, are now smuggling them (and e-Sword) into the 10-40 belt countries.
From Verifiability
  • Most of the material in the article was constructed from information that is available on either the official website, or documentation written by users. As such, it might meet the criteria for "dubious reliability" --- in specific self-published sources. Those sources were mentioned in the article, albeit that might not have been obvious.
  • On the "Talk Page" the only question I can remember, is why the New World Translation was given so much space, especially since it was,in theory, not available as an e-Sword resource. AFAIK,The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has not publicly made any statements about copyright violations of that, or other resources created from The Watch Tower CD. They dealt with that issue with the module creator. Whilst that specific copyright violation was not referenced elsewhere, piracy has been mentioned in other reviews of e-Sword. Those citations could have been added there --- had anybody asked for more specific citations.
  • The section "Biblical Language Study" (Or something like that) did contain a criticism that should have sourced. Easily corrected, and overlooked because it was so close to me.
  • The section "User created modules" [Or something like that] _might_ qualify as original research, since it was added before the section "Best Practices"in "The e-Sword Utility Program FAQ" was created. [Which also gets back to the "dubious source" issue.] Issues with user created resources have been mentioned in reviews. Those could have been cited.
  • The Sword Project:

a) e-Sword and The Sowrd Project are two different projects. e-Sword is gratis, but not libre. The Sword Project is Free Libre Open Source Software. b) There was a section that discussed some of the differences between the two projects, and reasons why they were often confused for each other.

  • I think that covers all of the sections of the article. Anything else would have related to either how to use the program, or the resources for the program.
Re "You provide references as a matter of course".
  • References were listed, and followed guidelines from 2002. Should they have been changed to reflect current guidelines on references. Probably. A simple statement statement on the "Talk Page" probably would have sufficed, to get them changed to reflect the 206 policy. If specific statements were questioned, they should have received a "citation needed" tag. There are at least two bots that do nothing but add those tags to pages.
  • Kudus to Karnesky 00:06, 6 December 2006 for risking wiki lawyering. A simple cleanup would probably be easier than an article rewrite. And if the article is rewritten, what is to prevent it from being a candidate for "Speedy Delete" on the grounds that it has already been deleted? jonathon 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

4 December 2006

[edit]
Google Earth Hacks – Prodded deletion overturned and sent to AfD. – 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Google Earth Hacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

This entry was deleted for failing WP:V. Here are some well-known sources that reference the site and give it some credibility:

Search Engine Watch [36]

BBC [37]

New Scientist Magazine (we're not mentioned in the exerpt, but we're in the full version) [38]

New Jersey Star-Ledger (the article expired on their site - link is to a cache) [39]

As for getting independent sources for the statistics about the site, I'm not sure how that could be done - site memberships, file downloads, etc, are not typically verified via a third party.

Is there any other information I can provide that would help?

Mickmel 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chi Iota Pi – Prodded deletion overturned and sent to AfD. – 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chi Iota Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)
 The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spanish Gibraltarians – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spanish Gibraltarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

The thing I dont understand is why the article, which had been undeleted after a votation, was then deleted by Mackensen without a clear consensus to do so (9 votes to keep out of 19). Is this not against wikipedia rules? --Burgas00 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a factual reality not the product of your imagination or POV. This consensus did not exist.

Arguments, given in the AFD, in favour of deleting can be summarized as follows:

  • This is racist Spanish propaganda. (Gibnews)
  • Spanish Gibraltarians don't exist because Gibraltar is part of the UK. (Proto)
  • Original Research. (Astrotrain)
  • Gibraltarian political activists may vandalize this article, so it should be deleted. (Gibnews)

Examples of answers to such accusations given in the AFD:

Keep: This article gives its references clearly and apparently only offers as its mandate the various meanings and usages of this ethnic identification term. The article almost certainly has NPOV issues (made clear by this discussion if nothing else) but secondary source references and limited mandate seem to show it is neither OR nor a hoax...so any problems are an issue for article editors to work out, not AfD. Regarding arguments above that "edit wars are inevitable" I'd only say we shouldn't delete decently researched articles because problems MAY happen in the future. -Markeer 17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had enough of people using AfD in order to promote a particular viewpoint. I think this should be a procedural keep, AfD is for deciding whether or not articles belong on Wikipedia, not a space to rant about articles you disagree with. Lurker oi! 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per RockMFR. As for "you're either one or the other, as Gibraltar is not in Spain" i must remind people that we have African American, Arab Israeli, etc... -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the OR? I see multiple references, and a google search shows the term is used in media sources. Lurker oi! 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a definate segment of the Gibraltar population. --Oakshade 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still convinced you are mistaking your personal views with a consensus on an AFD. --Burgas00 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion. I disagree with the keep voters, but I do not see how you can get a consensus to delete from that. The delete people said there aren't reliable sources and it's a POV fork, the keep voters said the opposite. There's no reason for a closing admin to prefer one to the other. -Amarkov blahedits 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure there is. Admins are expected to exercise some judgment and discretion. In particular, I saw no compelling reason to overlook the outcome of the previous AfD, which concerned substantially the same material, nor the troubling notability issues. If two sides make counter-arguments, but one has evidence and policy on their side, it is negligent to ignore that. Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion A bunch of editors saying "those sources look good" and another bunch saying "no they don't" call for a closing admin's unbiased judgment, which was applied here. After all, we should reasonably expect our reliable sources to be uncontested. Bias is a preconceived opinion on a topic and there is no evidence that Mackensen's call was biased. ~ trialsanderrors 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Entirely within closer's discression, and when a contentious source is in question, it should, properly, be assessed via WP:RS. It failed, ergo, article is not reliably sourced. Proto::► 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a copy of the references used in the article. A saved copy of the whole article can be found on my user page. Nevertheless, the main reason for undeletion, at this point, is procedural.

  1. Spaniards in Gibraltar after the Treat of Utrecht, Tito Benady, Transborder Institute of the Straights of Gibraltar. A history of Spanish Gibraltarians and Spanish immigration to Gibraltar from the Treaty of Utrecht to the present day. 1
  2. Cronica, El Mundo. Article appeared on Spanish journal El Mundo, October 2002 on the Heirs of Gibraltar Association in San Roque, Spain. 2
  3. Official website of Town Council of San Roque, Cadiz, offering a historical account of the Spanish Gibraltarians who founded the city. 3
  4. Vogue Magazine, describing John Galliano as Spanish Gibraltarian.4
  5. Article in the Daily Telegraph on Gregory Burke's play "The Straights", in which he depicts his childhood as an English expatriate in Gibraltar. Burke describes the rivalry between the local "Spanish Gibraltarian" and British expatriate kids.5

--Burgas00 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) --Burgas00 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn As i said at the ANI, Mackensen relied on his own judgment because most of the keep votes are unsubstantail IMO. Gibnews talks about a racist spanish propaganda. Proto says that Gibraltar belongs to the UK (which is a fact) but fails to understand that nothing relates ownership of a place with people living in that place to warrant an article in wikipedia (i.e. Indigenous Australians (Awabakal people, Anmatyerre...), Arab citizens of Israel, List of English people with Caribbean origins and the list is long). Astrotrain argues that it is OR when links given above shows the opposite. What was the need of an AfD if the closing admin failed to detect the innacuracies in the "delete" arguments?
One more important thing is that the first Afd was on another POVish article titled something like "original inhabitants of Gibraltar" and content was cleared of POV. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion unless Gibnews' argument of racism can be verified (i.e. held to the same standard as an assertion made in an article). I am far from an expert on this subject and was asked to glance at this deletion review but I'm genuinely confused why an article with clear secondary sources would be deleted based on an OR argument, why one ethnic minority in a country/region is denied an article when others are not, or why we would delete an article because something might possibly maybe happen in the future. If a verifiable argument for racism could be presented I agree that should be taken seriously, but the administrator's arguments above seem highly questionable in context. At any rate, as I said I'm not an expert on the subject so this "vote" is as far as I'll go from here. -Markeer 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion. The point with Gibnews' claims of racism is that he reads that, as long as the argument of the descendents of the former Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar has been used as an argument of the Spanish irredentism, it must disappear (regardless of any other consideration). It's as if we'd erase the mentions to the Holocaust because they can be used to claim that Germans are intrinsically bad guys. Gibnews hasn't proved that what the article said was false (even if the first versions were highly POV). I see this deletion as a politically-based preemptive deletion. --Ecemaml 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion Firstly, a lack of consensus to delete. Secondly, arguments made in favour of keeping were not addressed satisfactorily. Arguments in favour of deletion incuded an unproven accusation of racism and a clearly refuted claim that article was OR. Thirdly, my concern that, as I said in the AfD I've had enough of people using AfD in order to promote a particular viewpoint still applies. The article's deletion seems to be in order to promote a pro-British viewpoint, and to remove an article which does not promote that point. A highly POV deletion, which is why I suggested procedural keep as using AfD in order to promote a political position is an abuse of the process, in my opinion. Lurker oi! 15:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that the folks arguing overturn have confused the closing admin with the delete !voters, and I don't appreciate that much. DRV should not be used to re-fight the AfD nomination. The closing admin's primary concerns, that the article was a POV fork of a non-notable ethnic group, have not been addressed. I have no idea where this racism argument came from; it appears to be a strawman of some kind. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Mackenson: Regarding why the racism argument is addressed so much, for myself I believe it was a simple matter of confusion of signatures (my error). In the large body of text above I had assumed that the breakdown of pro-and-con arguments had been summarized and added by yourself, as examples of the arguments you had looked at when weighing your decision. Looking at [this edit] I now see that Burgas00 had placed that lengthy summary, although those may not have been the specific arguments or factors that affected your decision. Regardless, I have yet to see verifiable sources for this ethnic group being non-notable (something that I would assume would be needed considering the sensitive nature of culture and ethnicity) and I'm afraid I was never particularly overwhelmed by any POV in the article, except to the extent that it seemed to provoke strong reactions. My overturn vote will stand, but I hope this explains the focus of some of the responses here for you. -Markeer 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But you said yourself you based your closing on the arguments given by the different sides. From this discussion it is clear that the delete arguments were weak and, in my opinion, emotional and politically based. Spanish Gibraltarians (depending on the various definitions of the expression) are in no way less "notable" than, say, the Macanese people. The article does not express any POV which would make it a POV fork, and as one user expressed previously, its mandate is limited to acknowledging the use of this term to describe certain groups of people. Clearly other users do not agree with your POV on this issue and above all, there was absolutely NO consensus on the AFD. The deletion should be overturned following wikipolicy. I realise that, as an admin, you are very active on AFDs and it is only natural that occasionally you make mistakes in good faith.--Burgas00 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mackensen, of course the arguments on AfD are going to be revisited. Our concern is that you deleted the article despite a substantial number of keep votes because you looked for those keep and delete arguments which took Wikipedia policies to heart. If your reason for deletion is that the pro-deletion arguments are more in line with wikipedia policy than the pro-keeping arguments, how is one supposed to challenge this decision without discussing the validity of those arguments?
As for the racism "strawman"- it's clearly present in the AfD, where Gibnews states that "Racist rubbish does not belong". Surely an assertion that an article is "racist rubbish", with no supporting evidence, is not an argument which takes Wikipedia policy to heart. Lurker oi! 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion I actually made two comments on this page, but a user only shared one before I changed my vote from "keep" to "weak keep". This is part of it: There is a POV bent to it and I never like that. I always say that means the content should be changed, not the article deleted. I understand this is a passionate issue in Gibraltar (having been there, I've discussed it with locals), but this was a historic part of Gibraltar, even under British rule and that can't be ignored. This reminds me of the article Whites in Zimbabwe. That segment has heavily dissipated over the years and even if it totally disappears, the subject still would be relevant even for historical reasons. That said, I think there is the possibility people were overwhelmed with Gibnews passion during the AfD. I admit, I might have been. --Oakshade 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
iPhone – Deletion endorsed, edit history restored behind redirect to Apple Computers – 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

Apple Computer has actually trademarked the name iPhone in various countries according to this article http://10layers.com/2006/10/apple-filing-for-iphone-trademarks-worldwide/ that also contains links to the trademark offices. The iPhone article should at least contain this fact that the product name is being trademarked and a link to Apple Computer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Novelist (talk • contribs).

  • In fact, there is no problem with an article about rumours and speculation that was properly sourced. Indiana Jones 4 for example, has a wealth of mentions in major media. Re-title this iPhone speculation and let's stop abusing "not a crystal ball" etc.
    152.91.9.144 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but this wasn't properly sourced, it is just speculation about a possible product it even states "Despite not yet publicly confirming it will be released" that is pure crystal ball gazing. --pgk 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been undeleted as I now believe the article meets WP:V and WP:N. This was done before I saw this particular discussion. I was only made aware of this one. The article focuses on reporting verifiable information about the iPhone, and uses multiple reliable sources to back up the statements made in it. This is a significant improvement over the previous article which did not meet WP:V or WP:N, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yep, WP isn't a crystal ball,and the WPedians who said delete have proved it. smile DGG 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and restore. A substantially different version of the article, based entirely on several different reliable sources (like the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN Money, Forbes etc.) reporting on analysts' predictions, patents, and business deals, was created in user space, approved by Nihonjoe as meeting WP:V and WP:N, restored to main space, and then speedy deleted by User:Zoe. I would like to point out that the "crystal ball" clause of WP:NOT says, "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." Reliable sources reporting, in a nontrivial manner, on professional analysts' predictions is not "pure speculation" and "rumors". schi talk 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and restore - I stand by my decision to undelete the article as it was completely different than the previous version. I think Zoe's speedy deletion after I restored the article was completely unwarranted and unjustified. It's likely, based on comments made by Zoe since then, that he didn't bother comparing the previous version with the new one. You can see what the new version of the article is like here as I placed the contents back into Schi's userspace to work on (per his request). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Free Invision Power Board hosts – Category merger endorsed – 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Free Invision Power Board hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (Cfd)

Deleted by Kimchi because of merge discussion here.

  • reinstate the category: the reason the category was made was two-ways: (1) lighten the number of links on the Invision Power Board article and (2) to provide a place to go in deeper on the specifics of the phenomenon of free Invision Power Board hosting. It does not make sense to link from the Invision Power Board hosts article to the category Forum hosting as Invision Power Board is a forum software, not a forum hosting service. Also in the category the Free Invision Power Board category merged into I cannot find any of the original text. Francinne 09:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there actually a way to show the text that was deleted from the free Invision Power Board hosts Category. I feel you can not make a good judgement without seeing the content. Francinne 10:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge. From the stuff which is registered in the deletion log, the rest of the content would not help. You also haven't given a reason to overturn a proper deletion discussion, other than the fact you disagree with the decision. -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: *sigh* the deletion log only shows part of the first sentence. The proper reason for undeletion is given in the two points I sum up above, numbered (1) and (2).
Besides the fact that I don't agree with a merge, I can also not stress enough that the merge was no actual merge: the text of the category free Invision Power Board hosts is nowhere to be found in this new category. So the merge/delete decision of the original debate hasn't been complied to in the first place. If you want to merge something (which I don't agree to in this case), fine then do a merge instead of wiping the article. <_< Francinne 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "text" in the category description when it was first deleted was: "The following companies provide Invision Power Board forum hosting. Invision Power Board hosts" None of that is applicable to the forum hosting category and hence the I did not merge the description text. Kimchi.sg 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "text" was a lot longer explaining the differences in licensing between 1.3 and 2.x Francinne 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the rollback, but endorsing the merge without commenting on the merge that was no merge is too easy as far as I'm concerned. Francinne 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg – Image restored – 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted by User:Betacommand as part of a reckless purge of about 1500 images tagged as replaceable fair-use. This image, and many others were tagged with {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, but the admin seems to have spent about 5 seconds per image and did not consider any fair-use rationale. See also Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Massive_Image_Deletion. Requesting Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Dgies 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was subsequently redeleted by a different admin, but as an observation the image was tagged {{promophoto}} which has a very specific meaning and is frequently misused, I can't tell if that were the case in this instance since it had no source, so I can't check if the source was indeed a press pack releasing the image for publicity purposes. The image could also have been deleted for no source in due course... --pgk 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it was re-restored, it seems. I have deleted it because it has been tagged {{replaceable fair use}} for over 7 days, and no convincing argument was given why it would be impossible to photograph this item. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Hmm, well it is aparently very rare. They are out there though, does anyone have an eBay acount? Maybe this seller could be convinced to snap a photo of the thing, and upload it to Commons with a proper free license, if asked nicely to help us improve the coverage of vintage gaming systems. It's not like doing so would hurt his chances of selling it or anyting (well he could insist you buy it and take the photo yourself I guess, but no harm in trying). --Sherool (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a seller, it is someone who wants to buy... --pgk 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was one of the admins to undelete this image It clearly is a promotional photo put out by the vendor to advertise an accessory for the Vectrex. Due to its rarity and the difficulty in finding a replacement photo, the fact it was used in an article on the system (relevant article) and due to the fact that a valid fair use claim was made, I believe this should remain UNTIL such time as a replacement image is created. I lean towards an undelete again.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly is a promotional photo" doesn't cut it, it needs a source. How can you tell it was part of a press pack from just looking at it? --pgk 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This image cannot reasonably be replaced with a free version. The arguments used in support of deletion are a bit troubling - with enough money, I guess we could create free versions of every image on Wikipedia by buying the subject and taking a picture of it. It is not reasonable to have to contact eBay users and ask for them to upload images of difficult-to-find objects to the Commons, or any other nonsense. Fair use images and promotional images are not inherently evil - we can use them. Stop being afraid of them. --- RockMFR 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Evil albino – Edit history and talk page restored behind redirect – 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Evil albino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Was deleted without consensus (only 4 total responses to the AfD, and one was even for merge); I was in process of posting this:

  • Merge — Merger long-proposed and uncontroversial. This AfD is totally pre-emptive of editor consensus on these articles, achieved over the last month, and ongoing work to improve them. The editorial issues with the article are already well-known, and in both evil albino and albino bias have already been flagged with fix-it tags and slated for improvement. This AfD notwithstanding, I'm performing the merge anyway, because that was already the extant consensus. I'll leave the AfD tag on it, of course. If someone wants to AfD albino bias, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
to that AfD when the article was deleted out from under me and the AfD moved into the archives, so I couldn't even save my "Merge" comment. There is clear consensus at Albino bias to merge the content; the merge is literally in progress right now, and I need the Evil albino article restored to complete the merge and finish sourcing the content that will be retained; this may take several days, as quite a bit of research is needed. This AfD jumped the gun in at least three ways: the article was being actively edited to resolve the issues in the AfD when it was deleted (I know I made at least two such edits pretty much immediately prior to its deletion, and many more were still pending); the editor consensus already in play with regard to this content was that it should be merged and cleaned up; and the fact that it was performed with such a lack of pro-deletion response (just three!), none of which cited problems that cannot be resolved by editing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Merge. SMcCandlish perfectly encapsulates the series of events. A months long consensus among people who edited the article had developed to merge the salvageable content of "Evil Albino" with "Albino Bias". -Kubigula (ave) 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want this article to be userfied so you can move useful content? There is an issue with sourcing, but the article isn't wholly unsourced as some editors claimed. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't sound like a very convincing argument. There is only a handful of links to EA, which can esily be reset to AB, and the redlink can be replaced with a redirect to AB. ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Well, call it a point of principle then. The deletion was very questionable to begin with. A miniscule 3-1 majority (and "AfD is not a vote" anyway), which would have been 3-2 had another two minutes passed and my save not been rejected as an edit conflict) isn't evidence of consensus on anything other than maybe what a couple of roommates are going to have for dinner whether the guy down the hall wants to eat it. The AfD was reactive and knee-jerk, demonstrating a total ignorance of the actual consensus debate on what to do with this article, despite the article being tagged for about a month with a merge template, and a long discussion on that merge taking place in talkspace. Further, it seems very odd to me that literally within minutes of me making substantive, corrective edits to the article and announcing that I was commencing the merge that the article disappeared, so fast I didn't even have time to add a comment on the AfD to that effect. Maybe just a coincidence; WP:AGF and all... I find it notable that someone who was not even part of the AfD has now also commented with an "overturn and merge", suggesting the original AfD would have been at least 3-3 if concluding the AfD had not been rushed and this new party had commented along with me. It's not a vote, but I think that the arguments on both sides are substantive, and thus that the result of the AfD would necessarily have been "no consensus" (or that it would have continued until long after the merge were complete and the AfD were rendered moot); none of the responses on either side can simply be disregarded as vacant me-too "votes". AND, the Talk page of this article has value; it would be retained, with only the article page being redirected to Albino bias; talk pages left over from old merges are often of quite a lot of value in resolving later questions or disputes that rehash old issues. I think this is a pretty routine, good-faith and uncontroversial overturn request, that will result in the article in question being merged into the target article shortly, to the extent possible and discarded otherwise, then made a redir to the improved article, which will be (is already being - go look) edited to resolve residual WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV concerns — the reasons for the delete !votes in the first place. So everyone wins. AfD is a conversation not a vote or contest anyway, right? Yes, I can complete the merge if the old article is just moved into my userspace (though not without causing an AfD-watcher false alarm by re-recreating the deleted article as a redirect, and not without loss or effective forgery of its talk page). I came to this overturn section here in Deletion Review instead of the restore-to-userspace section for a reason (check the history - you'll see that I did initially post this in the other section and then changed my mind). I'm trying to make the larger point here that this deletion was an error, not a trial, if you will.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd endorse an undelete for merge and redirect if there were any compelling evidence that this is other than OR. The Malfoys, for example, are not stated to be albino in the books. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Malfoys were already the first to be removed; plenty of others will be as well. I was working on that when the article was deleted.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and merge most likely an honest mistake by the closing admin but AfD'ing an article which is in the process of being merged and detagged is not fair to the people working on the article. Problem could have been solved by asking for recreation in userspace since the article itself will serve no purpose once merged. MartinDK 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would still have its talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually if you go to Talk:Albino bias you'll see that the "discussion" consisted of 5 !votes over the span of six months. There was clearly no "in process". In any case if SMcC asks Mailer Diablo I'm they can hammer out a solution, but I don't seee any process violations here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. No process violation and maybe I worded it wrong. He was in the process of merging it. Therefore the article should be recreated in userspace so he can complete the merger. No need for deletion review, a simple request to an admin could have solved this. MartinDK 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Usually when I get mixed delete/merge responses I just redirect and let editors pick salvageable material from the edit history. That solves the "matter in the wrong place" problem of userfying or leaving the merge tag up. ~ trialsanderrors 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'd still lose the talk page. Not a desirable result. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — To summarize my responses: I'd be very happy with Trialsanderrors' idea: '...just redirect and let editors pick salvageable material from the edit history. That solves the "matter in the wrong place" problem...' I wouldn't keel over and die, exactly, if it were simply userified, but it would leave me wondering whether it would be considered a Bad Thing to manually restore the contents of the Evil albino talk page after the merge were complete and Evil albino were made a redir to Albino bias. I understand the viewpoint that some here feel that I was being frivolous or even uncivil, even if I don't agree with that assessment. I don't want to argue further for the points I was trying to raise, since ticking people off seems likely, and the points are not that important. My goal isn't angering people, it's getting the merge+improvement done. And to be clear: The bogus WP:OR material in both articles is already on the chopping block (and I have some ideas about how to dissuade further additions of such hooey in the future). Every example will be cited with at least one and usually two references, as will things in the intro materials that need citations. If you look at the difference between the current half-finished verson of Albino bias and what it looked like a couple of days ago you'll see this already happening. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

3 December 2006

[edit]
Ignatz Lichtenstein – Deletion overturned and relisted in light of new information – 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ignatz Lichtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Ignatz Lichtenstien was a notable author and former Rabbi who famously converted to Christianity around the turn of last century. His existance is scandalous to Judaism, but people should not be deleted from history just because some editors do not like their point of view. The editor who proposed the deletion called for just that (a y'sh as they say in Yiddish), and the administrator who closed this as a delete would be expected to share the same bias. Although when originally proposed for deletion, the existance of Ignatz Lichtenstein was only confirmable from unreliable sources related to Messianic Judiasm, who consider the man a heroic forbear, the author's existance and biographic details were subsequently confirmed by dead-tree sources dating back to 1894, including a famous Jewish author, Gotthard Deutsch, in 1917, and by reputable library catalog sources, such as those at Harvard. The closing admin seems to have just ignored all that. -- Kendrick7talk 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither biased nor did I vote count. I encountered the AfD by accident after previewing the edits of Daniel575 whom I indefinitely blocked a few days prior. I found the subject too much of a borderline case, and I stand by my closing statement. El_C 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Having finally located the type of source I asked for, you can now explain why I "would be expected to share ... bias" on this topic, Kendrick7. El_C 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is fortunate I happened to google just his last name and home town (with all the right diacritics) and discovered this source; I joked in the AfD that editors were acting like Lichtenstein had three heads, as it turns out he's had three names (Isaac, Ignatz, and now Ignác). A brief look at your recent contribution history gave me an undoubtly incorrect impression; I read your check-in comment here and stopped at the word "Israel" and the joke went over my head. Sorry for resorting to polemics against your sense of judgement; at the time I was a little verklempt. -- Kendrick7talk 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Meets basic standards, and look at some of the delete recommendations. Two note verification issues in direct disregard of the evidence cited, another runs with the somewhat bizarre "continuous POV lies." I don't see a consensus to delete here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. The fact that this AfD turned was hijacked is unlikely to be a one-off, so relisting is not a reasonable solution. As above, there certainly were references. If there are questions about the veracity of the claims in those references then that's a content issue and not a reason to delete the article. Clearly closed by vote counting, but AfD is not a vote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was it hijacked? I did not notice this having taken place, but am interested to learn more. I actually thought there were more keep than delete votes, but I guess I was slightly off. The raw numbers played a negligable role in my decision process, as they always do. El_C 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read AfD nearly every day, so I have a fairly good idea who hangs around the place. Only a handful of those who weighed in are AfD regulars. Equally, if I select a few names I don't recognise and try to figure out their interest in the question, it seems pretty obvious that this is largely editors of two religious persuasions having a content dispute. Dispute resolution is somewhere else. As for the close, if you didn't close it on a head count, please do expand, because I am clearly missing something fundamental here. As I read it, the keep people demonstrated that there were sources, reliable if not necessarily true, and the delete people didn't have any argument beyond the partiality of the sources. As Kendrick said right at the start: "An early pioneer of Messianic Judiasm is only mentioned by subsequent followers? This is shocking how exactly?" "External verification" is just a sort of shrubbery. Seemed like a content dispute to me, and AfD doesn't fix those, except in a few BLP cases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why you expect AfD to be dominated by such a committee of "AfD regulars." I, for one, would expect to (also) see interested parties, not least those who edited the entry in question. Yes, I expect something in the pertinent historiography. El_C 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are no sources independent of a movement about someone in the movement its very hard to write an article with any confidence whatsoever and this goes seriously to issues of WP:V. In contrast for example if you looked at the possibly fictional Avraham ben Avraham it has sources not from their movements themselves. Without such things we have no way of knowing what facts are accurate what are propaganda, what context is being removed what is being exxagerated or anything like that. And given that the sources we have can't even agree on what his first name is it is very hard to call them reliable. JoshuaZ 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. A few people seem to have missed that merely verifying that the guy exists is not what WP:V is all about. In all fairness, there are valid comments on both sides. That some zealot decided to brand it as "continuous POV lies" does not mean that all the delete comments endorsed this position. Similarly, that some of the keep comments regard the deletion attempt as "anti-Semitic" does not devalue the others. Chris cheese whine 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Agree that AfD turnout looks "hijacked" and that the "Delete" comments are generally non-substantive (and where they are substantive they only address concerns that can be fixed with editing, and thus do not merit deletion of the entire article.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please expand about the hijacking. I thought my closing statement was relatively substantive (as a closing statement). The problem is that all the issues combined, which may be addressed, may not end up being addressed (that is what the AfD period is for, to address these). Otherwise, it can just be recreated when everything has been neatly compiled. El_C 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD nominator Endorses Closure. Verification could not be obtained from independent sources. There are lots of messianic partisan sources adduced in the article - but nothing independent and impartial. Besides, I kinda liked the closer's decision, I admit! :) - crz crztalk 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Crzrussian is correct. The only item in a reliable source was not much more than existence. The other supposedly reliable sources about him a) don't even get his name correct but have it as Isaac and b) are all exclusively messianic. El_C made a correct call here. I'm also annoyed that this is being portrayed as a messianic editors vs. traditionally jewish editors. I'm easily in the second camp and searched for additional sources because he seemed interesting. I wasn't able to find anything satisfactory. I'd like to see an article on him since if the material in the sources we have is accurate his life would be a fascinating story. But without reliable sources on the topic we don't have much choice. JoshuaZ 07:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Changing viewpoint to Overturn, relist since we now have substantial new information. JoshuaZ 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar Please list, on this page, a few key sources -- what you think are the best sources -- that verify not just existence but the key facts of the article. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 07:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smith, Eugene R. (1894). The Gospel in All Lands. New York: Hunt & Nation. pp. 507–508.
Deutsch, Gotthard (2005). Scrolls: Essays on Jewish History and Literature and Kindred Subjects V1 and V2. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 118–119. ISBN 1417952172. (reprint)
Gillet, Lev (2002). Communion in the Messiah: Studies in the Relationship Between Judaism and Christianity. James Clarke & Co. p. 206. ISBN 0227172256.
Additionally, the following books by him are available at Harvard, as another editor first pointed out, though I haven't walked over there to look at them. Two are translations into English, the others are on microfiche and in Hungarian. (Note: JoshuaZ is correct that Harvard's catolog incorrectly lists him as Isaac Lichtenstein (possibly the translator's mistake) and J. Lichtenstein (classic European I/J mix up), as he appears to have written only under his first initial.) You may confirm this with a little hunting here:
Lichtenstein, Isaac (1908). The points of contact between Evangelical and Jewish doctrine : an address, delivered at Leipsic / by I. Lichtenstein ; translated from the German by Mrs. Baron. Northfield, England: The Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel.
Lichtenstein, Isaac (between 1894 and 1908). An appeal to the Jewish people / by I. Lichtenstein ; translated by Mrs. Baron. London: The Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
Lichtenstein, J. (1902). Zwei Briefe oder was ich eigentlich will. London.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Lichtenstein, J. (1907). Két levél / közli. Budapest: Feinsilber Róbert.
Lichtenstein, J. (1902). Begegnungspunkte zwischen Juden und Christen : Gesetz und Evangelium. London.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Lichtenstein, J. (1886). Der Talmud auf der Anklagebank durch einen begeisterten Verehrer des Judenthums. Heft I. Budapest.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
And newly discovered, he is also mentioned in a PDF from the Hungarian Electronic Library here on page 11, as Lichtenstein Ignác under the heading for Tapioszele (his home village) alongside a mention of his book Judentum und Christenthum -- Kendrick7talk 08:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the biographical details that will be necessary to write a biographical article ...? Chris cheese whine 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not every published author is notable. As it stands, I would not be able to get that entry published in a biographical dictionary. El_C 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the secondary sources contain essentially the same basic biographical details; the lead of the article before it was deleted was perfectly well sourced. Certain people in oppostion to the article seems to hope by saying over and over that these sources only mention him that this would make it true, but it is simply not the case. If you follow the google books link here, you'll find the 1894 article on him, for example. -- Kendrick7talk 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your search - The Gospel in All Lands Ignatz Lichtenstein - did not match any documents. El_C 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try this one - it appears the OCR misread Ignatz. (His full name is given at the start of his bio, on the previous page.) --NE2 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DRV shouldn't be a rehash of the AfD but I will point out that we already discussed the questionabl reliability of the Gospel in All Lands piece which in fact says that it is taken its data from a magazine of whose reliability we know nothing. JoshuaZ 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be in possession of a pamphlet, issued by some missionary society, containing the biography of one Ignatz Lichtenstein, who was rabbi in Tapio Szele, Hungary, and had written pamphlets advocating conversion to Christianity while still a rabbi. The statement was declared by somebody who had reason to hide himself behind the cover of anonymity, an invention. My pamphlet, a very insignificant production, rehashing the usual missionary cant, becomes important in addition to my quotations from various Jewish newspapers, representing all shades of views. In the course of my investigations I came across the fact that this Ignatz Lichtenstein was confounded with a Jehiel Lichtenstein, a former "Wunderrabi" of Bessarabia, who was in the service of the missionary institute of Leipzig, where he died in 1912.

This seems to be the only source listed not of missionary origin, and it seems ambiguous as to whether this individual existed. If the "quotations from various Jewish newspapers" pertain to this individual, perhaps it would not be impossible to produce some of them. This would appear to clear the issue. In addition, this source appears to suggest that the distinct "I" and "J" initials may represent something other than a library scanning error. Perhaps not all of the material attributed to the "I" individual was originally claimed to have been written by him. It also seems clear that Deutch is a secondary source who never met the individual. He indicates his information comes from pamphlets etc. Perhaps there might be someone who did? Best, --Shirahadasha 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this (the html version of the pdf I found last night) may be as close as we'll get online; from a Hungarian work, perhaps a biographicsl dictionary (Zsidó Lexicon), published in Budapest in 1929 (dated in preface here). Of course, it is in Hungarian; for all I know it says the guy had a rabbit named Jezus, and Judentum and Christenthum was his favorite band. -- Kendrick7talk 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: The 1929 Zsido Lexikon (Jewish Encyclopedia) article [40] says the following about him:
"In the 1890s the village [of Tápiószele] became known nationwide because of a remarkable incident. Ignác Liechtenstein, the rabbi of the village, published a pamphlet called Judentum und Christentum [german: Jewry and Christianity] with the motto "those for whom the Jewish creed is too difficult, should seek their rapture in the arms of Jesus". The pamphlet's publication caused great consternation across the country and demands for the removal of the rabbi. He also had supporters, which laid the ground for a massive conflict. In the end the rabbi stepped down voluntarily following the public indignation. The rabbi's seat remained empty until 1923."
Ergo: He had his 15 minutes of fame when he was known nationwide; he also published articles and pamphlets. Thus he fulfils the notability criteria. An encyclopedia source should constitute sufficient verifiability as well. -- Marcika 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks very much. We can now reasonably have an article on him. JoshuaZ 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better (expectation of bias-wise) to present that source much earlier on. El_C 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I waver between overturning because new and better sources have been found or a more basic abuse of discretion by the closing admin. Wikipedia:Independent sources (an essay I regularly link to, especially here) is about having sources that are independent of the topic of the article, not about having sources that come from different points of view. As the Rabbi has been dead for decades, and nobody is asserting he founded any still extant organization, any website is independent of the Rabbi. To quote WP:INDY: "These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." As such, none of the keep opinions should have been discounted, and those delete opinions that relied on citations to WP:INDY should have been discounted for contadicting the standards they purported to uphold. Having written that statement, the real reason for overturning is clear; I believe that this close represents abuse of discretion. GRBerry 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the trouble with using an abuse of discretion standard, when you find it and say so, it irritates people. I still think that is the right standard to use in deletion review, not de novo review. Anyway, which of my relevant biases are your referring to, the three most relevant ones are described at User:GRBerry#AFD, User:GRBerry#Notability, and User:GRBerry#Process. The box about religion is not particularly relevant, as my being a DRV regular means I'd have gotten here even if I didn't watch the deletion sorting page for Judaism. The relevant standard was WP:BIO, which you completely failed to address in your close, instead substituting other criteria that are far more restrictive and do not represent the consensus of Wikipedia editors. A lack of mentions in Hebrew is totally irrelevant, ditto for searches limited to Israeli scholarship. GRBerry 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you have a complaint about an admin, take it to the appropriate notice-board, don't mouth-off about it here - random insults do irritate people. opting for an accusation of 'absue of discretion' over an obvious procedural point (the closure is now, arguably, overturnable because of a new independent source, as you are well aware) is a serious breech of agf, quite apart from being a gratiutous insult. the relevant bias is, obviously, your fundamentalism. also hebrew is just the langauge in which to look for polemic against an allegedly apostate rabbi.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is entirely clear that Hungarian Jewish communities were publishing in Hebrew in the 1890s; we certainly haven't found any sources by Lichtenstein written in Hebrew, and obviously the new source is from the Hungarian Jewish Encyclopedia, written in Hungarian, not Hebrew, and its publication date of 1929 is well after the Haskalah (which did much to revive Hebrew as a language). Had I been more cognizant of WP:INDY, I myself would have used this to more clearly explain that the sources we had already met its definition during the original AfD, and I am thankful for GRBerry providing the link. -- Kendrick7talk 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli scholarship is the most comprehensive one to cover Jews — it dosen't matter when, where, and which language. El_C 13:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could say the same for Vatican scholarship and Christians. It seems like they've been known to misplace a heretic now and again; though without full knowledge of the secret archives it's hard to say anything definitive on the matter. (I don't know how any scholar religious can protect both history and their particular faith without some sort of secret archive to squirrel such history away in; there's too much of a conflict of interest sometimes.) -- Kendrick7talk 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's an issue, but Israeli scholarship is largely secular (though of course there are clerical tendencies) and possibly thousands of times more active than that of the distinctly clerical Vatican (i.e. by virtue of being a nation with 1,000 citizens versus one with 6,000,000). At any rate, I didn't say he isn't mentioned in the former, I said I could not find mention of him there (big difference). Which, nonetheless, is in and of itself quite revealing. El_C 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Isabella V – Deletion overturned and relisted – 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Isabella V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (First AfD) (Second AfD)

Closed delete by User:DakotaKahn as delete. Nom claimed it wasn't notable, one person claimed it didn't meet WP:BIO and 6 people said the same. One other said something about Wikipedia's "dream of hate and lies." It was demonstrated by two users to have widepread media coverage, destroying any argument that the subject didn't meet any notability or verifiability standards. Upon questioning DakotaKahn about the closing, the response: "Nine to delete-four to keep." This suggests a vote count, which is simply not how it's supposed to be done. Overturn and undelete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have indicated to badlydrawnjeff that I did google it and read the entire discussion. Your questions were answered as you asked them.--Dakota 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist - there were some serious misapprehensions about our core policies among the "delete" opinions, such as this, this, and this. Bizarre. Confession: I !voted keep, along with Jeff, AnonEMouse, and MacGyverMagic. If verifiability (or attributability, if WP:ATT is ever a policy, in which case we'll need a new word) isn't what matters, a lot of editors are working to provide references which don't actually matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is true, then there's been material published about it. If it's a hoax, it appears to be a well-documented one. Relist. Chris cheese whine 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - Notability concerns clearly met, and AfD Is Not a Vote. The AfD was closed in a bogus manner, and the concerns raised do not appear to actually address substantive Policy issues. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve deletion. This is not the place to re-argue the subject's worthiness or unworthiness for a Wikipedia article, but the review is for whether or not the process has been properly observed. The AfD discussion ran the full five days and the closing admin made a call on the result. Essentially it boiled down to whether the subject is a notable person, a notable hoax, a notable meme, or none of the above, and at least one of the sources that were cited essentially said that the story was essentially nonsense (but not necessarily in the Wikipedia definition of the term). Closing admin made a tough call and decided that WP:BIO was not met, regardless of whether the subject is fact or fiction. B.Wind 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to th admin, he did not make a call on the result, but instead counted votes. If this is indeed about the process, our policies and guidelines were ignored and the result did not reflect greater community consensus, but rather a strict vote count of the second discussion of its kind. Reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't read it that way at all - and it would be best for the admin to justify the closing completely here rather than a sentence fragment summary. If you're bringing this here as a result of it, then he/she must account for it; however, looking at the full document of the AfD, it seemed to be, again, that there were basically two arguments, and - "votes" or not (and AfDs are not votes, they are discussions), the admin makes the call as to whether there was a consensus or not. As I said earlier, it was a tough call, but the five days have run its course, and the call had to be made. If anything, the five days run counter to your argument of "the result did not reflect greater community consensus" as you, in fact, had a minority viewpoint. B.Wind 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I? The community as a whole has largley said that notability comes from multiple reliable sources. The delete "voters" in the AfD ignored greater community consensus and didn't use any logical arguments to back up their claim. This means nothing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which part of WP:BIO applies - the part for living people/people who have lived, or the part for fictional people? Does WP:WEB apply as this might have been an Internet meme? That's the problem here - while we agree that "multiple reliable sources" are necessary to establish whether a subject is "worthy" of a Wikipedia article, most of the people who commented indicated that it in itself is not sufficient as 1) the person was never established to be real or a hoax, and 2) the references in themselves don't establish the notability (in fact, Esquire seems to indicate otherwise). Also, I would have been persuaded more if there were additional, more recent coverage if this person were real (see D.B. Cooper for an example) or a more recent review of the "hoax" from a reliable source - without it, I'd have a difficulty saying that it rises to the notability bar, but that's just one person's opinion. On the other hand, you did state a minority opinion when you advocated "keep."B.Wind 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:WEB or WP:BIO, both meet the requisite standards for attention. If anything, the sources and information presented should have answered both your #1 and #2 - it reaches notability due to the attention, and part of the reason for the attention is the lack of clarity regarding whether it's real or a hoax. While I may have been the minority position at the discussion, if I were the minority regarding what constitutes minimal standards for notability, the guideline wouldn't exist. If only... --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The article did not substantiate on the popularity or notability of the subject of the article, simply asserting it without explaining why. Thus it did not establish notability. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Yamauchi.jpg – Deletion overturned and relisted – 08:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

File:Yamauchi.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Image deletion and undeletion procedures are an absolute joke. Whereas for prods etc, they can be speedily undeleted, especially if the closing admin or nominator missed some information. I saw that something was wrong, and re-uploaded a deleted fair use image, only to have it speedied again for not following "process" even though it never went through a proper deletion process anyway. But that's largely irrelevant, what is relevant can be seen on the Image talk page.

Hiroshi Yamauchi was a long-time serving Nintendo president who presided over some great changes and growth in the comapny. Even in business, he was a private figure, as can be seen from the BBC3 "Inside Nintendo" documentary. He retired completely from business and the public eye in 2002. User:Chowbok seems to think that it's possible to upload a free image of this retired private individual, and User:Quadell agreed, deleting the image. User:Nihonjoe voiced some legal concerns and disagreed with whether it was replaceable, myself, I added new input to the private nature of Yamauchi, dismissed previous arguments dubbing him a "celebrity" and boldly re-uploaded a new photo. I was smacked down with process, and now I'm here. I do not think that it is possible to obtain a freely available image of Yamauchi and am asking for the undeletion of the image. - hahnchen 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion. What the heck? We can't have fair use images if it's possible that someone somewhere at some undetermined point in the future will have a slight possibility of getting a public domain one? -Amarkov blahedits 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Until a free equivalent is in available, "fair use" is not a sensible deletion criterion. NB: You still should've followed process. Sockatume 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Do they seriously think it's reasonable to expect that a free image of a recluse is easily available? Replaceable fair use it might be, but given the likely difficulty of actually replacing it, I think we can afford to live with it. Chris cheese whine 07:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion regardless of if I agree (or not) with the above sentiments that the policy as stated is too tight "1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information", that is what the policy is, and deletion review cannot redefine that policy just merely because we disagree with it. As a side issue the image is incorrectly tagged as {{promophoto}} which by definition are photo's specifically released for "free" usage for publicity purposes i.e. in a press pack. The source given for this is not a press pack, this cannot be verified to be a promo photo from the sources given. --pgk 09:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not "redefining" policy. In what appear to be extreme circumstances, there was clearly room for discretion. Where possible, we should be enforcing the spirit, rather than the letter of our rules. That someone makes it near-impossible to get a decent photo of them satisfies the "no free equivalent available" test. Chris cheese whine 13:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully understand the spirit vs literal meaning. However (a) I am not sure about the extermity of the situation, has anyone tried to get one of the existing images relicensed? No one has said and (b) The point here was that this gets us no where if the image gets restored by "us" and then redeleted in a weeks time on the same grounds, DRV isn't a supreme authority on wikipedia, the deletion is "good" by policy. If there is an issue the correct venue is to revisit the policy pages and discuss and to bring in the closing admin and discuss, indignation here doesn't help. --pgk 07:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To add to this point 1 also adds "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.", and the list of counterexamples includes "8. An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like.", there is no assertion of any specific significance of the image beyond showing what the person looks like. --pgk 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as it has been made evident in the past, Chowbok knows his business. This is done as per WP:FU; and the image does not qualify for fair use on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mistakes are made, deleted edits cannot be seen, you cannot check his past history of taggings. I can cite many erroneously deleted images, indeed, I started a checkuser case against a sockpuppet who was tagging images incorrectly and getting them deleted. The admins did not actually look at the image tagged or the conditions surrounding them, but deleted them without question in the majority of cases until I picked it up. There is a suitable thread on WP:AN relating to that issue. Deleting of fair use images is made too easy. With AFD, the closing user should not take part in the discussion, yet given the nature of the man in question, this is clearly not a clear cut case, and yet we have the an admin declaring his thoughts at the beginning and then carrying them out in the end. Why is a discussion period even needed?
In this case, I feel that taking a snapshot of a private individual in his retirement would be more a breach of Yamauchi's rights (please also see Nihonjoe's related legal concerns on the talk page) then the use of a fair use photograph. Or, as I mentioned on the image talk page, we just wait until he's no longer the only living ex-president of Nintendo and then use the exact same photo. - hahnchen 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check criterion 8 of which images are not fair use on WP:FU. And I can see the deleted image. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Reclusivity is certainly a reasoning for irreplacability. When someone leaves public life, they generally do so for a reason. This guy was pretty reclusive even when he was still with Nintendo, now he's just a retired private citizen. Furthermore, the photo depicts an important person in a specific historical time period: when he was still president of Nintendo. He's not anymore, so the image uploaded cannot be replaced by a free image which converys the same information. Therefore, it should be restored. TheQuandry 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Citing "1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" - its obvious to me that we should keep the picture until someone *finds* a free picture that is as good as the non-free picture, and updates it (replacing the citations and tags). Fresheneesz 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there any evidence that this person is a recluse, unavailable for photographing? Or is that merely asserted without evidence? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try and find footage from the BBC3 documentary "Inside Nintendo", it mentions the private nature of Yamauchi even when he was Nintendo president, and includes an interview with Henk Rogers about how hard it was for him to set up a meeting with Yamauchi. Since his retirement from the board at Nintendo, I have not seen or heard of any interviews. The last interview he gave seems to be in early 2004 before he stepped down in 2005. And how suitable would an image of the man in his retirement be, when an image of him at his height would be much more useful. - hahnchen 20:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought so. Of course, I wouldn't know for a fact. - hahnchen 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I mention above, has anyone tried to get one of the existing photos released under a free license? --pgk 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Like many others have asserted there is no fair use image available of Yamauchi and most likely never will be. A photo adds quality so we can't go without one. A person in their retirement who keeps away from the cameras definitely won't be easy to get a picture of and there are legal concerns as someone else said. --WikiSlasher 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar: I was the closing admin, so I'm not voting. But I have a few comments. First, several voters have said we should use the non-free image because a free image is not available at this time. Such an argument flies in the face of criterion #1 at WP:FUC, which requires that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" (my emphasis). So if (and I stress if) it would be reasonably possible to create a free replacement, then our policy says we can't keep this one. Another argument many have been making is that we should keep this image until a free one becomes available. This is explicitly against policy: such as statement claims the images is replaceable (as the statement assumes the image could be replaced), and non-free replaceable images cannot be kept. Another specious argument is that the image shows him as president of Nintendo, which he is not anymore. There is no evidence of any significant difference between his current appearance and his appearance at the time, and his looks are not discussed in the article, so I can't see how that argument carries any weight. The only reason I can see why we might keep this image is if he is a recluse and is unavailable for photography by members of the general public. Hahnchen's information on the topic is interesting, and I did not know it when I deleted the image. (It was not given on the image's talk page.) If the closing admin here finds this argument compelling, I can see why the image might be restored. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add mention as above of the counterexamples - Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: 8. An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like. --pgk 13:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing his photo will give the reader a better idea of what he's like. --WikiSlasher 08:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is so vague as to be meaningless, you can say that about any picture of anyone, you merely seem to be confirming that the shot "merely shows what they look like", there is no significance to the shot, the article contains no contextual information concerning the photo etc. which is what counter example 2 is about. I'll also add it fails counterexample 9 whilst we are at it "Any image found on the Internet where the original source is unknown or not verifable" --pgk 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not too familiar with the fair use policy. It didn't sound good when I posted it but I thought it was worth a shot. Now I know what not to say next time! --WikiSlasher 09:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shot does show what the subject looks like, that's the whole point. What's been neglected here is the reclusive nature of the man in question. The images at Steven A. Cohen merely show what he looks like, but due to his private nature, and the extreme unlikely-hood of generating free use equivalents, we use a fair use image. I mentioned above, that taking a photograph of this man now, would be more an invasion of his privacy than to use a fair use one. The "almost not" bit of the Counter-examples section refers to cases like this. - hahnchen 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise the point is to show what he looks like, and that is exactly the point claiming a photo of unknown origin merely to show what they look like fails the fair use criteria. It also fails the counterexample 9 in that the source given certainly isn't a press pack whilst it is tagged as a promo photo, i.e. it is just an image found on the internet for which the original source is not known (or it isn't a promo photo, your choice). You seem also to be of the view that the only way to get a free photo is to take one, I'll ask the question again has any one asked those currently with copyright ownership of photos if they are willing to release one under a free license. --pgk 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the source listed on the image description page was this. It's not a promo photo, and should have been tagged {{Non-free fair use in}}. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point over whether anyone has contacted Nintendo/Yamauchi in regards to obtaining a free example is moot. Following this, no fair use images would be allowed, as the copyright holders may one day finally relent and release a free example. I haven't contacted companies to obtain a free version of album art or screenshots I upload either. What I have done, is look for free images online, and found none. It may not be a promo photo, and incorrectly tagged, but had I uploaded say the image from here, I'm sure that would have been speedily deleted too. - hahnchen 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a moot issue and if you can't see the difference between photographs of individuals and an album covers or screen shots then I'm lost for words. Why Nintendo/Yamauchi anyway? The website that image has been obtained from (though I suspect it is not the original source) is neither. The other image you point to from Forbes is also not a promo photo, it has to be released by the owner of the copyright explicitly for use for promotional purposes (That image is from getty and will have been "individually" licesed to Forbes) --pgk 07:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Non-free fair use in}} template would be fine, and for the Getty image, we have a definite source. You've absolutely missed my point regarding free replacements. It's absolutely a moot point that you make, it doesn't matter whether anyone has asked for a free license from the copyright holder, because that absolutely isn't part of our Fair Use criteria. We do not have to preclude every fair use upload with a request for a free image. - hahnchen 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying there wouldn't be a tag available, but promophoto wouldn't have been it. As for your our fairuse criteria doesn't mandate the request, maybe not in so many words, but it does mandate unavailability of a free equivalent. Establishing if a free version is available or not would seem to involve seeking one from the likely sources, in the case of the corporate world asking the corporation would be one of those steps. If not your establishing that a free image is available seems to be fundamentally flawed. The policy isn't "equivalent is available by doing a couple of internet searches", otherwise everyone would just "look the other way" and claim no availability. --pgk 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's important to have a picture of the man that was taken during his tenure with Nintendo, preferably in his business suit. The only notability attributable to him is his Nintendo presidency, so I feel that even if a picture could be taken of him currently, it would not convey the same information. TheQuandry 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone (the closing admin) seriously suggest that someone could *create* an image that matches the usefulness of a photograph?? Is someone gonna make an anime drawing of him or what. Don't be ridiculous. Fresheneesz 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Photographing the person would be creating a new image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

2 December 2006

[edit]
TS-MA2 Moebius – Deletion endorsed – 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TS-MA2 Moebius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

conversation seemed to be one sided. the article was removed because of in universe techno babble but we have other articles on scifi and fictional equipment that have content only fans will know and i see no resion to go on a witch hunt on pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.171.117 (talk • contribs)

restore judging on he debate on the rest of the relater articles we should probably put it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.124.12 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 December 2006

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TS-MA2mod.00 Moebius Zero – Speedily closed (redirect), see nomination for main article – 00:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TS-MA2mod.00 Moebius Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

was removed with the article TS-MA2 Moebius over the idea of it being fancruft there are ways to cite these articles including the source material they come from there were some argument due to translation errors in fansubs and the translation of some of the manga in to English but the fans would like the chance to clean up the mess themselves so we ask that our articles be restored so we can repair them. fans of other scifi properties have gotten a chance for theres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.171.117 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 December 2006

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pear Cable Audio Cables – Article restored and listed at AfD – 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pear Cable Audio Cables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Notable Company that is not a Spam Entry. I would like to request that Pear Cable Audio Cables be considered for undeletion. The article was deleted, then reposted with the addition of 3 links to point out the notability of the company. This repost was also deleted. To address the complaints specifically: The page is factual material that does not make any biased claims whatsoever, ie the article does not state that Pear Cables are the best, or anything of that nature. The company is notable due to the fact that it has been written about by multiple independent organizations (3 links were provided). If Pear Cable Audio Cables does not qualify for notability, then virtually every company on the High-end audio page should also be deleted except for perhaps a couple of publicly traded companies. The complaint posted by Tubezone that complains about the price of 1 product sold by Pear bears no relevance to the subject of deletion. However, it does exhibit a bias that is exhibited by some who do not believe that high-end audio cables are worth the money they cost. This opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinion of virtually all respected high-end audio publication reviewers, but more importantly bears no weight on weither companies should have articles in wikipedia.

  • Be bold and recreate it. The second speedy was inappropriate on two counts, and it obviously did not fulfil the requirement for G4 speedies. -Amarkov blahedits 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most (but not all) of the companies on the High-end audio list are companies of long standing with plenty of notability outside the high-end stereo press clique. There are only two cable companies listed, one is up for AfD, the other is an iffy call for encyclopedic notability, none on the list qualify as a notable players in the wire and cable industry, rather, they're cable assemblers for the niche market of high-end audio. Tubezone 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar In response to TubezoneThere is no age requirement for a company to be considered notable. A company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Pear Cable Audio Cables as well as Nordost (the other cable company you reference) both meet this requirement. Personal disagreement with a certain industry is not justification for removal of pertinent information. Your removal of a perfectly justified link to a white paper published by Pear Cable Audio Cables on the High-end audio cables page, but the keeping of a link to another manufacturer's white paper, is further evidence of a personal bias that seems to exist either against Pear Cable Audio Cables, high-end cables in general (as Belden is generally not considered a high-end manufacturer) or both.
My biases are not up for debate here. I made an observation that the cables made by Pear and Nordost are pricey, and they are, but that in itself is not a reason to delete, nor was it given as a reason. My contention was and is that this company (Pear) fails notability criteria, no evidence or references have been brought forth to dispute that. Your say-so doesn't count, and I am not the author of the article. A company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." OK, so what are these multiple non-trivial published works? If I were you I would follow Amarkov's advice, Be bold and recreate it, with proper assertions of notability and references to document that. The best defense against an argument of non-notability is to document that the subject of an article is notable. The linkspam you are inserting into High-end audio cables is a sales presentation for Pear, and does not belong linked to a WP article. See: WP:EL.
Lastly, I am not an admin, it's up to them, not me, to decide whether an article remains or not, and judge whether the arguments given for deletion or retention are valid. They aren't going to be persuaded by comments (by me or others) on the price or worth of the products. Tubezone 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KommentarSo now I do not know what the protocol is here. I reposted the article again on Dec. 2nd with 3 links to non-trivial independent writings about Pear Cable Audio Cables. This was deleted again by the admin. 2 people here are suggesting that the article be reposted. So, should I repost the article now, or wait for this undelete process to go on?Apblake 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recreate it, as long as the sources were not in the original article. And mention that to the admin who last deleted it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article has been recreated with 3 links to show notability that were not in the original article. All 3 sources are completely independent from Pear Cable Audio Cables
  • I don't see any pressing reason why this can't go to AfD, given that there seems to be at least some claim to notability, even if it is considered questionable by some. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reposted article is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables (2nd nomination) Tubezone 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal – Deletion endorsed – 02:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (MfD)

Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism. ThisIsOnlyMe 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Who would look through old LTA cases to find how to combat vandalism? Just add any good advice somewhere else. -Amarkov blahedits 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original MfD, I assumed due to the lack of the link that there wasn't one. I think it should be deleted, but not against a lack of consensus. -Amarkov blahedits 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original MfD, which was no consensus. Not a speedy candidate, if it's that important to get rid of, send it through the proper channels. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Weak endorse MfD Not sure how to go on this one. KV has become active in the last hour or so, but it is most likely passing copycat vandalism. I agree that it probably should be deleted, but WP:DENY isn't really an argument for deletion. Put back through MfD if it is felt necessary. ><RichardΩ612 ER 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion nominators only edit is to try and recover this, whilst the vandal (or imitator) has apparently become active again, right. The vandal in question blanks pages and adds image of a kitten saying that if it is reverted he'll kill a kitten (or along those lines), there is nothing subtle about this vandal, not information on the page helps anyone notice this any better or revert it any better. Don't feed the trolls. --pgk 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF. Even if he is the vandal or an SPA or something else, he's still not wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:AGF is not a call to shut your eyes and hope, or a suicide pact, a brand new account turns up requesting undeletion of a page coincidentally at the time when vandalism of that type is recurring after an break, this is exactly what WP:DENY is about. "He's still not wrong" - so he says "Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism" what useful information do you think it contains? I describe the vandalism, you don't need a page for that, see someone blanking a page and replacing it with an image (irrespective of threats to kill kittens), revert it, this isn't rocket science, there is no subtlety just bog standard vandalism. If ever a vandal was merely trying to get attention it's this one. --pgk 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Vandalism is obvious and does not require documentation to counteract, we do not keep trophy cabinets for vandals anymore. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion No new information/evidence has been given to undelete this article: deletion was warranted. --SunStar Net 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a good suggestion for when people bring up Wikipedia:Long term abuse/X pages/templates on DRV??:

Salt the page to prevent re-creation, but perform a history-only undeletion so that people can look back through the page history if they really want to read the old pages.

I wonder if this is a fair enough solution for such pages: this way it should keep both sides satisfied. --SunStar Net 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Fantastic solution, that way the page cannot really incur WP:DENY or WP:BEANS, but people who are perhaps new to countervandalism can view the history. ><RichardΩ612 ER 09:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment doesn't work for me, many of the LTA pages were deleted not as such for WP:DENY or WP:BEANS reasons but because they were simply junk. (I'd say this was one of them), they don't help anyone detect or deal with this type of vandalism any more, or less, effectively since the vandalism itself is so blindingly obvious and the "details" of the vandal are so generic as to be meaningless. Since then after discussion and agreement, WP:LTA now has a definition of when a subpage could be created, merely being prolific at obvious vandalism isn't one of them. You can sum this vandal (and many of the others) up in a sentence or two and add it to the list on WP:LTA and that's where it should go (if it should go anywhere that is). --pgk 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My own opinion on this (Sun Star's already heard it) is that either the page contains useful information for fighting the vandal, in which case we should keep it somewhere, or it doesn't (as in this case), in which case prurience isn't a good reason to keep information. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:DENY. There was nothing special about this vandal, and we don't need a dedicated center for dealing with kitten vandalism. --Cyde Weys 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

1 December 2006

[edit]
Megan – Unprotected, bare-bones dab page created – 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Megan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Old deletion happened here back in 2004. Since that time, many single-name articles such as Amy, David (name), Victor, etc exist. I believe consensus has changed and that a disambiguation-style page would serve the needs of the encyclopedia better than a deleted/protected page. Rather than acting unilaterally, I'm asking for a review here (at least one old revision contains something salvageable, that mentioned in the VfD). -- nae'blis 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of idioms in the English language (A) – deletion and userification endorsed – 06:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of idioms in the English language (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)
  • IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSWIKI AN ENTRY THAT IS DELETED.
from Wiktionarian comments misplaced at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A)

Reading this AfD page is disgusting. There is very strong consensus to transwiki, yet the article was DELETED instead? Wikipedians are the ones that always complain that Wiktionary is chaotic and follows no process - doesn't that imply you are supposed to be diligent policy wonks? Why was process not followed at all, here? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion I see as much argument that transwikiing is the wrong thing to do as I do argument that transwikiing should happen, so I don't believe there was any consensus to transwiki. Thus I see no abuse of discretion by the closer. Pieces could appropriately be transwikied, and the deletion summary says "The result was Delete, userfy to transwiki individual idioms on request.". If you want to transwiki pieces, ask the closer to userfy, or ask above at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Content review. GRBerry 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. The closing admin made a valid (and I believe, correct) closure of this discussion. I would disagree that there was a "strong consensus" to transwiki. In any event, I don't think a global transwiki is proper given that not all the items on the list are necessarily idioms, and the sourcing issue was never fixed. Agent 86 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. SIXTEEN deletes. FOUR transwiki. Where do you see a consensus to transwiki? The article was a mess, the AfD was properly closed, and the only consensus I can find is that most people felt that transwikiing was the wrong move. Ask for a userfy. You are not following process, and quite frankly, deliberately misrepresenting a clear-cut AfD decision. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, this has already been userfied on request here. Feel free to help transwikiing. About the closure, we have no jurisdiction over Wiktionary, so it is not my call to make if they should be moved over or not. My call is only on whether this should remain in en:wiki article space, and the consensus here was clear. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, already userfied, so anyone who actually wants this transwikied can do so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, given the userfication. Considering this answers the request of the applicant, urge speedy close as we don't have juristiction over Wiktionary. We've done as much as we can, now. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gimpsy, GoGuides, MusicMoz, Skaffe – Deletions endorsed – 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'm trying to understand how a 6/6 !vote is being interpreted as concensus. Taking them as a batch may not have been the best course of action as some comments referenced specific articles and should not be weighed against others, which is always a danger in batching. --StuffOfInterest 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion if you're taking them as !votes, then don't count them like votes. All the keep arguments were WP:ILIKEIT style arguments; all the deletes were asking for verification in third-party reliable sources. ColourBurst 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per ColourBurst, the arguements are weighed on their strength not just on the numbers. --mathewguiver 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vek'nilash – Deletion endorsed – 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vek'nilash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

I'm not sure whether or not mobs have been discussed before - and whether they merit a page or need to be merged into a larger article. If this gets speedily deleted, i'll merge it into the wider article on Warcraft realms. Personally, I think this article should be kept - it's not only a realm but a mob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australian Matt (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_1-15&oldid=1108557031"