Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 16-31

< March 1-15 2007	Deletion review archives	April 1-15 2007 >

31 March 2007

MySpace Secret Shows – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted after it was improved after people requested it to have sources that confirm its notability. Article has sources and is under the criteria for a notable article and is supported by an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).

Endorse deletion, the improvements did little to sway existing opinions, and delete arguments continued to appear even afterward. Valid AfD. --Core desat 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements were made AFTER the deletion talk page was over.65.11.27.42 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In that case, endorse G4 deletion. The recreated version is almost no different from the AfD'd version. --Core desat 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD, endorse G4. Valid debate, valid close, reposted content substantially similar, no new evidence presented. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually new evidence was shown. Check the links on the bottom the last one is new and it is by a reliable third party source on the topic.The minor changes were the only changes necessary and i believe that since it meets the criteria it shouldnt be deleted. It shouldnt be merged because there are also MySpace Secret Stand-Up shows. 65.11.27.42 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Multiple reliable sources are needed, so the link 65.11 refers to isn't enough on its own. The rest of the links are press releases. I tried Factiva and found passing mentions and more press releases, so while I'm open to be convinced otherwise, that one article isn't enough to justify a second AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says it only needs one or more sources so it is in the criteria.65.11.27.42 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And which criteria would that be? WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works..." --pgk 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per everybody. Pretty much the same article that was validly deleted by AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says you need one or more nontrivial sources so as far as i can see bring it back.65.11.27.42 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject. Some Wikilawyers interpret two as multiple, one does not even meet that standard. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found multiple (2) non trivial sources tht prove this article is worthy and plan onexpanding it. They are listed here: [2] [3] Now theer are three reliable souces and 2 press releases and if you google it smaller name sites have thousands of articles on it and now its fully international with 7 different countries in 3 different continents 65.11.27.42 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per comments by Sam Blanning, and others, above. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you not read the comment above. But it doesnt matter anymore...Martini833 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martini833 created MySpace Events, which happens to feature not just the Secret Shows, but also information on two other MySpace shows. The "reliable sources" in the article don't meet WP:RS; they're just articles about artists that mention MSSS as the place where those artists started their careers. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 March 2007

Unholy Alliance – Overturn deletion of redirect only, list that at RfD. – Xoloz 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) where the term is prominently displayed and defined in the 1912 Party Platform written by Theodore Roosevelt.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a challenge of the redirect deletion, not the article deletion we discussed before. Overturn. Attack page? For a party disbanded in 1916?? No applicable speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and List on RfD per Anþony, speedy was not the way to go on this one but a listing on RfD is warranted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the G4 speedy-deletion and list to RFD. A redirect is not substantially identical to an article. Do not undelete all the properly deleted versions of the page. I do share Anþony's suspicion that this is unlikely to survive scrutiny, though. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Southern mafia – Overturn deletion of redirect only, list that at RfD. – Xoloz 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Dixie Mafia where the terms are used interchangeably in sources cited.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator is challenging the deletion of this being used the redirect to Dixie Mafia and not the original article that was AFDed. --70.48.174.169 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete just the redirect. Clearly not a valid G4 deletion, since the redirect was never deleted at RFD and G4 only applies to recreations of stuff deleted at xFD. Possibly send to RFD though. --W.marsh 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and List on RfD per Anþony, speedy was not the way to go on this one but a listing on RfD is warranted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anthony Vassallo – Prodded article restored on request, now at AfD – trialsanderrors 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted using PRod:non-notable footballer according to WP:BIO, but the player although not playing for the senior national team, but still playing top level for Malta, although Maltese football may be at semi-professional level. And there is discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players on going.

I put this not Deletion review, because it does not proper process of AFD to delete it under discussion. Per previous Afd results, please for top level football already notable. Ongoing discussion of Notability discussion should not became a reason of Current deletion. Here the player DOB and match record as of 2005-2006 season. [4][5] -- Matthew_hk t c 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dirty underwear fetish – Trolling by SPA – Doc^g 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted as being non-notable, when it is clearly notable. If Dearcupid.org is not a reliable 3rd-person 3rd-party source, then what else is?? Out-of-process deletion. Kingshockaz 2000 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse valid AfD, with a clear and unmistakable consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

BattleMaster – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I started to write an entirely new article in accordance with all Wikipedia requirements. Please unlock the page so I could publish it. The page has already its versions in NL and PL wikipedias, only on EN is locked. Merewyn 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per the second AfD, found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), unless the reliable sources that were asked for are provided. The fact that the article is on NL and PL is irrelevant; the various Wikipedia's are independent and have separate criteria for inclusion. If you think you can address the issues that were raised in the second AfD, I suggest that the best thing to do is write the article in userspace, and then bring it here for consideration. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per second AfD. You can prepare a version of the article that satisfies notability on your user subpage. But until that is done the AfD consensus was clearly to delete and should not be reversed without addressing the problem of sources. Resurgent insurgent 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AfD consensus was very clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy Nobody yet answered my Question of Reliability for the games, so I repeat it here again and again. HOW can you check the reliable sources for a GAME? If by Google hits like it was required in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), then in fact it is VERY UNFAIR, the games you must pay for will always win - because of large amount of advertisement hits. Freeware will be always discriminated this way. Give the fair and clear rules for your requirements and stop demanding to cite the shop catalogues as reliable sources. Merewyn 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google hits are not a criterion for article inclusion. Non-trivial coverage by independent fact-checked sources are what qualifies a game topic for inclusion. The catalog is not independent, and advertisements are not non-trivial coverage. If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so, then you should add those to a draft and bring it here or to the AfD's closing admin. If you can't find such sources to cite, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's core policies; see WP:ATT. Yes, that means freeware is less likely to get articles because it's less likely to get covered by anything except fan what-I-like websites. But most freeware is just not noted enough for any encyclopedia; at least WP gives it the same objective criteria that it must meet as commercial software must meet. You misunderstand the requirements, which is why you misunderstand the fairness. See the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. Barno 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re-Comment How should I state it more clearly? Your "independent" sources write about the commercial games because this is what the PR is paid for - to get as much attention on your product as possible, while nobody is interested in selling the Freeware. Therefore, judging by the amount of advertisements is a measure of NOTHING but the financial resources of the producers.
    Why is BattleMaster so special? This game started 1 January 2000, exists continuously for SEVEN years now, which makes BattleMaster one of the oldest and developing of the BBMMORPG games. The major difference between BattleMaster and many other games is that one cannot win BattleMaster. Game mechanics and playing worlds are deliberately designed to make total domination impossible. As a result, some player realms have existed since the beginning of the game (7 real years) while other realms have been formed and destroyed. Since all realms are controlled by players, the game has its own developing history [6] as lived and written by all the players, the players that make friends not only in the game but in real life too, visiting each other even across the world. Please unlock this page and allow to write the article about it all. Merewyn 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please clarify:"If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so..." So an online game is only worthy to wikipedia if you convince enough media sources to cover it? Is that the only action available? What qualifies as acceptable media? JoetheLesser 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — JoetheLesser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Kommentar While I can certainly see the need for some notability metric with regard to online games, given the number of fly-by-night games played by less than a hundred people out there, I really have to agree to some extent with Merewyn here. If the criteria for free browser-based games are the same as those for off-the-shelf commercial games, you will never be able to include any, because, as the others have said, a free game without any advertisements will not be able to buy the publicity that games produced by the likes of EA, Bllizzard, and Sony can. Perhaps (though I admit to knowing nothing about the logistics involved) a new subcategory needs to be developed for such games, with criteria that do not depend upon mainstream, commercial coverage? --Dan Aris 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — Danaris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Support of the idea of subcategory for the freeware games. A freeware game (= no ads) that exists constantly 7 years and have over 1200 users playing each day [7] is worth noticing as a phenomenon. Merewyn 10:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar: "Fair" is not the issue. We're not here to be fair! A large advertising budget gets your product noticed, and being noticed is the first step towards becoming notable. There are other routes to notability, but that's a quick and generally reliable one, like it or not. We're not here to fix the world's injustices—we're here to document some of its notable features. Xtifr _tälk 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Perhaps, then, absent a category that takes into account the nature of such a game, you could suggest some ways that those of us who play & like the game could seek to spread knowledge of it, and make it more notable? We want it to be more widely known--it's just we don't have bags of money, and we don't have any knowledge of the field. What sorts of mentions would be possible for such a game to get, that would be considered "notable"? --Dan Aris 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redeletion. The reposted version still failed to provide any evidence of independent sources (the core concern of the AFD discussion). Without independent sources, anything we write would either be of suspect neutrality or original research. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources. By the way, advertising has nothing to do with it because advertising also fails our neutrality and independence standards. Rossami (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - So, you all mean that I should start the Wikipedia article by buying enough of advertisments in newspapers?? The way to measure the notability should be really rediscussed, I proposed to start here: Reliable Sources for a game? Or advertisement catalogue instead of encyclopedia. Merewyn 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisements are not independent reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't "all" mean that advertisements help get software a Wikipedia page. Just the opposite: see WP:SOFTWARE: "media reprints of press releases" are explicitly excluded, catalogue listings are explicitly excluded. None of the things you described about the game are included as valid reasons for it to have an article. If some reliable sources carried articles saying the same things that you said, that would give us strong objective reasons to keep a BattleMaster article. If you think these criteria really should be different for freeware games, you're right to discuss that on the notability talk page, but wrong to insist we change it in this deletion review. You'll probably find lots of game fans who will support such a policy change, but if the guidelines are changed in a way that is contradictory to Wikipedia's core policies, they will be rejected and reverted by the broader community of editors. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to indulge the fans of every game that gets a little more popular than thousands of other games without getting mainstream coverage. Barno 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, it's this simple: you need sources. Until someone has written about the game, we don't have sources. Get it reviewed, or written up, or something, then we can base an article on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about This?: External review fitting your requirements.

Review at gameogre.com
Featured Online GAME OF THE WEEK at gameogre.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merewyn (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How about the sources I gave above? I have the sources for the article, so accordingly to your requirements this article should be restored. Please. Merewyn 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bunch of reviews contributed by fans to a website open to anyone's contributions without any kind of editorial supervision. They don't count as sources for us any more than we could cite amazon product reviews. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides which sources count and which not? Why the sources mentionned above cannot count for BattleMaster while in the same time the Amazon or other eBay reviews do count for other games like e.g. Anarchy Online? Merewyn 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:TJ_Ford.jpg – Full picture uploaded on Commons, crop restored – trialsanderrors 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The log for this image indicates that it was taken by photographer Jeramey Jannene (a.k.a. User:Grassferry49, a.k.a. compujeramey on flickr), yet it was deleted as "no copyright tag". According to the url in the upload log, it is cropped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/100075920 which uses the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. If this is true, it should be restored and tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. — CharlotteWebb 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the full picture onto Commons and restored this one here. This isn't really a DRV topic. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subcategories of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football), Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling) – No consensus to delete, relisting is left to editorial discretion – trialsanderrors 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting was fairly even, but a WikiProject stacked up votes of keep based on Ownership, resulting in a decision of "no consensus" by The wub. I am asserting that the closing admin should have based the decision on the strength of the arguments rather than on what appears to be simple vote count. Discussion was here. I am seeking an action of overturn and delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. I tend to agree with AM. The arguments to deletion boil down to guidelines on overcategorization, whereas the the arguments to keep boil down to WP:OWNership ("We at WP:GAA have organise our category very well", "It's a silly nom by someone who doesn't understand the subject", "Totally ridiculous suggestion", "we should respect the GAA Project as they know the topic better"). Just because there's a Wikiproject doesn't mean other people (not to mention standards) don't get a say in this. >Radiant< 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An unfair characterisation of the objections, see below. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I should have said that several of the arguments to keep boil down et cetera. >Radiant< 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gross over-categorisation, bizarre result. Overturn and delete.--Doc^g 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn and delete~~, creating a Wikiproject does not give carte blanche to ignore general Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And in my experience, the more specific and narrow the focus of a Wikiproject, the more fannish and less reliable its opinions (in general—there are notable exceptions). If the arguments had been based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games guidelines, I would probably have endorsed the decision, but as it is...no. (Of course, if the Sports and games workgroup guidelines were being followed, I suspect this would have never made it to DR.) Xtifr _tälk 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Neutral because of closer's comments below. I'm still uncomfortable with the excessive deference shown to a minor Wikiproject, but overall, I find it too close too call. I think lists would be a better choice, but I wasn't in the CfD. Xtifr _tälk 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment. Though some of the objections were unreasonable and implied ownership by the WikiProject, by no means all of them were. Some concerns I thought reasonable were raised including:
- By their nature few players would end up in many of the categories. Peter Canavan has the most with six categories, few players would approach this and this hardly compares (as one delete !voter did) with Babe Ruth previously having over 100 categories.
- Upmerging would result in large unwieldy categories.
- The previous baseball discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Subcategories of Category:National League All-Stars was partially based on the fact that Articles were being written about each All-Star game. Such articles were not being written in this case.
Given the arguments presented on both sides I did not feel sufficient consensus had been reached. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Wub's expanded comments. Tim! 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure Wub's expanded closing comments show that this decision was within admin discretion. Xoloz 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

MarchFirst – Speedy deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was an established article before it was speedy deleted as WP:CSD A7. The article did not meet this criterion since it asserted the notability of the company. In fact, MarchFirst got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise, and is a good example of a company which failed during the .com bust. See [8] e.g. While the article was far from comprehensive, it was not a speedy candidate nor should it be deleted via AfD. Rhobite 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the only part of the article that could be considered an assertion of notability was the statement that it was a company that failed during the dotcom bust. The article didn't even state what the company did... not that that's necessarily unusual for a dotcom, but it seems a little poor for an encyclopaedia article. --bainer (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion. Looking at the "purpose" box on this page: "where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question", of course I haven't been approached regarding the concerns on this. Define "established" being here a long time doesn't mean it meets out standards, and doesn't afford a free pass. You say it asserted the notability, can you please tell me what that assertion was, per Bainer the being a failed dotcom isn't notability, there were 1000 upon 1000 of them. I'm sure many of them are "good examples" of failed businesses. "got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise" pity none of it is reference in the article then. --pgk 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't see that part - I should have consulted with you first. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Its name comes from the March 2000 merger of US Web/CKS and Whittman-Hart is a clear claim to notability. yeah next time check with the deleting admin first, but even if you've never heard of marchFIRST (dumbest capitalization ever?) you just need to click through to USWeb. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that makes things any clearer. Maybe it's just my pedantic reading of the wording but it doesn't say the company is a result of a merger, just the name (which could mean anything a break away of the original founders etc. though I admitedly didn't look that far). Whitman-Hart seems to lack sourcing so probably in it's current form fails WP:CORP, but being a spin off of even a notable company doesn't immediately confer notability. To add to the confusion of this supposed merger followed by bankruptcy yet the Whitman-Hart article suggests, Whitman-Hart is still a going concern which suggests there was no merger. Maybe I'm missing something but the original article does nothing to enlighten me. My reaction is still endorse the deletion, though I'll happliy restore to someones userspace if they want to bash it into better shape. --pgk 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - marchFIRST was an Internet company, part of the dot-com boom of the 1990s that eventually failed and was sold is hardly a claim to notability - but no prejudice against a better article, and you can have this one back to start from if you like. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be a GFDL issue? The intro to the old article wasn't good, but the timeline was fine assuming references can be found. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So undelete the history once there's another article in place. Problem solved. —Cryptic 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no claims of notability as written initially. Resurgent insurgent 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were the criterion, then we should remove the rule about speedy deletion of recreated articles after they've been deleted, because if whoever writes it first doesn't get it right for whatever reason, the encyclopedia loses. Kinda silly... Carlossuarez46 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) And also remove "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." from the purpose box above to conform to the apparent practice. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete looks like it certainly was notable at some point, if only briefly. I found a Cnet story saying it cut 1,700 jobs at once, which at the time was 30% of its workforce, meaning that it emplyed over 5,000 people! That was not a small company by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The company was certainly notable. IT wasn't Enron, but in business circles it was certainly among the more spectacular collapses, in particlualr because the company had just previously acquired Mitchell Madison. What this is here is simply the haggling over whether notability was asserted in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How would an undelete be better than adding the article content into one of the other two related articles? IMHO that would seem to be the best thing to do, whether or not this article is undeleted. -- llywrch 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD. The company got a fair amount of press in its day and a well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written before it was inappropriately speedied). But it was a relatively short-lived company and I don't generally agree that "notability is permanent" so this should be tested against the community consensus in a full discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written' - did you look at the article? It has three links, one returns a "service unavailable" message. The other two are the companies this company may have been merged from (though I've still to understand how the companies merged, went bankrupt but the original companies are still currently trading...) neither mentions this at the destination of the link, they are generic front pages. Is this your idea of well-sourced?--pgk 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar as above, is anyone actually willing to put some effort into tracking down some sources and bashing this into some sort of shape? I've already said I'll restore it into userspace for someone to do just that... pgk 08:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted some of the 905 Newsbank articles on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I don't know if the following links count as reliable sources, but here you go: [www.varbusiness.com/sections/news/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=18814404], [www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,59579,00.html], [www.crn.com/it-channel/18818591], [www.digitalsolid.com/2007/03/01/marchfirst-second-monday-and-the-scarcity-of-good-domain-names/] and [www.forrester.com/go?docid=23949]
I am not sure if these are reliable sources, but they could be useful. Opinions are welcome. --SunStar Net ^talk 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are those free IT trade magazines. I consider them a solid middle ground as far as reliability goes: They're generally quite factual and certainly quite a few steps above blogs and things, but since they're loath to report any negative information I don't consider them in the same line as the New York Times and such. I'd certainly consider them reliable enough for non-controversial information in an article. With so much coverage, I'd be absolutely astonished if MarchFIRST can't be turned into a decent and well-referenced article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the current version of WP:CORP. All publicly traded companies in the US will be subject of multiple secondary sources; each must report quarterly results and file them publicly with the government (called form 10-Q or 10-K for the 4th fiscal quarter). There are dozens of organizations that collect, collate, and report on everything that gets filed: CNN finance, Yahoo finance, and many others are available free online. Many more are available by subscription such as Forbes, Fortune, and ValueLine. So, while it is not impossible that online content from a while back has been removed by these guys, the hard copies are still out there of these periodicals. A slew of information about the company can be found at [[9]], and a cursory search indicates that some stuff remains online from that period , see forbes, another mention by forbes, pr newswire, some lawfirm yakking about the collapse. I would suppose that the SEC, Forbes magazine are a couple of relatively reliable sources, so what's the problem? Carlossuarez46 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without disagreeing with Carlossuarez46's specific findings in this case, I have to note that the broad interpretation of WP:CORP he/she opened with (that all publicly traded US companies can be assumed to be notable) is not the generally accepted interpretation. See WP:CORP's Talk page for more. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy at WP:CORP says notability can be established by write-ups found in multiple independent sources. It is inconceivable that any US public company cannot meet that, due to the extensive number of publications devoted to investing in stocks and bonds of companies (regardless of whatever the company actually does or produces, which will probably have a slew of trade or industry publications mentioning the company or its products) and US governmental requirements for reporting which generates thousands of pages of sourcing for articles. Although some people don't like the implication of the loosened WP:CORP, it's hard to gainsay its consequence. Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't AFD, the article was deleted by criteria A7 no assertion of notability. It is the article which is deleted, not the subject. Deletion isn't saying there is no way we can have an article on the subject, not that they actually are non-notable. What it is saying that someone without any knowledge of the subject on viewing the article has no clue as to why we have the article. The article was awful, as persistantly offered above I'll happily restore it if someone wants to knock it into better shape. No one has taken me up on that yet, so we seem to have the situation we are trying to overturn something not based on the basis of deletion, but leaving it in the same state it could be deleted again on the same speedy criteria. --pgk 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But saying that it ought to remain deleted means you must believe that whatever was there cannot be the basis of an article. Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable (so in effect deleting the subject). Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - DRV is not asking you if you think it should remain deleted as such, nor is it asking you if the material currently in existance could be used to build a valid article. It is asking did the process of deletion work as it should, did the article as it stood meet the most basic standards required of wikipedia articles, the basic drive towards quality over quantity should tell us keeping stuff which falls far short of the basic standards by a long way hoping that someone, maybe some day will make it acceptable is a bad idea. "Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable" - no it isn't, the speedy criteria G4 does not apply to material speedy deleted. If you merely recreated a duplicate the original then the original speedy criteria would stand and could be reapplied, if on the other hand you addressed the issues of the speedy deletion (in this case non-assertion of notability) then the original speedy criteria wouldn't stand, G4 certainly couldn't be applied. The article has other issues which need to be addressed (lack of sourcing for example), but those aren't speedy criteria. --pgk 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And this is also the frustration of the requester here not discussing this with the deleting admin (me) first. The basic issues could have been addressed, the article would probably have been restored days ago and we'd have a better article as a result (not necessarily a perfect article) instead we have this drawn out discussion which really fails to address the fundamentals. The time we've all invested here (myself included) could have been used to a net positive effect in terms of article quality --pgk 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, old article is decent source to build off of and sources show it can be done.. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Night Gyr. Clear media attention, satisfying WP:WEB. Don't care if it's AFD'ed. I don't think that a draconian interpretation of "did not assert notability" satisfies the spirit of A7, for a company which is clearly notable anyway. Patstuart^talk·edits 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Autograph books – There is clear consensus to overturn this MfD result, but not a consensus to take other action (ie. delete them, or close as no consensus.) Ordinarily, this would result in an automatic relist; however, mindful of the strong opposition to relisting directly exhibited below by many, it is best to choose the path which causes the least upset -- overturning to a "no consensus" result. Individual autograph books may, of course, be relisted as normal. – Xoloz 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books

This MfD was a mass nomination of user subpages used by some users to collect other users' signatures. The list in the MfD was almost certainly non-exhaustive. It was closed by User:IronGargoyle as, to quote the important bit:

Keep pages from active participants (most, I would suggest any with contributions outside userspace) and Delete pages from completely non-active participants.

Gargoyle became unable to enact the close and made this post (again, selectively quoted):

I would suggest that any user with fewer than 100 mainspace edits would have their autograph book on the one-week bubble to avoid any ambiguity.

While this attempt at compromise is laudable, it is in my opinion unworkable. As I said at WP:ANI, the 100-edit barrier creates a 'reward' for editcountitis, which we absolutely do not want. It may encourage useless edits so that the user can get the reward book, or even so that they can get it back after it was deleted. If any admin tried to enforce the close they would probably find themselves in complicated conflict (what happens if the page is deleted, the editor then makes 100 useless articlespace edits, and demands it back?) with good-faith editors over something that really isn't worth it. I don't necessarily approve of these signature books but I definitely don't think that admins should be getting into conflict trying to enforce this unenforcable close, which is essentially a declaration of policy.

Although it might seem an exercise in pointlessness to overturn a close where, because the admin left before enacting the close, hardly anything has actually happened (all but two of the links on the list are still blue), someone asked on WP:ANI if anyone was going to enforce this. Technically if the closing admin doesn't enforce a close, other admins should (see also CSD General-4) so we can't just forget about it. So this close should be overturned and considered as a 'no consensus'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and either relist individually or delete them all. I agree with Samuel Blanning that the way this MfD was closed is unworkable. I don't agree with the no consensus interpretation, although I wouldn't come here arguing against it had it been closed that way in the first place. What I think correctly resolves the issue Samuel Blanning raises above is to individually list each of the autograph books so that each one can be considered in the context of the contributions the user has made to the project. The only conceivable reason that any of these should be kept is under the assumption that they fall under the main purpose statement at WP:USER:
Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.

While whether the autograph pages serve this purpose can be debated (and was extensively in the MfD) individually for each autograph page to see if that page is indeed facilitating communication among participants. However, since this is really a lot of bother, I'd be equally fine with overturn and delete all. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as "no consensus, default to keep" - MfD closures don't dictate policy. As Sam Blanning eloquently pointed out, enforcing an arbitrary edit count requirement is a ridiculous and unjustifiable chore. There was no clear consensus established in this debate, but it is worth noting that the sum of time, effort, and ill-will expended by editors in the MfD far exceeded any potential loss of productivity that not interfering with these signature books might have caused. Let's take a lesson from last year's userbox affair and discourage divisive campaigns against the friendly banality of otherwise productive contributors. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all speed The compromise is laudable, but unworkable, so get rid of them all. They dont deal with encyclopedic issues, they dont have any bearing on any wikiactions at all, and are a clear violation of WP:NOT. We aren't myspace people. And the notion that contributing more means you can break certain rules is just wrong. I have many, many edits over multiple calender years, doesn't mean policy should not be more lax on me now then when I had 15 edits. It's rediculous. -M^ask
Turnip --Doc^g 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete the lot of them, including the turnip. Sig pages are pointless to a 'pedia, and a rule that you can have a sig page if you have >100 edits is equally pointless not to mention WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, but in any event do not relist. Actively harmful to the encyclopedia, in that they distract actual productive contributors into dealing with their inanity. —Cryptic 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no-consensus Relist clear cases for deletion per WP:NOT#Webspace (or even prod them). Agathoclea 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and use some common sense. Is the user here to have autograph books? Delete them and tell the user this is an encyclopedia. Is the user here to contribute? Let them have their silly autograph books, they don't hurt anyone. Yes, yes, the 5 minutes they spend on writing "~~~~" on such a page could be spent in creating another FA, but who are we kidding with this kind of logic? No one wants to write articles in an environment that screams "Don't you dare to have some fun!" at you. --Conti|✉ 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List in groups or individually as appropriate. (I think this = Endorse closure. DGG 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wholesale deletion will offend and/or sadden some good commentators. Wholesale keep encourages misuse of WP as a social site. Individualized consideration by the deleting administrator will take up a bunch of admin time. Individualized or group consideration on future MfDs will take more overall contributor time than signing the autographs does. So I don't think there's a good answer here. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial endorse: per Conti; admins are not robots: trust them to use a bit of common sense, and scrap the 100-edit criterion. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I agree with Conti above, but I'm not sure I'd also agree to the same conclusion. (Well, that is if I properly understand what Conti is endorsing. Thank God this is a discussion & not a vote.) If a Wikipedian has an account on Wikipedia just to collect autographs, I believe an Admin can delete the page, if that is the best solution. But I hope my fellow Admins would first try to convince the user to contribute to Wikipedia in a useful manner first. If the Wikipedian is otherwise a productive editor ... well, let her/him have their fun. -- llywrch 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dumbest nomination ever (I'm talking aboiut the MFD nomination, not this one). They're annoying and unencyclopedic, yes, but the ill will and massive process wanking that would inevitably follow from such a nomination is a hundred times worse. (Case in point: this DRV.) Seriously, people want to list them individually now? How many of those will end up back here? Just if you see an autograph book by an inactive user redirect it to the main user page and be done with it. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there's constant testing of the line between a Wikipedia user page and MySpace page. Anytime the line between appropriate and inappropriate discretion on user pages is tested, these same "it's not doing any harm" and "this discussion is taking more time" arguments are put forward. The problem is that unchecked, a certain portion of the users here would establish a MySpace community here. That's not to say that there isn't some validity to those complaints, but it's a cost that will have to be paid at some point if we're going to enforce any limits on user pages. —Doug Bell 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why anyone with a shred of common sense sticks to the battles that are actually worth fighting over. ~ trialsanderrors 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, the last thing Wikipedia needs to do is drive away more good contributors over silly non-issues like we did with the userbox wars. Pages from people with no contributions to the encyclopedia can be, and are, nominated for deletion at MFD. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete all per User:Radiant. --kingboyk 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete and don't relist per all other delete votes. I can't add anything new that anyone hasn't already said. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Top Gear Dog – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete The article had previously been deleted and User:DrFrench wrongly thought it should be considered for speedy deletion again, whereas the article had been totally re-written from scratch and is a much better account of the actual subject. The arguments given on the talk page of the said article were not taken into account and I believe it was deleted by a biased admin whose opinion had clearly been for the removal if you read their opinions in Talk:Top_Gear_(current_format). Davesmith33 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD was unanimous, and its problems couldn't be solved just by rewriting. Why not toss it in as a sentence in Top Gear? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main Top Gear page as it is a relatively minor part of the show. It was too minor to be on the main page, yet too major not to have it's own article. Davesmith33 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Honestly! Top Gear Dog is a dog who appears on Top Gear. It's a one-joke joke. And it wasn't that funny either. Plus, it's a pretty useless dog... A short para in Top Gear is quite sufficient, unless and until the dog becomes a worldwide celebrity with his own dogography. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy and Andrew, you fail to take into account a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main Top Gear page as it is a relatively minor part of the show. It was too minor to be on the main page, yet too major not to have it's own article. Davesmith33 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, the endless Wikiconundrum: what to do with cruft purged from the main article. However, it is a recurring theme in the show, so at least a sentence would be worth having. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems to me that if the overwhelming consensus on the talk page was that Top Gear Dog is too extremely minor of a show element to be mentioned there, that's all the more reason it shouldn't be a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is Jon Bentley. Davesmith33 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The TGD article was deleted orginally for lack of notability - being nothing more than a short-lived in joke. It was nominated for speedy deleteion on the same criteria. The general consensus of editors (that is every one except Davesmith33) on the main Top Gear article was that TGD deserved nothing more than a passing sentence - anything more was merely fancruft. The "If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is Jon Bentley" argument is merely WP:POINT. DrFrench 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "Too minor for Top Gear" and "Too major to not have its own article" is a direct contradiction. Chris cheese whine 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS2pcGAMER, you are contradicting yourself there - "While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability." But is Jon Bentley more "notable" than TGD? I'm sure more TG viewers know who TGD is, than Jon Bentley. Davesmith33 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bentley has no relevance to this debate. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted) but it probably would make sense to post a redirect in order to prevent the page from further recreations. Rossami (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I figured that it should be noted that Top Gear Dog now redirects to Top Gear (current format). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 March 2007

MyWikiBiz – Restored as deletion obviously out of process. Now listed at WP:AfD. – trialsanderrors 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See AfD2. Though I voted delete, I'm a bit confused by this deletion though it was closed as no consensus. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other related AfDs:

Gregory Kohs - Delete
Gregory Kohs (2) - Delete
Gregory Kohs (3) - Delete

DRV - Deletion endorsed

Very, very weak overturn and relist. Should not have been speedied after surviving an AFD. Very, very weak because only one of the sources there is even remotely reliable, the other sources are either Wikipedia (WP:ASR) or a press release (not independent). If this is relisted, that needs to be made evident: multiple means multiple. --Core desat 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, but unless some new information comes to light the decision should be delete. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a number of related AfD's missing. Anyone can add them? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added all of the Kohs AfDs. There doesn't seem to have been another AfD for MyWikiBiz, so I'm wondering why this was the "2nd nomination". WarpstarRider 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It was MyWikiBiz.com ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, RESTORE. Regardless of why Kohs was LEGITIMATELY banned again, for legal threats, we'd already shown in DRV, AfD, etc. that MyWikiBiz for that article was notable. It was unilaterally deleted by User talk:JzG. - Denny 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Really, tired of unilateral deletions against consensus. WP:IAR is not a license to just ignore everyone else and do whatever you want. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Should not have been speedied. I suppose it is reasonable to relist a nonconsensus for another AfD soon afterwards, doing a Speedy is really deliberately defying the rules based, I suppose, on one's personal opposiution.DGG 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - if you're an admin and you're unhappy with the way an AFD turns out, you should be coming here, not just disregarding the community's discussion. Wikipedia is not censored, least of all for "things that annoy JzG", and JzG's personal interaction with Kohs should have made him stay out of the situation in the first place. This was in extremely poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Milto LOL pia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Aren't these deletions done with the approval of Jimbo? I know Gregory Kohs was blocked by Jimbo for refusing to stop spamming. Corvus cornix 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the log. It had passed DRV + AFD. The deletion was IAR. - Denny 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, don't relist. Seems like we just can't figure out how to apply notability to people that annoy us these days. --tjstrf talk 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by desperate grasping at straws for reliable sources. This is worth all the trouble to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Relist - With a note that "sources" presented at the last AfD, which swayed editors towards saying it marginally met WP:CORP turned out to be obvious duplicates or derivatives of the one independent source we already had. Danski14^(talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I support the idea of the article's deletion as non-notable, but the closure of the AfD should have been appealed here, to deletion review, not undone by a unilateral deletion. It would be nice if we could treat this DRV as if it were an appeal of the original "no consensus" decision, in which case I would vote to delate, but I'm sure there will be people unwilling to look at it that way. So it seems that there is really now no choice but to start again. Put it back on AfD. Sigh. Metamagician3000 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:UNDEL: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the deletion policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately can be invoked here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn yet another arbitrary JzG unilateral deletion, something he says he has no intention of stopping. I'll be glad when some admins have a little chat with him. He is driving good editors from the project with these ongoing antics. Jokestress 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has he done this? Perhaps RFC if its an ongoing issue? - Denny 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case of an admin coming under fire for making a hasty decision. It's easy for any good editor get the admin tools. It's a challenge for that editor to become a successful sysop. And once those tools get revoked for abuse, they're hard to get back. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn; obviously out-of-process. Guy, I would have expected more of you. No opinion on relisting. Ral315 » 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrew Repasky McElhinney – Restored by deleting admin – trialsanderrors 04:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was surprised to see that the Andrew Repasky McElhinney article has vanished. If its deletion was debated, I wasn't aware of the fact, and I last saw it only a few days ago. McElhinney is an independent filmmaker of some note. Indeed, his second feature, A Chronicle of Corpses, was listed by Dave Kehr of the New York Times as one of the ten best films of 2001. Look him up on the IMDb.

alderbourne 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted article, but if the article itself did not make any claims of notability, then the deletion was proper. If you want to rewrite the article to indicate what you said above, and can provide proof of your claims, then please go ahead. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the "cache" link above. The article doesn't lack in assertions of notability, but comes across as a bit advertorial. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Autocoitus – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No time given to respond to speedy delete; last revision of the page was sourced, verifiable, substantially relevant (as much as autofellatio). Neologism accusation in previous VfD is irrelevant, since the article is about a *practice* rather than the word itself; 'autocoitus' is simply a more encyclopedically appropriate term than the standard 'self-fucking'. Sai Emrys 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion is sustained, I ask an admin to post the content of Autocoitus as of its last revision before the speedy delete to User:saizai/Autocoitus for my archival use, since I don't have access to it, there isn't a gcache copy, and I don't want to look for the links again in case it comes up later. Thanks. --Sai Emrys 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Got it myself; never mind. --Sai Emrys 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically responding to the various issues brought up in last VfD, and referring to the most recent revision:

Reliable sources - Amateur porn is a reliable source for whether a sex practice is conducted or not. Additionally, the article at last revision had other (text) sources, e.g. LPSG.org threads.
Claimed impossibility WP:PN - The sources cited conclusively prove otherwise. If the editors voting for deletion on this ground were not inclined to view that proof, that is their problem and not one of the credibility of the source.
Neologism WP:NEO - Irrelevant. The article is about a practice, not the word itself. Also, see pegging and santorum; they are sexual neologisms but nevertheless kept.
Censorship / revulsion - Irrelevant and inappropriate reason to delete on Wikipedia; it is a sexual act and can sustain an article just as much as autofellatio, anal sex, pegging, scat / coprophilia, etc. Yes many people will find it offensive or unpleasant. So what?
ghits - Autocoitus = 65 (not 15 as claimed in VfD); self-fucking = 19,200; selffucking (no space) = 6,360; selffuck (no space) = 16,100; self-fuck = 33,100, including many forum threads about the practice.
Rename - I'm fine with renaming the article to something like self-fucking. Autocoitus is simply the most obvious clinical term. Best would be to have one redirect to the other.
Notability WP:N:
- "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
  - About as much detail as autofellatio
- "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
  - Multiple sources cited.
- "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
  - Sources cited all specifically about the topic.
- "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
  - Ergo Pornotube and [lpsg.org] sources are perfectly legit
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
  - In this case there is no need to rely on the honesty of the sources, since they are self-proving.
- "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
  - AFAIK this is not an issue here --Sai Emrys 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ridiculous" is not an argument. Are you claiming that it is impossible or a joke page? --Sai Emrys 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ridiculous as in patent nonsense, or more specifically a nonsensical attempt at an article. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AfD was closed properly. In addition, there were absolutely no sources. PornoTube is not a reliable source. This may require a speedy close as the nomination pretty much defeats itself - we require that something be attributable to reliable sources as defined in WP:RS, not that something simply exists. --Core desat 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pornotube was not the only source listed in the article. Additionally, it *is* a reliable first-hand source, given that it is not being used as some sort of social commentary but as documentation of a sexual practice. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't. Neither is LPSG. --Core desat 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "... in some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed," - this is one of those cases. This is not a case of citing a YouTube discussion as authoritative source for what they're discussing, but of citing primary source evidence for the viability and existence of the practice the article discusses. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - On the off chance that this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part, allow me to explain. In an article on a topic whose notability has been established by reference to reliable secondary sources, we may on occasion allow primary sources as references to individual facts. So if a video is hosted on YouTube, and does not violate copyright, and contains a section which verifies a fact, and if there is no better source for it, and if we can cite it precisely (time in and so on), then a YouTube video may be allowable as a source for a piece of detailed information. PornoTube and XTube, needless to say, are considerably more likely to host copyright violations, but that is beside the point: in this case they are being presented as sources for the main premise of the article, and in a way that requires the reader to join the dots. This is a novel synthesis from published sources, aka original research. What we do not have is reliable secondary sources which establish the notability and existence of this concept, and the terminology you use to describe it. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As noted in the original UDR, the terminology is not under dispute nor a good reason to delete rather than simply retitle. It odes not seem to me that this is WP:OR; the article says "some people do X" and the source is a clip that clearly shows someone doing X. That's not exactly "analysis". How would it be more credible if, say, Savage were to write an article - citing those same videos most likely - that says "some people do X"? Can we then point to him and say that he is a better source - as a secondary - than the primary source? How does that make the article better or more authoritative? --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. You've managed to conclusively prove that it exists and is possible, and nothing else. That is not an encyclopedia article. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds exactly? If it's something I addressed above please refute my comments rather than just reasserting it. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, compare to autocunnilingus, which isn't even known to be possible. --Sai Emrys 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not clear from the history, but I gather this was speedied after it had passed an AfD. IOf so there is no need of dicussion--it'sd out of process and should be reversed without further ado. But if this was an original speedy, it still is a total abuse of Speedy--speedy is for non-controversial deletions. If it seems obvious thaqt a deletion will be argued in good faith, the only place appropriate is AfD. If one even suspect it might, then possibly prod. This is not the place to debate the merits, AfD is the place to debate the merits, and if one wishes to argue against notability, that's where it should have gone. I look forward to debating it there. Speedy overturn recommended.DGG 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I mention a point of confusion: whether it is physically possible is irrelevant. Notable fantasies are Notable, or do we eliminate all fiction entirely? WP is not the place to debate anatomy.DGG 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the consensus at its AfD was clearly delete. The newest version that was speedied was almost identical to the version that was discussed in that AfD. Just wanted to clear that up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as AfD per DGG. When a speedy is contested, use AfD to confirm deletion. As it is now only sysops can see it so I don't know if it actually does meet criteria. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- History restored behind {{drv}} tag for the purposes of this DRV. --Core desat 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh! I'd vote delete BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - On what grounds? Personal disgust (i.e. censorship)? --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please assume good faith and don't behave like you're the only one who knows that Wikipedia isn't censored. Resurgent insurgent 10:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All zie said was "Ugh". That sounds like simple disgust to me, even in good faith. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The most recent version had zero sources. The most recent version which did have sources had zero reliable sources. Corvus cornix 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Ridiculous... lack of reliable sources. Resurgent insurgent 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please use this version for comparison. Note multiple sources. Last revised edition had sources edited out for unspecified reasons without responding to the discussion about that on its talk page. --Sai Emrys 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators: please give the same partial undelete to its Talk page as is on the main page, and post a link to the most recent revision here for reference (per above). Thanks. --Sai Emrys 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we know... the first admin who commented - before the history was undeleted - already mentioned your "sources". Sorry, they are not the type of reliable sources to base an article on. Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh FFS. A PornoTube video is not a source. An XTube video is not a source. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some guy saying "bush bombed the two towers" on YouTube is a source, but not 'reliable' on *what it claims* because it has no editorial review. So you can't point and say "look, bush bombed the two towers, RandomVlogger92334 said so!". But you can point and say "look, some people thinkg bush bombed the two towers! see, right here!". Here it is being used for the latter. No different from any other primary source documentation of a practice; you're not accepting some random vlogger's word for something existing, but seeing proof of the thing itself. If you disagree, please rebut the *merits* of what I said rather than simply reiterating "but it's not a source". Note the quote above from WP:RS re exceptions. Just 'cause it's on YT (or PT) doesn't mean we're obliged to pretend it doesn't exist. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. BUT! I would say don't salt this... yet. The article is along the same lines as Autofellatio, Autocunnilingus, etc., and it's only a matter of time before a reliable source writes about the act and it becomes notable in the Wikipedia sense. And so, it *might* belong on Wikipedia in the future, but as we all know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- therefore, as of right now, internet forums and videos do not qualify as reliable sources, and it should remain deleted until actual Wiki-endorced sources emerge. Rockstar915 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That source might come in a month. Or one year. Or never. Why not just keep it deleted? Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you misunderstood me -- my point was that we should keep it deleted. But since it's a page with recreated content, often similar pages get salted. I was just saying that we shouldn't salt it. Rockstar915 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus was read entirely correctly at the AfD, and not a single reliable source has been added to the article since it was recreated by the original author. Sorry, but 3 guys fucking themselves on pornotube does not an encyclopedic article make. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This was deleted through AfD less than two months ago, and the article that was speedied was virtually identical to the article that was AfD'd. Valid G4. WarpstarRider 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is obviously some dispute about N and whether there are RSs, and the place to discuss this is AfD. WP should not be blind to the outside world, and material which would only be expected to be documented by blogs or the like, is appropriately documented by them. Using a little reason, In what essential way would the situation be different if a few porno books were found instead of the videos? Direct observation is not necessarily OR. Interpretation is: reaching a conclusion on whether the material is real or faked would be OR. . Saying this material is part of at least web culture and documenting that is appropriate use of sources.. The fact that there are a number of them is N. I already !voted to relist at AfD. where the above argument can be used. DGG 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion as reposted content. Neither the deleted versions nor this discussion have presented evidence that justify overturning the very clear decision of the AFD discussion. Nor did any deleted version ever rise above the level of an unsourced dictionary definition. Rossami (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Strongly so. Even with good faith in mind, many of the comments appear biased. Notifiability has been established, and the sources are better than for a lot of articles on WP. The presence of porn vids (VHS, DVD and downloadable, it seems) does not serve as a reliable source for the contents of such an article, so it can be stubbed if necessary, but it does document that this is a topic, and that the article has as much of a place on WP as other stubs, pages on music albums, pages on characters in fictional works, and so forth. I doubt a similarly sourced article about an equivalent topic that had nothing to do with sex would be as likely to end up being deleted as one that is related to sex. A "wtf?" topic? Yes. A non-topic? No. I concur with the points raised in objection to the delete. A move would be okay, if nobody objects to the unencyclopaedic tone of the article name. The article can be stubbed, just like a ton of other articles on WP. Any replies should be directed to my talkpage, if possible, as I don't watch Deletion Review (I hit the article via an internal link). Zuiram 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because that's pretty much what that argument is. This isn't censorship. --Core desat 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the ... Keep deleted, nonsense, ureferenced, etc. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Europe United – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator who deleted this article did it without reasonables reasons Wadim 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously AFD'd for reasons of notability. Deleted three times since as being a recreation of deleted material. Article has been around for years and yet has no sources other than the subject's Web site. I protected the article as a deleted page becasue the author claimed he would keep re-creating the deleted article from a saved file on his computer. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the original author. I had to recreate the article from material in Google's cache. In any case: Europe United is an active organization with more than 500 members. It's Web site is active too, just check it's forum [10] and this should be enough. All that deletions and protection is censorship for me. Wadim 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no evidence of notability given. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of all unsourced articles about "emerging political parties" even if they have got 500 members. Which is fewer than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, by the way. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want info about big parties, buy Microsoft's Encarta. Wikipedia is different (or it should be). If you censor any info about small and new organizations, you are against democracy and freedom on Internet. Wadim 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:NOT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Censorship, democracy, freedom... but you missed the First Amendment! If you're going to do the whole freedom of speech thing, you have to do it properly. It doesn't work, of course, because Wikipedia is not free speech and never has been, but please at least check all the boxes! Guy (Help!) 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above, valid AfD, and - judging from the last comment by the nominator - as a WP:POINT nomination. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Core desat 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject deletion I stated it on the talk page on Europe United, but there is a heck of a lot more parties that are smaller and have done less yet still get a page on Wikipedia. Europe United's status as the first (or near first, there is also Newropeans which hasn't been deleted) pan-European party is also notable. The deletion is unjustified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebloke (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Are we getting any hits on google for this? Any reliable sources? I'm amazed at how just one person can bring a page down. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from the look of the page, thanks to the cache, the page should be redirected to United Nations (Europe) since that what I thought it would be about. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BuickCenturyDriver, who are you claiming was the "one person" who "brought the page down"? The AfD was unanimous. Corvus cornix 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not blaming anyone in particular and I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm just amazed at how long ago the page was and yet it only took one user to knock it off. All it took was for one person to nominate for AFD and that knocked off the page. I'm also curious as to whether the one that was previously deleted was the old version. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The AfD was unanimous in 2005, 2 years ago!!! Europe United was created in 2005 and perhaps it wasn't notable that year. But today is 2007 and the party is still active, with enough members. I think that some administrators forgot what Wikipedia is about. If an organization exists and it is active there should be an acticle about it in Wikipedia. If you don't like this, use Encarta!!! Wadim 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand what Wikipedia "is about". We're an encyclopedia, not a web host. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "We're an encyclopedia..." so... Wikipedia is your property. hm ok, ok Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion as a repost of properly deleted content. No actual evidence has been provided either in the deleted versions or in this discussion that this party has now achieved the notability that it lacked when the AFD discussion was held. No sources were provided other than a link to their own website (which fails to qualify as an independent source). Rossami (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. AFD was valid, protection was valid. No indication of notability was provided. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Afd was decisive way bsck then, no new evidence was brought to the new article (google cached version), nor to this DRV. Google seems to bring up unconnected geographical locations when "Europe United" is searched. Still nothing obvious two years later, think that it'll have to wait a fair while longer before there are enough sources to write this from. _{And crying cenosrship rarely helps get an article un-deleted....} Inner Earth 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that Wikipedia's administratos try to delete information about this political organization. Maybe in USA that is normal, but in Europe we call it censorship. Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting an article about a non-notable organisation has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey! We are not talking about "3 old men that meet every week in some bar to drink beer and play chess" (perfect example of a non-notable organization), we are talking about international political organization! Wadim 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can convince me if you provide evidence of notability by independent third-party coverage (e.g. newspapers, tv programs) of this organisation. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In Europe (& in the USA, & the rest of the world), we don't scream censorship, we read the guidelines and try to make descisions based on reasoned arguments - if it's notable, it will have been covered in the European press - so show us! And international organisation could be me and some friends who come from different countries - we're not notable just because we're international (nor because we have our own website). Inner Earth 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. There was a straight by-the-book AfD in November, 2005; all participants voted to delete. Asking for a Deletion Review for an unsourced article is not reasonable until sources are provided. The article (at least the version of it on answers.com) still has no third-party references, though the problem has existed since the original AfD. Political parties, of all things, should be easy to find press coverage for, if they are at all known. Otherwise how will anyone vote for them? The version of the article I saw said that Europe United was just a political association, not a party at this point, so perhaps no-one has ever voted for them. The party's web site doesn't mention any elections in which they have run candidates. Wadim's suggestion that he will just keep recreating the article borders on disruptive editing. EdJohnston 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I said: "If you just ignore this note and delete the article, I will simply copy it from my computer again.". By the way, the note was ignored. In any case, I give up. I still think that this deletion is some kind of censorship, and I'm happy that Wikipedia's administrators only control Wikipedia, so people can find what they need on other Web sites.Wadim 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Notability not established. Previous AfDs have come to the same conclusion. Adambro 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted without consensus: vote was 9-7 but closing admin claimed 12-7 James S. 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW it was 12-7, counting the nominator and counting an Archive comment as == Delete and counting a "Comment This kind of stuff is meant for blogs..." as == Delete. Also FWIW my closing was based, rightly or wrongly, on the theory that:
- If most everyone agrees Entity X is harmless, Entity X is kept.
- If some believe Entity X is harmful, but others think it's helpful, Entity X might be kept depending on the balance of various factors.
- But if some believe Entity X is harmful and others think it's harmless but not helpful, there's no real reason to keep it, and that was the situation here in my view. Herostratus 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I'm not even looking at the item, haggling over vote counts is an insufficient reason to contest a closure. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Vote count is not a reason for deletion, but that means it also isn't a reason for overturning a deletion. And as Herostratus said, if nobody believes that something is helpful, and some people do believe it's harmful, the logical thing is to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. It's not a vote. The closing comments state the reasons behind the evaluation of the arguments and the decision to delete. I see nothing wrong here. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - "voting" outcome alone cannot be determinative. It's not actually meant to be a vote. Metamagician3000 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna have to go with this here, he's a sysop and he (other sysops) can read it anytime. I wouldn't say it's harmful though. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks the cache, I know this article waa a discussion. Not too many were interested. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The decision was within reasonable admin discretion and was well-explained on the page. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, policy and popular opinion both leaned towards the decision made by the admin. --tjstrf talk 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael S. Greco – moot as the page has been recreated from scratch – GRBerry 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

administrator's only reason was that the page constituted copyright infringement, which is simply not accurate. ABAORG 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Jonathan Nichols, I am a current member of the American Bar Association's national media office, and a practicing attorney. Among other sites, the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page on immediate past president Michael S. Greco, whose page was suddenly and inexplicably deleted in its entirety by administrator SwatJester or someone using that member name. The reasoning offered for this deletion was that the page consituted copyright infringement. As head of the ABA's media and publicity group, and a legal expert on copyright infringement, I would like an explanation behind this line of reasoning. Each of the three images utilized for the article on President Greco: the portrait, the Renaissance of Idealism cover, and the C-Span screen capture, were either owned and operated by the American Bar Association (in the first two instances) or public domain (in the case of the the C-Span image). The article was written by myself and several other members of President Greco's administration and current staffers at the American Bar Association. Nothing on the page was an infringement of copyrighted laws, rules or regulations.

I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys from all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his national activities as president, his involvement in the Clinton administration, his work for the Dukakis and Weld administrations in Massachusetts, his work as ABA judicial reviewer for federal court appointees, and for and his work with Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association. The ABA has received several inquiries already re: the deletion of the page (why it was deleted, how students and other inquirers can now access that information on President Greco, etc.)

Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. We believe it to be a valid and important addition to the growing Wikipedia.org family of knowledge.

Sincerely, J. Nichols

Endorse and speedy close Copyright violation is of this page at his firm. GRBerry 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore If the ABA Media office claims they wrote it, then the page at his firm was probably copied from the article, not the other way around. However, why is the ABA "maintaining" articles on their membership? James S. 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. (1) if they copied their web page from our article, why are we not credited? This is required. (2) When they say they wrote it, they probably mean that they wrote it on their web page first and copied it to Wikipedia later. (3) If the material on their web site is not copyrighted, they need to make this manifest, otherwise we must assume its under copyright. No predjudice against anyone re-creating the article, written in their own words. Herostratus 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleting editor I deleted it as a blatant copyright vio of that page. It was clearly a valid copyright deletion, the copy pasting being incompatible with GFDL attribution. Also, I should note the WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:USER implications of User:ABAORG's actions here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Obvious Conflict of Interest. They don't WP:OWN the article. alphachimp 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above but also there is no proof that J. Nichols is who he says he is. Consider the following posting that I made on WP:ANI.
Also, are you sure that the e-mail is legitimately from Jonathan Nichols and that he is who he says he is? The spelling, grammar and occasional poor diction do not suggest that this is a practicing lawyer on the board of the ABA. It could be a hoax. What domain did the e-mail come from? Moreover, it is not your place to represent Wikipedia to the ABA. Big deal, you're an admin on Wikipedia. That and $1.35 will get you a cheap cup of coffee. You might give him a courtesy reply and explain relevant Wikipedia policies but you should also redirect his query to the Wikimedia Foundation. If he really is a "legal eagle", let him duke it out with our legal eagles. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this web page. Do you see a "Jonathan Nichols" listed? I don't. Why not forward the e-mail you received to [mail:[email protected] them] and ask if it's a legit request? And then, if they say it is, redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If the text is released under GFDL and the images are multi-licensed under GFDL and Creative Commons, then there would be no basis for the article's deletion. The ABA must understand that doing so would enable the text to be edited by anyone. A disclaimer on the talk page or an update of licensing information on their web page should be sufficient. However, the article itself does not clearly establish the notability of the subject with verification from multiple third-party non-trivial sources. Killa Kitty 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The suggestion that they maintained the article sounds like they were using us for free web hosting - well we don't do that. Also, we have clear policies on using copyrighted material and its fine as long as the rights holder contacts OTRS and provides the relevant release. Surely not a problem for them to do if they are who they say they are. Personally, if the guy is notable, it prefer an independantly written and properly cited article but call me old fashioned in that respect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per several of the above. If this is a legit communication (which i tend to doubt) and if the ABA is prepared to relase their text under the GFDL then it can be recreated. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dust – Closed - this page is for reviewing deletion of entire articles, the removal of sections of articles should be discussed on the talk page – Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unknown John Bolton MBICSc 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Koda Rohan – Close, article recreated with assertion of notability – Core desat 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was speedy-deleted per {{db-bio}}. The original content might have failed to assert his significance but he is a notable author. For example, Britannica has an entry for him[11]. Kusunose 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The deleted article just said they were a Japanese author and gave no further information. As such it made assertion of notability and was rightly deleted. That said, the speedy deletion does not prevent a new article being started if any editor wishes to be bold and create one that does assert notability and is supported by reliable sources. WjBscribe 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The deletion was entirely proper as WJscribe says above, but I see what Kusunose means. Let's give him/her the chance to expand it before closing this nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong undelete Extremely notable author. I've undeleted for now, and added to the article a bit including a reference. Definitely an article Wikipedia should not be without. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, obviously valid Articles-7 - remember that the question is not whether the author is notable, but whether the article asserted this, which it didn't. Close this review as moot following recreation with assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Friendship Circle – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason given was "and the only contributor was 'Zalman613'" However you did not even give a chance for anyone else to comment. 12.26.60.132 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reason given was "article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". >Radiant< 07:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the talk page. Talk pages for pages that have been deleted are usually deleted as well. And it looked like someone was just trying to recreate the article content on the Talk, which is not what Talk pages are for anyway. (Though I'm only going by the snippet of content included in the deletion summary; I can't actually see the deleted page's full content.) WarpstarRider 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an admin. than restore the talk page and you will see. The point that it said there was, that the organization is fundamental in changing societies look at the inclusion of special needs children. Knowing about that, through that post, is a part of people being aware of the this type of thought or at least to know that it exists in a large way. That explains clearly the importance and significance of the subject, the deleter does explain why that is invalid. 12.26.60.132 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied this. This article does not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It is also heavily POV, contextless (international? US? Israel?) and is a mission statement, not an article. having reread, I would still delete. jimfbleak 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement which would require substantial rewriting to be anything else) and G12 (content copied from another website with no assertion of permission, [12]). If you could fix those, you would still have the problem that it is an article on a specific group but under a generic title, and the possible conflict of interest - created by a user called Zalman, and Rabbi Zalman Grossbaum is a leading figure in the group. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Direct cut-and-paste from a website. Not an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per CSD G11 mainly and also A7. An attempt at a neutral, sourced article on this subject would be one thing, but this was a cut & paste mission statement. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a copyvio, first rewrite it then we can debate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mock Tyne and Wear Metro nameboards – keep closure endorsed – GRBerry 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rogue result. Images have no encyclopaedic value, and are essentially textual content pretending to be an image. Last time I checked, we don't use images for this sort of thing (e.g. we don't use "File:Longbenton metro station sign.png" where "Longbenton" will do - particularly as there are implications for screen readers and users of large fonts). The closing admin decided that apparently despite the images being purely cosmetic, having no value, and the usability concerns, 3 ILIKEITs and a straight vote are apparently a consensus. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XfD isn't the right place for this. A discussion about whether these are the logos of the stations or just text on a goldenrod background should occur at some relevant page, not IfD. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment from the closing admin) "No encyclopedic value," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The actual wording of the nomination is "serve no purpose, purely cosmetic," again fairly subjective claims, which many others did not agree with. The images are public domain and were being used. There was no reason to delete them. WP:IFD is not the forum for whether the images belong as the title for an infobox or not. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
- Again, I put it to you that 3 WP:ILIKEITs and 1 straight vote are not a consensus, and hardly support the claim that "many others did not agree with" the nomination. As for the wording of the nomination, I think it's not a big jump to infer "unencyclopaedic". I still challenge anyone to defy this claim (it has not once been addressed, not in the debate nor in the accompanying talk). Chris cheese whine 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no requirement that a free image be used for encyclopedic purposes to remain on Wikipedia. -Nv8200p talk 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - IfD begs to differ. Chris cheese whine 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ifd is not a policy. But even at that, the images were being useful in the article namespace so they could be considered encyclopedic. -Nv8200p talk 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, now you're just making excuses. They were not being useful. They were being used where it would undoubtedly be better to use text, and purely to fulfull a cosmetic role. The WP:MOS is clear on the point that we do not blindly follow the styles of others, and the point that apparently we should use the same typeface as on the signs carries no weight whatsoever. Chris cheese whine 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my re-cap for non-deletion:

The images were being used
There was no legal reason to delete them.
There was no policy reason to delete them.
There was no consensus to delete them

Nv8200p talk 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The images should not have been in use. There was no real opposition to the proposed deletion. "UE" clearly is a policy reason to delete, otherwise it would not be listed in the instructions as a viable reason. Chris cheese whine 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Increasing the cosmetic appeal improves Wikipedia. I've seen templates that use images te recreate route maps which is much better than providing them in voluminous writing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where were these used before they were nominated for deletion? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images were used in the infobox for each station such as in this example for West Jesmond. DrFrench 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chriscf keeps removing the image so, look in the history and find one of mine or DrFrench's reverts to see the image in context. -Nv8200p talk 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decision The proliferation of those images is annoying (starting with this particularly obnoxious example) and some policy/MoS directive needs to be created to keep Wikipedia from turning into Geocities 2.0, but I can't read this from the discussion. This reads more like an "I'm unhappy with the outcome of the IfD" nomination to me. ~ trialsanderrors 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion suffered from an overparticipation of those with an interest in using them, and underparticipation of outside parties, hence I'm unhappy with the outcome in the sense that I believe the closer failed to take the interests into account. Chris cheese whine 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. A photograph of the place would be encyclopaedic, a mocked-up version of the station sign is not. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you mean overturn and delete? The original decision was to keep. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete I don't see the value of substituting the text "West Jesmond" with a picture that says "West Jesmond". I know it might be typeset in a rare and non-reproducible typeface, but still it offers little enhancement over plain text. Replace with a photograph of the respective station if you must. (Oh, and the image server is having a bad day - I can only see the alternative text despite having purged both the article and the image description page.) Resurgent insurgent 10:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep; this is an editorial decision that should be decided by the contributors on those pages, not on DRV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has. There is no consensus to use the images. Hence I proposed them for deletion. Chris cheese whine 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has not. If so, please provide a link to the relevant discussion by the contributors to those pages. The definition of consensus is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community. The group that particpated in the IFD agreed that the images should be kept. No other group has discussed the text versus image issue in the infobox headings -Nv8200p talk 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do not need a discussion on the merits of text vs. an image containing the same text in much the same way that we do not need a discussion on the subject of whether or not grass is predominantly green. There is no consensus discussion anywhere which is so enormously compelling as to override this common-sense fact. Chris cheese whine 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank God you are here to show us the errors of our ways! -Nv8200p talk 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, as far as I am concerned, the user who created them and their buddies calling WP:ILIKEIT is not a consensus. Chris cheese whine 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - More so a consensus then one person saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and using the guise of "unencyclopedic" as a human shield.
        Now I see the problem. For a while, I thought I was on Wikipedia, but evidently I've stumbled onto Myspace. Chris cheese whine 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are on Wikipedia, and generally speaking, falling back on insults when your arguments are failing isn't very convincing. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep The IfD result was fair, it just seems Chris is upset about that result. I cannot see any strong reason for deleting them. I'd also ask that he doesn't keep removing images prior to the IfD outcome, doing so is pre-empting that outcome. Adambro 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep per User:Crotalus horridus. Deletion reason boils down to "I don't like them," and all User:Chriscf is doing to explain himself is to add exclamation points to that sentence. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Demented Cartoon Movie – Closed - twice previously endorsed, no new evidence – Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know I have asked for this before, and I have noted your responses. You all said that the page led to nonsense, and what I claimed (that there was one a pretty informative article that was as good as any other article) was not true. (original request on January 13 2007) I know for a fact that somwhere in the history of the page you will find the version I was talking about. Full of true information about the movie, and quite a long article at that. tDCM is a very popular flash movie, and if you can find the proper version, I'm sure it would be a great re-adition to wikipedia! I am willing to work with an admin to halp him/her find the right version! Please contact me via userpage if you can help me get the proper page restored! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatarfan6666 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion, the problem wasn't that the page was nonsense, it's that there was no coverage of the animation in reliable sources or any other evidence that it met the notability standards. Until some one can produce reliable sources that prove otherwise, the page stays deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 March 2007

Taylor Olson – Speedy endorse deletion of ludicrous vanity article. – Guy (Help!) 21:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Because it is vitally important to the success of this website, it will attract many new viewers and it is a good contribution. Victorvondoom2007 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jessica9.jpg – request withdrawn – GRBerry 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was listed for speedy deletion yesterday on grounds that the user that uploaded said she was 9-years old. This is not valid reason for speedy deletion. I removed the tag, but it was deleted anyway. The user's user page has also been deleted, for the same reason, but Wikipedia doesn't have any such policy - in fact that policy was explicitly rejected: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. Nssdfdsfds 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse regardless. Editor has only two edits, the first of which was to add this image to child. We already have plenty of images on that article. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. The user had three edits. The other edit was to create a userpage (which has also been summarily deleted - not just blanked). A user is entitled to have a picture of herself on her userpage without it being deleted. The picture can be removed from child if it is not one of the better pictures on there, but there's no reason to delete it.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There does not appear to have been a valid reason for a speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I suspect the account was a trolling attempt of some kind, although exactly what the point of it was I can't tell. New user creates an account, making sure to specify their supposed age (9) not only on their user page but in their user name as well, then uploads a picture (supposedly of themselves?) and adds it to two articles, Child and Girl. Does not seem like something a real 9-year-old would likely do, IMHO. In any case, both articles have plenty of pictures already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, I can't think of any reason why it should be a troll. What's it supposed to be trolling? If you were trolling, you'd probably be posting to lots of pages pretending to be "9-year old Jessica". You wouldn't upload one picture and go away. Seems like the user is exactly what she seems, a 9-year-old girl who wanted to add something to wikipedia, but found that her images and user page were deleted without anybody getting in touch on her talk page to say why.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily endorse deletion, I have blocked the uploader as a sock of Belginusanl, who uploaded this image (and others of the same person) before under a different filename, claiming it to be of a 12-year-old. --Core desat 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well spotted, close this one as it's the same image then. Nssdfdsfds 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Mario Party minigames – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleting admin's closure was entirely opinionated. Radiant! mentioned WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but I don't see any. However, several Delete votes (and the nomination itself) was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Out of all the rants and raves and almost identical votes, it should have been No Consensus as no consensus was formed. The closing admin obviously thought they had an overriding vote, and that is NOT true. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, Radiant made the right decision to close as delete, seeing as the keep arguments weren't grounded in any policies at all. There was a total of one reliable source provided, and it was only peripherally related to the minigames. That tidbit can go in Nintendo#Controversy. Picaroon 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WHAT‽‽ There was more than one reliable source. There were 5ish in the references section. If someone thought that those sources were unreliable, that should have been brought up during the AfD. That didn't happen. McKay 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh my, how did I miss that answers.com link? Answers is practically the definition of reliable sources! We must overturn!</sarcasm> Picaroon 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So are you implying now that there were only 2 links? What happened to the other three I'm claiming existed byond that? Also, IIRC, there was reasoning provided for the answers.com link, and why we should treat that article as different than other answers.com links. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. [Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.]
- "The "delete" arguments are founded in policy and guidelines," Where? Could you be more specific. All of the delete arguments had WP:CONSENSUS stating that the reasons were not founded on policy and guidelines. At best they had Essays saying listcruft.
- "the "keep" arguments boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL" No, the keep arguments boiled down to "The content is encyclopedic." "The Content is notable." "the content is Attributable."
- He also makes reference to two supposed quotes, that [Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.] don't appear as quoted:
  1. "no reason given for deletion"
  2. "it was kept in the past"

[Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.] Sure, while there are some who said that, I would not think that those are all the arguments, or even the bulk of them.McKay 18:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (modified 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) by McKay)[reply]

- Whoa. Flatly accusing someone (in bold no less) of lying is pretty uncalled for. Yes you are supposed to WP:AGF but you are also supposed to remain WP:CIVIL and that is clearly uncivil. If you disagree with Radiant's interpretation of the AfD then say so, but flatly calling him a lair is wholly uncalled for. Please be careful to avoid WP:NPA. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacium said both of those things, then other people cited his/her reason later in the discussion. Extraneous bold AND italic words! WHOA —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes, I apologize, I stand by what I said, but I should not have done it how I did it. As Arkyan pointed out, this topic did have extensive debate. Anyone can see that I put a lot of effort into this AfD. When I saw that the result was "delete" I was very surprised, as I thought it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The purpose of the AfD is a discussion on whether or not the article should stay. But it seemed as if he was ignoring everything I had said in the article. I couldn't find any real substance in what he had said that made the article worth deleting. A couple of his arguments had quotes, and I wanted to see what he was talking about, but couldn't find what he was referencing. McKay 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: Per nomination. Henchman 2000 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ifyou look here you will find that he biased his decision on Delete. Henchman 2000 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of this list which belongs on GameFAQs or some such, and strongly admonish anyone who describes legitimate differences of opinion as "lying", an attitude which is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - closing admin made a judgement call on a difficult subject clouded with a lot of heated comment and debate. I support that decision. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I really wish Radiant had not both deleted this article and nominated other such similar articles for deletion. I base this on my belief that whoever closes an XFD should not have participated in the discussion. If an editor has anything in particular to say, s(he) ought to note it in the discussion and leave the closing to someone else. That said, I find McKay's accusation of deceit to be inappropriate, lacking foundation, and in rather poor taste (especially with regard to the means of its expression).

However, let's consider the close itself. In terms of numbers, this was a clear "no consensus" with 12 keeps, 12 deletes, and 1 redirect. But, since AFD is not a headcount, let's also consider the arguments.

Arguments to delete. The two main arguments to delete were: indiscriminate information and lack of attribution. Through the course of the AFD, steps were taken to address the latter problem and a number of references and two paragraphs of prose about the minigames were added. I believe the first was also addressed when the game guide content that was initially present in the article was removed, leaving only the list of minigames with brief descriptions. A game guide "contain hints or complete solutions", but the article that was deleted included few or no such statements.

Arguments to keep. I disagree with Radiant that the arguments to keep consisted only of "ILIKEIT", "bad process", and "it was kept before". Keep arguments included direct or implicit references to following (and I'm paraphrasing): "the minigames are the central focus of Mario Party"; "the information is encyclopedic but the main article is already long"; "the article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content (instructions/hints)"; and "the topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable".

Conclusion. I initially started this lengthy comment not knowing what I would recommend, but have come to a clear conclusion that the decision to delete should be overturned. I find the argument discounting the "keep" arguments to be inaccurate and also rather dismissive, though I note again that I do not believe the close was made in bad faith or that there is evidence to suggest such. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. He shouldn't have participated in the latter Mario Party list AfDs, but he made a good call in closing it, simply because no one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia. No matter how many people vote to keep based on "it's necessary and encyclopedic just because", the fact that they didn't shows that this closure was in good faith. Anyone remember Bonus Stage? 50% delete, 50% keep, but it was deleted because the keepers didn't assert that it was encyclopedia, notable, or necessary. Remember - this is not a vote. It is a discussion, and if the closing administrator feels that you have failed to prove your points, it gets deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50% keep, 50% delete = No Consensus. Henchman 2000 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD = Not a vote. The Kinslayer 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while you are correct that the vote isn't everything, if he felt that the arguments provided against all of the delete votes were invalid, he should have said though. From my perspective it appeared as if they were ignored. Maybe they weren't, but if they weren't ignored, I think he should have stated so. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia? How about the list of things I wrote?

The minigames are the central focus of Mario Party;
The article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content;
The topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable.

- An interpretation that these were only "ILIKEIT" or "USEFUL" is dismissive and inaccurate. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist for further discussion, though I have no opinion on the article itself. It is obvious from the lack of agreement here that there was also no agreement at AfD, where the same arguments were used, and rather than discuss the merits here, it should be sent back for re-argument based on the current version. DGG 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion When closing an AfD, or judging any consensus for that matter, you need to take into account the value of the arguments in relation to policy. I think Radiant did this well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse self. To clarify a bit, I didn't quote people in my closing but listed some of the ideas people argued from. Actual quotes along those lines include "There is no reason to delete these articles" (Bowsy), "Nominator has provided no reason for deletion" (Dacium), "We have no reason to think that this article should be deleted" (McKay) and "Nominator should post links to past AFDs ... nothing has changed - so still keep" (Dacium). WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments include "Keep as this is a useful list" (Burntsauce) and "Mario Party has extended into quite a long series" (Valley2City). >Radiant< 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I've struck my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (2nd nomination), and that my nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames was intended to be procedural because it was noted that those party game articles should all be treated similarly. >Radiant< 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured you were paraphrasing. However, I think it's unfair to characterise those users' arguments as consisting of nothing beyond those quotes. See, for instance, these other statements by those users, which are claims with direct relevance to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and/or refutations of the reasons for deletion (material in parentheses is added by me):

Bowsy: "Mario Party is about minigames more than anything else." (notability)
Dacium: "Information is too big to fit in normal articles for games." (proper content organisation)
Burntsauce: "I see nothing that strikes me as "game guide" material here, and we can quickly remove it should it ever creep in." (WP:NOT)

-- Black Falcon 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a non sequitur. MP is notable and it consists of minigames; it does not follow that an enumeration thereof is encyclopedic.
No, the logic isn't perfect. You are correct in saying "If X is notable, it doesn't mean all the Ys in X are notable" but it seems implicit that he's saying that the minigames themselves are notable. Sure, he should probably show why he thinks that, but his opinion is a valid one. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second is also a non sequitur. If information does not fit in one place, it does not follow that we need a new place to put it. Guidelines like WP:AVTRIV and WP:FICT are relevant here.
Yes, funny you should mention WP:FICT. I quote in part: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice." On some of the MP lists it was specifically ruled that it was too long and unweildy for the main article. Do you think a better guideline fits? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The third is a proof by assertion. Other people argue that this is game guide material. Indeed, if gamefaqs.com is any judge, I would expect to find exactly this in a MP game guide. Just because a good game guide would contain more information doesn't mean this information isn't game guidish.
Ahh, now that's a non sequitur. Just because there is a proof by assertion doesn't mean that the content isn't true. On the other hand, you mention that others argued that it was game guide material. I argue that not only were all their comments a proof by assertion logical fallacy, in most cases, those who thought it wasn't game guide content asked what they thought was gameguideish, and their comments never even made it to the Argumentum ad nauseam phase. And in most of those cases, no reply was given. WP:CONSENSUS states that without adding additional thought. I argue that consensus was reached in favor of keep. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is that I tend to discount fallacies when closing a discussion. >Radiant< 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the purpose of this Deletion review is to determine whether or not policy was followed. The argument being made here is that policy isn't being followed. IIRC, the purpose of the closing adminstrator isn't to "discount fallacies" made in the discussion, but to gather the feel of the AfD to see where consensus lies. Not (like Radiant himself claims) make additional judgements on the content provided therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)
- The purpose of the closing administrator is to weigh the arguments. Obviously, valid arguments weigh stronger than fallacies. >Radiant< 11:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  And I'm saying that there aren't any fallacies on the "keep" side. I think you used a judgement call to say what was a fallacy and what wasn't. If someone thought the arguements were fallacies, they should have said so during the discussion. McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - Still a game guide in my opinion. The Kinslayer 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion That article was absolutely useless, and I actually like the Mario Party series, but, that being said, I also know that a list of the minigames is totally unnecessary and I'm still feeling a WP:ILIKEIT vibe from the overturn votes, since no one has, once again, brought up anything that merits the article's existence. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrary to what you may think, the purpose of a deletion review isn't to say "Overturn, notable" or "Endorse deletion, still a game guide" Those are not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the process was followed. Particularly in the outcome -- Did the closing administrator properly follow procedure and determine whether or not consensus existed? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah sure why not. (Did you really think challenging my view was going make me say 'By gods your right, restore it immediately I say!'?). Looking through the AfD, no-one adequetly (in my view) rebutted the deletion issues, therefore the admin was right to delete. The Kinslayer 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you did exactly what I was thinking you should do. I pointed out that your argument wasn't valid for a Deletion Review. I was hoping that you'd go through the AfD, and the result to determine whether or not you think that the process was followed. I believe that the process wasn't followed properly, beacuse the closing admin:
      1. Didn't give an accurate summary of what happened
      2. Claims that he did some original research on the content to determine what consensus really was. McKay 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So what, he didn't give an accurate summation of the events because you disagreed with him? He assessed your arguments, which WERE "I like it", "It's useful", and "Mario Party is notable, and the mini-games are important to MP, making them notable by association". None of which are appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We specifically denounced that those were what our claims were. His job was not to assess arguments, but to determine whether or not consensus was reached, and I don't think he did that. Consensus was not reached in favor of "delete". McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. I can't really disagree with anything that Radiant's said, here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. While some "Delete"-ers had IDON'TLIKEIT arguments, the "Keep"-ers had none at all outside ILIKEIT. I think it was a pretty clear cut case that the Keeps were out debated by the Deletes. Axem Titanium 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon has shown that the "keep"ers had other arguments, can you discount them? McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, I was not using WP:ILIKEIT whatsoever! I was using WP:N which it does qualify for. And the deletes were out debated by the keeps anyway. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn which defults to keep. The AfD was allowed to run for the full length of time, yet no consensus was found for deletion inspite of substantial discussion. Thus it must be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the post above yours should have explained that 50% No keep and 50% Delete DOES NOT equal No Consensus and therefore a keep. As has been stated numerous times, AfD is not a vote, it's a debate. The Kinslayer 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  and what he's saying is that there wasn't consensus for keep. If there was consensus for keep, we wouldn't be having this little discussion would we?
Comment - Nobody wishing to keep this article has provided any sources which show notability of the mini-games outside the context of Mario Party itself. Can anybody show otherwise? I don't consider coverage in game guides or primary sources to be enough for this, and I don't considering copying and pasting portions of the main article to be enough either. Editorially speaking, it makes no sense to fork articles like this. Overall, people wanting to keep this article did not have strong arguments. One group claimed the nom didn't really give a valid reason for deletion (maybe, but it was quickly followed by a decent reason for deletion, so that doesn't really matter). One group gave various reasons for keeping, most of which were variations "it's good, I like it". Black Falcon attempted to source, but as I pointed out, this just resulted in forking content from the main article. --- RockMFR 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did we not have strong arguments, the deletists didn't have strong arguments anyway, they were saying "I don't like this article, I don't want it here, I know, I'll use a lame excuse to try and make it seem like something is wrong with the article". On the other hand, we were saying, "This is a notable subject, it is sourced and you are using reasons that aren't true to try and get the article deleted". Which is better? Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - 50/50 is a clear consensus to delete when the reasoning of the 50% urging us to keep can't produce a reason related to our policies and guidelines for why we should do so. It's not all about the numbers. Chris cheese whine 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we used WP:N so we were using policies and guidelines. AfD is mainly about numbers and ranting, of which there was way too much to forge a (proper) consensus from. However, the deletists were clearly usein WP:IDONTLIKEIT and policies and guidelines that did not actually apply to the article like WP:ATT. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Done well, and an Admin who has the brass cajones to actually read the arguments and realize the the Keep votes amounted to nothing more then WP:ILIKEIT rather then making this a straw poll gets points. -M^ask 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin who fails to understand how AfD works and makes an opinionated closure and who fails to realise that the entire nomination was a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument most certainly does NOT deserve points. Henchman 2000 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination may well have been inspired by WPIDONTLIKEIT. However, unlike the WP:ILIKEIT crowd, the nominator was able to provide ACTUAL policy failings to support the nomination. And if you feel that WP:ILIKEIT OR WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be considered above actual Policy related arguments when summing up a deletion debate, then I hope your never an admin. As has been stated numerous times, numerical counts of people supporting or opposing a proposed deletion is NOT the point of the AfD. Even here in the review, the people wishing for the article to be restored haven't been able to muster a better argument then "Admin had no right to delete the article, the people saying 'Keep' was at least equal to people saying 'Delete'.' The Kinslayer 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, Kinslayer. If youare saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments shouldn't be considered over policies and guidelines, then you are saying that many delet votes shouldn't have been counted as they were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The keepists used poilicies and guidelines like WP:N, which we are doing at the moment. Also, the admin did have no right to delete the article, as there was too much cloud and mist to form a consensus from. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an attack, it was a comment on the logic you seem be displaying at the moment! I think far too many people throw NPA around needlessly just because they don't like the holes that are appearing in their own arguments, so they use it as a smokescreen. As for the too much cloud issue, only you and a very few other people hold that view. The admin at the time felt the issue was clear enough to judge, as do a large majority of the people in this review. Most of the cloud and mist, it has to be said, came from people stating 'Keep' with no reason or very weak reasons (this also happened, although as far as I'm concerned, to a far lesser extent, with some of the people saying 'Delete'.) The Kinslayer 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Closure as delete was within admin discretion, and the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments. WarpstarRider 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twin City Fan – Deletion endorsed, no prejudice against recreation if sourced – Core desat 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The company history is very notable. It is probably most regarded legend in the US fan history. Twin City Fan is the parent company of the oldest fan company in US history: Clarage, and the largest private industrial fan company in the US. More interestingly, the Barry family has successfully run the company for 3 generations. The first generation, Ben Barry is considered the founding father of moderm fan industry, who founded Barry Blower, Barry Chicago Blower, PennBarry, and last Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd. 63.252.184.178 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft! Just kidding. Overturn deletion A quick Google News search shows this to be a notable company, including being involved with some court case that made it to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment made me smile :) Anyway, overturn and relist in light of evidence for potential notability, but relist so a consensus as to whether or not it's sufficient can be reached. The prior AfD didn't have much debate on it either way. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article starts: "Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd is a group of industrial fans companies, comprising Twin City Fan & Blower, Aerovent and Clarage. Today, Clarage is the oldest fan company still in operation independently." That last line is a claim of notability entirely ignored by AFD and if Clarage is notable, then why isn't the umbrella organization it falls under? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. The article itself is completely unsourced, and reads like an advert (or at least something from an "official" company history). Being owned by a family is unremarkable; and the claim that Clarage is notable as the oldest "independent" fan company makes no sense, since Clarage was apparently bought out by this company, thus making it non-independent and unremarkable. The Google references are all either company home pages, commercial references or product directories, and one or two local business news stories like "Twin City Fan opened a plant in our city". No significant third-party coverage at all, and nothing to back up claims that this company is the "most regarded legend in the US fan history". --MCB 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of an assertion of notability, endorse deletion but without prejudice. Chris cheese whine 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. My review of the Google News hits turns up several mentions of a single legal dispute between the former owners, a fair number of reprints of press releases, some recruiting posts and a surprising number of duplicate hits about their name change. The South Dakota Supreme Court case mentioned above appears to be a routine worker's comp dispute. I'm not finding enough to meet the requirements of WP:CORP. No prejudice against recreation if non-trivial, independent sources can be found. Rossami (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AfD was ill-attended and soft on substance, but so is this nomination to overturn. No problem with a better article if better sources can be provided. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

LaPret – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Person is notable. I provided creditable press releases, magazine articles and websites and ASCAP records. Several Admins with hate for the group Profound Intent in which the Rapper-Songwriter is a member continues to vandalize the article and submit it for speedy deletion. The performer has recorded with Yung Joc, written for Tatyana Ali and has participate in a nationwide release in iTunes called Play the Field. His name is found in not just recent searches but content dating back two to three years ago. He is also well linked to singer Teairra Mari.

I even tried to start the article over and improve it and they deleted it while I was in the process to ensure that it would be approved. I've seen articles on Wikipedia with no references at all, I still don't understand that.

He is also signed to an indie label South Capitol Recordings which is parented by Block Entertainment. Once I made the label a link using [[ ]] those admins then went to the label page and added a deletion tag, however the article not started by me, had been there for sometime until I listed it has his label. I'm shocked the ASCAP article has not been put up for deletion. He and his group was briefly mentored by Kelly Price, I even supplied a picture.FranklinRose 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Profound Intent and LaPret have been through multiple valid AfDs - [13][14][15] - and the deletion logs for the pages in question - [16][17][18][19] - show a total of 15 deletions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: Wikipedia articles are created on notable topics, not the other way around. Profound Intend has no releases other than a single. LaPret, as a solo artist, has no releases at all. If a group is notable, it will release. If it hasn't managed to release yet, it is not notable in any respect. I deleted a number of attempts to continually repost this content. I've previously advised that this set of articles should be created after the subject becomes notable, not before. Nobody hates Profound Intent. What's to hate? Nobody knows about them. I hate them because I deleted the article on them? We work on consensus here, and the consensus is that this group and LaPret are not yet notable. Stop worrying about whether there's an article on LaPret and go make a release. If it becomes popular, someone will write an article on the subject. I am very disappointed over the rampant attempts to repost this content despite consensus here, most recently today resulting in a block of FranklinRose. How many times do we have to AfD, speedy delete, and DRV this person/group? --Durin
Endorse deletion, exactly what Durin said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, evidence was provided of minor notability, but not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. There's little more to say. Xtifr _tälk 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, no reason given to overturn it but "I disagree with the consensus". If you have new information, I'd be happy to see it. -Amarkov moo! 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Mario Party Advance minigames – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not fail WP:ATT like the closing admin said, also, it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists. Henchman 2000 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closers note I see no other way to close that AfD than the way I did. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, fails WP:NOT like the closing admin said. You are quite right that it's silly to not delete the others as well, so I've put them on AFD. >Radiant< 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, after you sort out all the comments it's clear that the consensus was to delete. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse I don't agree with the decision to delete, but I can't see any other way the debate could have been closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate could've been closed as No consensus, seeing as that is what everyone expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henchman 2000 (talk • contribs) 18:07, March 28, 2007

Endorse, closer was quite right. The article shows three primary (read: unreliable) sources, two of which require interpretation. They are not good enough, so the nom is wrong, and the article did fail WP:ATT. With regards to the comment about similar things not being deleted (yet): WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:FISHING cover that. Thanks to Radiant for nominating them. Picaroon 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources aren't neccesarily unreliable. If they're used to backup non-controversial information and are not needed to determine notability they can be quite reliable. If celebrity X says their birthday is March 2 while all "reliable" sources say March 1, it would be silly to not believe the primary source. (Just a comment on the reasoning, I am not commenting on the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I do agree with the decision to delete, but that doesn't matter either because the decision was clearly based on policy. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Despite the merits of the article or lack thereof, the discussion was closed appropriately. However, this should in no way constitute a precedent for other similar articles. If such a precedent was desired, the articles should have been nominated together. If any editor wishes to recreate the article in part or in whole while also addressing the issues raised in the AFD, s(he) may request userfication from the closing admin. -- Black Falcon 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, depending on whether we overturn the other article here on Deletion Review. It would see reasonable to discuss them together. DGG 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reason to discuss this further a new discussion can be made. Overturning a closure is done when there was a procedural problem with the closure itself, from WP:DRV "This page is about process, not about content". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - "it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists." is not a very compelling argument. WP:NOT a game guide and WP:OR are. The Kinslayer 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the DRVer's reason to undelete is completely incoherent and does not cite any form of applicable policy. "The closing admin is silly" does not constitute an undelete reason. The clear consensus was that only the Delete people had opinions based in policy. Axem Titanium 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Compelling arguments, but I'm still a little unclear. Could you please elaborate for the sake of those of us who find the debate a little less self-evident? The Kinslayer 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. In my book, a failure of WP:V or WP:OR (and therefore a failure of WP:ATT) creates a default-to-delete scenario - i.e. the "keep" camp needs to provide a compelling reason for doing so. The only thing that came close to a reasoned argument was citing precedent, which is something we don't do. Nomination seems reasonable, but lacking evidence to support it. Chris cheese whine 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a failure to the above if it didn't cite any sources relating to the minigames, but it does. Henchman 2000 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 March 2007

Wiki vandalism – continued deletion of old article endorsed – GRBerry 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted due to unverifiablity. I'd like to try and develop an article in userspace and then move it to mainspace. See User:Miltopia/Wiki vandalism - if an admin is willing to move it there, that would be wonderful. small note: In the event it's determined the old history shouldn't be uncovered, please do not delete my subpage, since it won't be posting of recreated content. Milto LOL pia 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's probably a better idea to come back when your article is written, since your subpage has nothing in it.~~ Wait, never mind, I misread your request. I could userfy the page history, but I'm honestly not sure you want it, since it was quite obviously a vandal magnet. Try starting something from scratch first. --Core desat 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unlikely that a valid article on this can be developed which is not both self-referential and obvious from the combination of "wiki" plus "vandalism". I suppose if Miltopia wants to waste time that is not our problem, but the deletion consensus was as much in respect of the subject as of the article. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to userspace, I think this could get some good sources. Ab e g92contribs 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for now, but if you can come back with some reliable sources on the topic, might be worth reconsideration. But find some reliable sources first, please! Otherwise, there's really nothing to talk about. Xtifr _tälk 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to a good article on the topic. Chris cheese whine 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fighting Words – deletion endored, redirect created – GRBerry 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn: Article about the webcomic, it was speedily deleted (A7) 5 minutes after Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists, an anthology that published it by the same admin. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, neutral on a list. The book as a reference certainly gives enough information to constitute notability at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody just tell me what the claim to notability is supposed to be? Only, that looks a lot like a valid A7 speedy to me. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that the speedy of this article inconjunction with Attitude 3 seems to me that it was just done without much thought - if an article is important enough to be featured in a book about online cartoonists, its importance is not in question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm still trying to work out the supposed claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, article consists of two sentences - what it is and that part of it happened to get published in Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists. It's a textbook A7; just put a redirect to that article in its place. --Core desat 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth does a redirect make sense here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's part of the larger compilation. There's no information about this particular comic, and the previous article had pretty much nothing to build upon. It's a simple solution. --Core desat 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, relist. I cannot view the text of the article, so will not comment on its content. My suggestion to overturn and relist at AFD is mostly for the sake of courtesy. I am aware that a speedy deletion that is contested need not be overturned, but when editors other than the article's creator also request undeletion, I feel it's a good sign that more discussion (and an opportunity to develop the article) is warranted. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. The entire text of the page was "Fighting Words is a political webcomic by Ben Smith. Material from the strip is printed as part of Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists" plus an almost empty infobox and some minor wikification. There is no reasonable assertion of notability in that text and the page has been unchanged since May 2006, leading me to conclude that no expansion is likely. Rossami (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion, redirect it to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists. --Dragonfiend 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on the deletion/relist issue, but I'm opposed to a redirect. The link between the Attitude vol. 3 anthology and Fighting Words isn't strong enough that a redirect would be representative.Epameinondas 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be right -- it just seemed that since the information in the deleted Fighting Words article ("Fighting Words is a webcomic by Ben Smith that was in Attitude 3") is already in the Attitude article, that a redirect would work. --Dragonfiend 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified – relisted at AFD per original closer – GRBerry 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn - no valid reason offered for deletion. Reasons offered were "not encyclopedic" which is pretty meaningless in an AFD debate; WP:BLP concerns, which are invalid because the article was sourced and it's very unlikely that someone is going to sue for being called heterosexual; "unmaintainable" and "too broad" which since the list only had a handful of entries is ludicrous on its face and "once gay, always gay" which is rank POV pushing. The !vote count was 11-7 which is hardly a clear-cut majority, especially in light of the poor reasons offered for several delete !votes (which should lead to those opinions being discounted) and the fact that one of the delete !votes actually supported the notion of having List of ex-gay people which is for all intents and purposes the same list. Otto4711 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of requesting that the history be restored, I thought I would state the following: The list included "people who at one point identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual but no longer do" and "people wrongly believed to have renounced LGB identity."[20] Also, there were three mentions of encyclopedic in the AfD, none of which linked to WP:NOT. For this deletion review, please provide links to policy. There might be room for an article on "Notable people whose sexual identification changed overtime prior to their death." -- Jreferee 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the official and exhaustive list of Valid Reasons that you've been perusing. Failing that, endorse deletion for the reasons given in the deletion debate. >Radiant< 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was directed at me, I never said that there was an exhaustive or official list of valid reasons. I said that the reasons offered in this nomination were not valid for this AFD. Otto4711 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse A number of reasons were given for deletion in the Afd, all of them valid. Anmong other, I questioned the assumption that a gay person would not object to being called heterosexual is probably false; there is further the problem that listing here implies the person was once gay. Therefore, BLP concerns make a list like this unmaintainable. The close was reasonable.DGG 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it seems from the above comment that you do not understand the content of the list. The list was for people who stated that they were once homosexual and no longer are. There are people, for example, John Paulk and Richard Cohen, who made careers out of stating that they were once gay and no longer are. How can someone who states in a reliable source that they were once gay and now no longer are possibly be subject to BLP concerns? How can someone who writes books extolling their own transformation from gay to straight possibly raise concerns that it might be "implied" that they used to be gay when they write and sell books in which they state flat out that they used to be gay?! It's a ridiculous non-concern. BLP does not demand that biographies of living people be deleted in their entirety if there is unsourced or poorly sourced material. It demands that the unsourced or poorly sourced material be removed. Since the items on the list were properly sourced BLP cannot properly be used as an excuse for deleting the items or the list that the items make up. Also, at no point in the AFD was the notion that a gay person might get upset at being called heterosexual raised so why that's coming up here is a mystery. Otto4711 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. Most of the delete !votes used arguments that were subsequently rebutted, or which could trivially be solved without deletion, or which are somewhat week (e.g. "Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay" or "This doesn't provide useful imformation" (AKA WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or "Delete per BLP" -- BLP would only require the article to be sourced, which a number of contributors suggested it was). The keepers were outnumbered, but only by a small amount. I don't see consensus, no. JulesH 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Kind of a tough one. Nom makes a good point that many of the delete !votes were weak but I believe the points were still valid. Also concede that the consensus was weak, so while I will endorse the deletion, I would also not mind seeing it relisted to generate more consensus one way or another, but not flat-out overturning. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind seeing it relisted then maybe you should vote relist instead? Otto4711 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I still endorse the deletion. As I stated I view it to be something of a borderline case, where my support is behind the closing admin but I would not oppose relisting. Consider it a "weak ensorse" if you must. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of a list of this nature which is not footnoted to reliable sources on every single name, which this wasn't, should be automatically endorsed per WP:BLP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with this statement is that every single name on the list was sourced, either in the article itself or in the linked page to the subject's own article. Otto4711 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Linked in the article' is a smokescreen for endemic poor sourcing and not good enough for lists of this nature. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so undelete the article and I'll move the sources from the individual articles to the list. Problem solved. Otto4711 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Poor debate, for sure, but the fundamental fact is that this was a list of people asserting a sexuality for which no reliable sources can be found any more. Heavy on "said to be", light on sources. And what, precisely, is supposed to be encyclopaedic about lists of people who might once have gone gay but don't any more? I don't see it myself. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, read Reparative therapy to get some idea of the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Second, the sourcing for people's former sexuality does not vanish with the change of sexuality. Source for John Paulk in which he identifies himself as a "former homosexual," which he also states in the book that he wrote (which as far as I know still exists and did not vanish in a poof of fairy dust). Source for Richard Cohen, in which he is identified as having transitioned from homosexuality to heterosexuality, which he has also written about in his as-yet-not-turned-to-fairy-dust book. Source for Michael Johnston in which he is reported to have given a speech about his "journey...out of homosexuality." The sourcing is there and the encyclopedic nature of the topic is there. Otto4711 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion as far as I can see that any of these individuals have undergone "reparative therapy". Such a claim would certainly require robust sourcing. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately being obtuse? This was not "List of people who had reparative therapy" (although many on the list did in fact have it). This was a list of people who used to self-identify as gay and no longer do. The reparative therapy link was offered to show that the notion of gay people turning straight is an encyclopedic topic. "Ex-gay" redirects to that article. Otto4711 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Isn't this a subpage? I thought they were explicitly not allowed. JuJube 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, undelete it and move it from being a sub-page. Otto4711 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! There is obviously no consensus to delete in that debate - thus an explained delete closure just begs to be overturned. Given the lack of consensus, is there an overriding policy reason to delete anyway? Now, I'm torn - this is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. But then, if it is properly sourced, is it any more of a problem than any list of people by sexuality? If we get the wrong people on this, then we'll have problems, but same goes for the 'lists of gay people' which I suspect we have. POV issues rise here - but looking at it, it seems to me that the deletion argument is also guilty of that. Ok, my vote weak overturn as 1) no consensus to delete b) no overriding reason to delete without such a consensus. But I wont cry if this says dead. I hate lists - and especially lists by sexuality (or ex-sexuality).--Doc^g 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Otto. Deletion reasons included:

"not encyclopedic" (vague and unexplained)
"just a way to beg for trouble" (so is any biographical information!)
"sub-page... in the mainspace" (moving is a solution here)
"WP:ATT" (the article and it was rather well-sourced)
"WP:NPOV" (huh??)
"large/unmaintainable list" (the list was being regularly maintained and being large is hardly a reason to delete)
"Once gay, always gay" (here's one response that comes to mind: <uncivil remark not written> (no offense); also see WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAP)
"doesn't provide useful imformation" (no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT)
"susceptible to BLP" (so is all biographical content!)

I should note that while going over the AFD page for March 21, I skipped over this discussion because it appeared a clear case of "keep" to me. -- Black Falcon 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as closer, I think I made an error here (after looking at the debate again, and noting the problems here). Not sure if I should simply undelete this, or not...? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can take unilateral action since its now at deletion review. But I'm still on the fence on this one. Per WP:LIST, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Do you think it would be reasonable to read the AfD as saying that the consensus thought it is unlikely that an unambiguous statements of membership criteria could be developed to overcome WP:BLP concerns? -- Jreferee 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say as I find it at all reasonable to put words in the mouths of the people who !voted in the AFD. Had they wanted to raise the issue at AFD, they could have. To answer the specific concern, however, off the top of my head the membership criteria would be something along the lines of "for people who once self-identified as LGBT but later began self-identifying as heterosexual." The wording can be tweaked but it seems relatively unambiguous to me. Otto4711 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikyBlog – Deletion endorsed – Daniel Bryant 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article seems to have been deleted because WikyBlog's notability was questioned.

User User:Kesh confused it as an "innovative use of Mediawiki" and not an independently developed project.
User:Retiono_Virginian "doubt[ed] it exsist[ed]" but did not refer to the links on the article to WikyBlog.com and the sourceforge project page
I find it somewhat ironic that DidiWiki used a reference to WikyBlog to defend it's own deletion.
Note as well that, using DidiWiki's approach, the number of hits when searching google for "WikyBlog" is now around 88,000 in comparison to:
- DidiWiki (30,000),
- WiClear (46,500)
- WikkiTikkiTavi (34,000)
which all have articles on Wikepedia and have been deemed notable.
Moreover, a google search for "powered by wikyblog" returns over 27,000 results.

It is for these reasons of interpretation, popularity, and measurable user base that I respectfully request the undeletion of the WikyBlog article. Oyejorge 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD. Google hits alone are simply a rule of thumb and are not part of the notability guidelines. --Core desat 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Unanimous AFDs are usually only overturned/relisted with the presentation of multiple reliable independent sources. This doesn't seem to have that. Wickethewok 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid unanimous AfD (and it was even relisted twice, and still got no support despite being open for 3 weeks!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AfD valid; noone of the above make it notable; also, I only get 27 google results (not that that's important...) JulesH 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The close by Punkmorten was certainly valid. As noted by Wickethewok, undeletion in this case should really be accompanied by the presentation of multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially. -- Black Falcon 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeffree Star – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was CSD'd under nn-bio after an afd. That was in September 2005. Since then, Star has released an EP, appeared with AFI and Godhead, made #1 on the iTunes dance chart [21], and been covered by the LA Weekly [22], Buzznet [23], and MusicEdge [24]. Overturn Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23
Last full deletion review (links to all prior): Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22

GRBerry 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, again. Still no reliable sources which are really about him. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion yet again; however, you can write a new article in user space that cites reliable sources (the Buzznet article hardly qualifies as a reliable source, it's an ad for the EP) and come back here with it - it could then be restored and/or given a full AFD discussion. However, do not unsalt the article until that condition is met. I'm being a little harsher here because that possibility has been brought up a few times, and no one has attempted it. --Core desat 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LA Weekly is a reliable source. But now I expect to hear some excuse as to why it's not good enough. I see a lot of excuses popping up as to why this topic must be so vehemently excluded. None of them really justify WP:PP to me. Semi-protect I could see. WP:PP is a bit extraordinary for someone who is much closer to notable than, say, my boss or my kid brother or my high school principal. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating general plea for Wikipedia to bring their sourcing in line with the 21st century so obviously notable individuals can be covered properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating general comment that being in line with the 21st century does not make unreliable sources reliable. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's part of the problem, we're still considering otherwise reliable sources unreliable. But I've led us too far OT already. Just generally frustrated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse yet again. Viral marketing aside, no reliable non-trivial sources about this person. As with Dr Steel, I think we are being targeted by fans to try to promote a "famous for what?" subject into notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Yes, LA Weekly gives him a passing mention and Buzznet is clearly not reliable. But that still leaves iTunes and MusicEdge as reliable enough to base an article off. A number one at iTunes is clearly notable and there's sources to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion deletion endorsed just a few days ago (see DRV March 24th). Suggest future DRV attempts be speedy-closed: a new DRV every 4 days is disruptive and unreasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's noting the DRVs on the article talk page. (They can't, of course, because of the curious use of PP.) I might have known what the issues were. Clearly there are issues so bad that they require extreme lengths to prevent the creation of the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be worth placing a note on the talk page - I'll do it once I gather links to all the DRV discussions. The frequency this appears on DRV is a reason why deletion is usually endorsed. --Core desat 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per [25] this LA Weekly article (and photo). I realize that he's still borderline in terms of media mentions, but given the buzz (evidenced by over a million Google hits), I think the notability is close enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a passing mention, actually, despite the photo. --Core desat 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, if a notable magazine in a major city is making "passing" mentions by name and printing photos of someone, I would argue that they must have some notability. The Weekly determined he was notable enough to showcase in the photo. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found another mention in Slate.com [26]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh please. Both of those are "also-ran" namechecks and nothing more. His viral marketing campaign really is not getting result, perhaps he should hire a new publicist. Or get his kit off on YouTube, that seems to work. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        His viral marketing campaign did succeed in getting him a #1 spot on iTunes downloads, for what that's worth. Honestly, I don't care whether or not he has an article. I thought the Lonelygirl15 thing was incredibly stupid, but eventually it got to the point where I couldn't deny it's notability. I think JS is getting close to that point, if not already there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, we don't include things because they are "getting close" to being notable. They have to be notable and the information attributable now, not later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Without sources that are actually about the subject and aren't just passing mentions, there isn't much of an argument. --Core desat 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since when is reaching number 1 in an iTunes chart not notable? And how are MusicEdge and iTunes not reliable sources to attribute to? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nothing here--Doc^g 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - passing mentions are still trivial no matter who's doing the mentioning. Chris cheese whine 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and redeletions. As several have already said, passing mentions are not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. As to the claim that he hit "#1 on the iTunes dance chart", everyone can be number one if you parse your selection criteria narrowly enough. iTunes alone lists 23 different chart types, each with 22 charts (by country). That alone does not convince me that the subject yet meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:MUSIC's relevant criteria is: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." That is not well defined... that is to say, what chart(s) qualify as "national music charts", though it does say "any national music chart". So... unless you are saying that the US iTunes dance chart is not "any national music chart", it would seem to fit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 March 2007

Toyota Axina – Deletion endorsed. Speedily. – Picaroon 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted as a hoax or nonsense piece. It isn't. I work in the motor industry and can confirm this car does exist. It's not in production yet. It's notable, ALL RIGHT!! Okay, can we discuss this now, pleeeease!!! Flakysnow-494 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Based on this, obvious hoax. Compare that to Toyota Tercel. - Denny 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, blatantly obvious. --Core desat 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. Valid closure and no new sources provided to review here. -- Satori Son 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fred the Monkey – withdrawn, deletion endorsed – Picaroon 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

So... This is a bit confusing, but please bear with me. Determining if Flash cartoons and artists are notable is quite difficult: web rankings can often be misleading, and the popularity of certain things is hard to ascertain. Fred the Monkey, I think, fits into the category of "notable, but just barely". The cartoons are produced by the animation of a single artist, and it takes a lot of time to make a single episode. Because of this, updates are very, very rare. The site has been up for roughly 4 years, and there's only been 20+ cartoons. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Fred, but the last time I checked for a new cartoon was about three months ago. And since web rankings are obviously based on hits, we can guess that FTM will be lower than, say, Newgrounds. This isn't because less people know about it; rather, it is because FTM simply has less hits due to it being a single artist's work, as opposed to several. That does not, however, make it any less notable. Google search results would back this up. Several cartoons have been featured on Newgrounds, the Cubetoons article still exists (albeit due to being featured on IGN), and the Fred the Monkey forums are some of the most active I've been on. Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn by nominee. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V requires independent reliable sources, of which there are exactly zero. And neither forum activity nor google hits make something notable anyway. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - WP:WEB not fulfilled, neither is WP:V, so it was deleted for appropriate reasons despite SPAs. Wickethewok 06:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the AfD debate. Lack of sources not remedied. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. We do not follow a principle of "notable unless proved otherwise"; if something cannot be proved notable, it is not. Tizio 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all, I was in a huge rush when I typed this and forgot to check the guidelines. I'll withdraw this nomination for now and open a new one once I can find proper sources and sites. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robin Murphy – previously restored – GRBerry 23:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The stub did indicate why the subject was notable. The article was deleted within 5 minutes of creation; no one gave me a chance to improve the article Abridged 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More info: A message was left on my talk page that the article was tagged at 17:16. The article was deleted at 17:17. Also note that the deleting admin could not have given this much careful consideration since he deleted 5 other articles the same minute by his log of user contributions, and clearly did not take the time to confirm that the criteria for speedy deletion had been met before deleting. Abridged 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - unless an article is pure vandalism, it shouldn't be deleted so quickly when active improvement is still going on. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't have any problem with the rapid response, but "Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. // Bibliography // Homeopathic Medical Repertory, 1993 (1st edition), 2005 (3rd edition), [1][2]" is a clear and unambiguous assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn If that was the entire content, more will obviously be needed to fully establish notability, so I would have added a prod tag, not a speedy, to give it a chance. Dont bite the newbies. DGG 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was just the claim to notability. The article was a biostub: Robin Murphy (born, 1950, Grand Rapids, Michigan) is a Naturopath and homeopath. Dr. Murphy became interested in homeopathy as an undergraduate. He studied homeopathy at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) where he earned an ND in 1980, and directed the homeopathy program there from 1980-1984. He has also taught at Bastyr University. He directs the Hahnemann Academy of North America. Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. Three books, two refs, one link to a bio. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy not justified. --Lee Hunter 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Not an A7, but awfully, awfully spammy. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you think that? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is a "A7"? Here's a link to the way the page looked when it was deleted [27]. I don't see how "spammy" applies, and I consider that a violation of WP:BITE. Abridged 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "A7" is one of the criteria for speedy deletion: WP:CSD#A7. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This article made a clear assertion of notability, so it's not a speedy candidate. If the notability is in doubt, it should be discussed on AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment; I think a speedy close here would be justified as everyone agrees. DGG 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as the deleted article did enough to make it not a CSD A7. I would be inclined to argue for its deletion on a AfD (as "fully spammy," maybe) but that would be the place for it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, but without prejudice against listing at WP:AFD. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I placed the speedy on it because I didn't feel notability was clearly asserted, although it is a close call. Also, the article was apparently deleted due to a prod a week earlier as well. I have no problem with the article remaining if the concerns about notability are addressed. Hatch68 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What needs to be asserted is "importance", not "notability": Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria --NE2 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to endorse the speedy-deletion based on the evidence available at the time. However, the speedy-deletion has been contested in good faith so an undeletion and listing to AFD is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alpamysh – Copyvio, text emailed to editor to create non-copyvio version – trialsanderrors 08:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the page was deleted too soon, despite having undergone major improvements and citing all its sources, including the main source on which it was based. The page should have remained for at least another day to allow for it further improvement, or at least be moved to my personal Talk page to improve it there. Currently, I have no backup of it, and simply can't re-write it as there were several sources and quotes that I found before and can't find them all again. It is better to restore the page, and I will re-write it even more. Note that the original request for deletion came only after the first, preliminary version of the page, whilst by the time the article got deleted, it was in its 2.0 version. To make the story short, if the page gets restored, I will quickly make it conform fully to all Wiki standards, it won't be very hard, since the article had a good collection of quotes and research in it, and will need only minor shortening and adjustment. --Wisconsin96 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted as a copyvio, which seems to be partially true. Do you want me to email you a copy of the text? If you rewrite it, make sure you don't lift passages from other sources without attribution. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Golden State Ambulance – question answered, undeletion not requested – GRBerry 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just wondering what happened to this article. I can't find it on the list of deleted articles and it's not even showing up under my account at all. I can't find any record of it at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Javastein (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted as a company not showing significance by User:Rspeer according to the logs. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: suggest this be closed, as Javastein didn't present any arguments for undeletion—merely asked what happened to the article. But also suggest that this not be considered to prejudice a possible relisting at Deletion Review with reasons, if anyone wants to try, and has reasons to offer us. Xtifr _tälk 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hadouken! – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been deleted a number of times which really is rather stupid. Its also been protected from being recreated. Read the articles talk page to see how badly this deletion needs overturned. It was deleted orginally for unnotability but it cant be categorised under this, not anymore. They've been interviewed on XFM and performed live, as well as getting play on Radio 1, working with Bloc Party and Klaxons, currently on a headline tour, their debut single sold out on PRE-ORDERS they now have a new member and are widely considered the hottest new band in the whole of the UK by NME. Read the talk page, the people have spoken and they want this article. Now.--Shookvitals 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Shookvitals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Overturn and list. This band certainly meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable sources? MySpace, YouTube, their own web site and the web site of their record company do not qualify. They have no entry at allmusic.com. Corvus cornix 19:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a number of scans from NME, Articles from various websites as well if that counts?--Shookvitals 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got more sources? List them. Otherwise, I'm going to have to say Endorse. Show the article can pass WP:BAND, that's all you need to do. Scans aren't necessary, an article cite should be fine. --UsaSatsui 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously endorsed in January with the same arguments/purported sources. Unless new sources are offered this will be speedily closed. "Stupid" is no reason to reconsider this. ~ trialsanderrors 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Its proponents say Hadouken is the inventor of a genre or something. Ridiculous. How many times do we have to go through this? JuJube 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So delete that. The band can still be notable without that claim. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid deletion, "getting popular" is not a reason to change that. Bring sources. Reliable ones, independent of the band. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've asked NME for verification of the claimed magazine scans. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have more sources, a particularly interesting ones from Gigwise which prove a number of things
1. They were one of the headlining bands on a Myspace new music tour[28]
2. They released a single[29]
3. Fantastic one here showing the effect theyre having at the minute[30]
4. 4th on the NME chart show ahead of the new My Chemical Romance video[31]
I'll willing supply more if needed--Shookvitals 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the NME chart count as a "national music chart"? If it does, they pass WP:BAND under criteria #1. --UsaSatsui 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Get cracking, the more times you vote, the more influence you'll have..." does not instill confidence. Looks like poll stuffing to me. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, and the 25-30 selections you can choose from aren't helping either. Nevermind, that chart is junk. --UsaSatsui 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per guy, and the nominator's comment "stupid" makes it pretty tough to assume good faith here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait let me get this straight, the page is not being unprotected because I said that it was 'stupid' that it was? I'm sorry but since when has 'stupid' been such an offensive word. I could have said something a lot more offensive but I didn't. Im trying to be as useful as I can here but I just feel that everyone is always against the 'new guy'. Isnt their a rule on wikipedia 'Don't be a dick' or something. Im pretty sure most of you would fail it.--Shookvitals 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I see any serious assertion of notability in the deleted versions of the page so I can't disagree with the various deleting editors. But the speedy-deletion is being contested in good faith so overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD where definite evidence will be needed to show that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of fiction that builds the fourth wall – request withdrawn – GRBerry 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article needs to be brought back, but renamed. A list of fiction that builds the fourth wall would be useless, as it would include pretty much all fiction. But a list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall - by first looking like breaking it but then not breaking it after all - is much more interesting. The AfD debate failed to consider this view. This should be undeleted and renamed to List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall oder List of fiction that restores the fourth wall. JIP | Talk 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - perhaps the reason that no one considered the viewpoint was because no one (including this DRV nominator) offered it. The article was correctly deleted, but there is no bar to the nominator or anyone else creating List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall. Otto4711 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse deletion. I was thinking of the wrong article. The list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall was in the main article, but removed without explanation. I have added it back. JIP | Talk 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barbara Bauer – deletion overturned, but enough discussion of notability for a second listing at AFD – GRBerry 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original review was closed for what the closing admin believed to be a necessary precaution based on possible office issues. The office has since spoken, and said they won't have a statement on it, so this is just to re-open it. Please see the original review for comments and concerns. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Opinions in the aborted original discussion will be taken as still valid at closing time if the editor offering such opinions has not withdrawn or updated them. Please do not feel obligated to repeat them here. GRBerry 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's rationale: I deleted this under WP:BLP and *not* for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopaedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel parts of the article are problematic, delete those parts. The article does use reliable sources for a large part of the content; non-contentious claims are sourced from Bauer's own web site (as is permitted by policy) and contentious claims are sourced from Writer Beware and the official Writer Beware blog (which is a reliable source, IMO). Some claims are sourced with primary sources, which is far from ideal, but does provide us with means of verification that the statements are true. I guess, however, that it is these parts of the article you objected to, so I'd suggest deleting those parts, rather than the entire article. JulesH 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Based on what was there before (multiple, non-trivial sources establishing notability). If there are POV/neutrality concerns that is now an editing matter. Also the current history link isn't working, an admin must fix that. We cannot see now what was there before. Please restore ASAP. - Denny 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Seeing the history, restore/undo the deletion. Someone can AfD after if they feel like it, once it's restored. - Denny 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore The article was well-sourced and meets WP:V and WP:BLP. The BLP policy doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - even by the most stringent policy interpretations there is no basis for deletion. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reaffirm) Restore - I agree with Crotalus horridus. This sets a bad precedent. St jb
keep deleted. The Barbara Bauer article was one of several articles created on Wikipedia in May 2006 by User:JulesH for the stated purpose of, "I just feel that the information about them provided by the SFWA should be disseminated more widely". The sole basis for these articles (the others have been deleted) was a list on a website that does not provide data to back-up their claims, thus making it impossible for Wikipedians to verify the website's claims. This one website source is not the basis for posting rumors about a living person on Wikipedia, even if the claims are true. I do not understand all the "inside" talk (by Wikipedia editors who know the parties involved in real-world disputes with Barbara Bauer) on the Talk:Barbara Bauer and related pages, but it is clear that there is a group of editors who have collaborated to keep negative information about Barbara Bauer on Wikipedia, using only blogs and other unreliable internet sources in their citations. These "owners" of the article have been repeatedly challenged by other Wikipedians who pointed out that use of unreliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The original attempt to delete the Barbara Bauer article was held off under the condition that the article would be built using reliable sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer), however the unreliable website sources were retained. The only reason this page exists is to repeat the claims of an unreliable website source that does not provide evidence for its claims, only a set of conclusions. There is no reason for Wikipedia to repeat these conclusions other than the desire of a few Wikipedia editors to use Wikipedia as a mechanism for amplifying the conclusions of the other website. This is not a basis for building a Wikipedia article about a living person, even if the claims are true. This has nothing to do with responding to "spurious legal threats". There are thousands of webpages that make unverifiable claims about living people. Wikipedia is not here as a mechanism for amplifying those claims. In my view, the link to "Writer Beware" at Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America should be enough coverage of this issue for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as OFFICE stated on the mail list they are not taking a position, can an admin please restore the history of the last couple versions at least so people can judge/see what was there fairly? - Denny 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is not required that Wikipedia be able to verify the web site (an official publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, an influential and well-reputed professional association); it is only necessary that we can verify that they published the information that is attributed to them in the text. This is true. I see no text in the AfD debate that suggests the result was "keep pending removal of [some] sources." The claims in the article are well-sourced to reliable sources. The only even remotely dubious source (used for "Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats in order to suppress discussion of her business's activities, especially on web sites. Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats.") is (a) a very weakly-phrased claim, (b) is undisputably a reliable WP:A#Primary_and_secondary_sources primary source for the claim being made. Besides, if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article. JulesH 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to JulesH. The cited webpage says, "Below, in alphabetical order, is a list of the currently active literary agencies about which Writer Beware has received the largest number of complaints over the years, or which, based on documentation we've collected, we consider to pose the most significant hazard for writers." That website does not show us the "complaints" and "documentation" that support their claims. The intent of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is to make sure that Wikipedia does not find itself in the position of repeating claims that are not reliably sourced. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources says: "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." I take this to mean that we need to cite a reliable third-party source that verifies the undocumented claims made by the "Writer Beware" website. What is a reliable third-party source for a Wikipedia biography? "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." About the original article deletion discussion, the article was saved from speedy deletion by an administrator who called for the article to be cleaned up; relevant comments from the discussion: "Weak keep if attacks are removed", "article is in desperate need of cleanup", "Strong Delete Wikipedia is not Google", "This is not the place to air dirty laundry and one-sided personal attacks". "if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article" <-- but in this case, the article was created for one purpose, to have Wikipedia repeat an unverifiable claim by website; this is not why Wikipedia has biographical encyclopedia articles. --JWSchmidt 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antwort - You're misinterpreting the policy. Wikipedia does not require its sources to provide sources for their information; that would be insane. SFWA Writer Beware is a reliable third-party source. Because Writer Beware is such a source, the information is clearly not unverifiable. The purpose of Wikipedia having biographical articles is to inform people who are researching a particular person about who that person is, and what they have done. I'm well aware of this, and I dispute the suggestion that the reason I created this article was merely to have Wikipedia repeat the information: I found well sourced information that seemed to me to be notable and interesting, and I created articles on its subjects. It was later decided that of those articles, only this one should remain. JulesH 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a Wikipedia biography page, a reliable third party source for negative information about the subject might be a reputable newspaper that has trained investigative reporters, editors and fact checkers. Such a source might publish an investigative report in which they examine court documents and provide the public with a carefully documented report of how many claims for damages have been awarded to customers of a business. Such a source might publish the names of people who have gone to court with claims against a company and print direct quotes from them that reveal the problems they had in trying to do business with the company. Such a source would also have a section in their article where they ask the company for their perspective on the customer complaints against the company. The Writer Beware webpage does not come close to meeting these standards for being a reliable source for a Wikipedia biography article. Wikipedia does not exist as a means to amplify unverifiable negative claims about people that are made by websites. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that Wikipedia's policy is that only newspapers can provide reliable sources for biographies. Writer Beware is a publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, one of the most important professional associations that exists for genre fiction writers. It is an important and credible source by any standards I've ever seen discussed even remotely in connection with a wikipedia policy. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - looking at the Google cache, I honestly don't see how this person meets WP:BIO standards. The sources are either self-referential, have no actual information, or are blogs, which to me doesn't stand up very well. If someone can come forward with good, reliable sources, then perhaps it's worthy, but right now? I don't see it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I note that I can't see any sources that may have been added after the Google cache was created, just for the record.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Articles which turn into Interwebs smearfests about living people should be deprecated, demolished and buried. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for criticism or praise - it is a compendium of what has already been published in reliable sources. The article in question consisted almost entirely of what has been (negatively) said about the person on blogs and message boards. WP:BLP specifically prohibits the use of these sites as sources for biographies. "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." Surely there is something which has been published in a reliable source which discusses the allegations for/against this person in a neutral manner, if this truly is not a tempest in a teapot, right? FCYTravis 21:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion - see rationale at the top.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Your rational is already logged. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Restore. (1) No OFFICE action -- if and when there is, it can be dealt with then; (2) Previous AfD closed as "keep"; (3) subject satisfies WP:BIO as a subject, due to controversy covered in multiple sources; and finally, (4) article does not violate WP:BLP for two reasons I analyze below:

The main source of her notoriety is her filing of a lawsuit, the verifiability of which is incontrovertable by reference to public records sources.
The collateral sources which form the basis of the public controversy in which she is embroiled meet WP:RS. The SFWA site is not a personal home page, blog, fan site, rumor site, etc; it is the official site of a respected and established professional organization, the equivalent in its field to (for example) the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association. The author of the SFWA piece, A. C. Crispin, is an officer of the organization, and a well-known author in her own right. As for Making Light, while it is a blog, it clearly fits the exception in WP:RS to the general prohibition on self-published sources, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Teresa Nielsen Hayden unquestionably meets those qualifications.

This article is a good example of how we can show that Wikipedia is capable of neutral, professional coverage of controversial matters, even matters in which it is a party. Restore. --MCB 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, it says "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." The Writer Beware blog is not a self-published blog; it is published on behalf of a reputable organization. Making Light may be inappropriate as a source here, and I would suggest the removal of that and the information sourced to it following restoration of the article. It is irrelevant now, anyway, as news of the lawsuit against Wikipedia, Nielsen Hayden, Jenna Glatzer, "Miss Snark" et al is sure to make some non-blog source. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment History restored behind protection. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and keep article provided that better sourcing is added. Reliability of the original sourcing was not at all clear. ~This is an instance of where we do have to be careful of BLP. The withdrawal of the Office action was not a license to ignore BLP, but rather a statement that they relied upon us to evaluate with it properly in the usual way. DGG 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was no OFFICE action. I remarked on the email list about the office not being open. Please don't make leading comments like this. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reaffirming) Restore - for the reasons I previously stated in the closed DRV.[32] A few additional notes: some of the criteria decried as being lacking in the most recent text of the article was missing due to disagreements over proper application of RS. For example: the Nielsen Haydens are certainly notable (each has an article here), but there was disagreement whether (and to what degree) their blog, Making Light, could be cited as it pertained to what happened between them and Bauer. (One editor, for reasons of his own, preferred that they and Absolute Write not be mentioned at all.) Similarly, the Writer Beware blog is a direct outgrowth of the Writer Beware section of the SFWA site, is run by two notable writers who are well known and respected for their anti-scam work for SFWA, and should not be deprecated as a source. As for BB's own notability, unfortunately it arises primarily from negative information as reported by SFWA and other sources. If one looks through the old Talk thread, there is considerable discussion of two or three secondary sources that nearly everyone associated with the article considered sufficiently reliable for inclusion. Every attempt was made to limit the article to this, but this limitation ironically has the effect of making the article seem less clear and complete, so that it ends up seeming less well sourced than it actually is. And of course, one of the the main claims that we were trying to properly source, that Bauer has been known to make (poorly founded) legal threats against those who mention her online in a negative light, is now confirmed by the existence of this very docket in Superior Court in NJ. This seems likely to engender the sort of mainstream reporting that was previously so scarce on the ground. Again, I urge that all these sources and the issues surrounding this article be considered in depth; a superficial reading does not do justice to the complexity of the situation regarding the article and its subject. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. There is no exception for "notable writers who are well known and respected." No blogs, period. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore The deletion rationale hinges on the reliability of the sources. I am convinced of the reliability of SFWA. Surely SWFA has more than enough reliability to at least discuss its worthiness via AfD. Kla'quot 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore MCB makes a very compelling argument for restoration. Statements were all sourced, and not original works of wikipedia. Article should be restored. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore This certainly qualifies as reliable and sourced. I saw no libelous statements, everything was nice and sourced. WP:BLP doesn't mean we can't have neutral article on people just because they are criticised. Oskar 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Endorse I don't feel this meets WP:BIO at all. What in that article establishes notability? The fact that her agency appears in the SFWA worst 20 agencies list can't be it all on its own, as not all of the rest of those agencies seem to have articles. The only other references there are several bios which do nothing for notability, one link that doesn't work at all, a couple blogs entries, and court information that can't be included without delving into the same area of WP:OR that Jimbo already said his piece on. There are no newspaper articles, no other secondary sources of any kind. Even assuming the blogs are reliable sources, from where exactly is her supposed notability coming from? I fully agree with the nominator that this article is completely unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Dycedarg ж 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion No content worth salvaging. Complete BLP violation. --Tbeatty 06:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and if there's still controversy put through AfD again. The notability of this individual looks potentially questionable, though being in a top twenty suggests she may be worth having an article about and surviving the previous AfD suggests I'm not alone in this suspicion. The alleged BLP violation looks bogus to me, the article's got plenty of decent sources backing up the various statements (the word "blog" is not radioactive) and I don't see any clear NPOV violations. Bryan Derksen 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. So yes, it is radioactive. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per FCYTravis. Take one unremarkable person, add one or more unremarkable events, and stir in innuendo to taste. The usual recipe for WP:BLP nightmares in fact. Logically there have to be 20 worst agencies in any list of 21 or more literary agencies, so being one of them isn't a great achievement. Usually these kinds of articles are built from newspaper reporting, which is bad enough, but this is based on blogs and dead links. As Tbeatty says, there is nothing here worth salvaging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Restore~~ (my vote was already in the previous debate). MCB and Karen have shared the facts on this matter in detail above and it makes little sense for me to rehash them. There is no BLP violation to deal with. The deletion being reviewed concerns BLP, if her notability is questioned, that can be handled on AFD. It is not the place of DRV to judge her notability. An article that already survived an AFD does not lack notability to the point it warrants speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is restored, it should be done without the bad source material (i.e. blog entries). Cary Bass ^demandez 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Bryan Derksen et al, and because there was no cause for a speedy deletion in the first place. The article having previously gone through AfD last month ago, the most that should have been done as an initial action by Admin was a further AfD nomination. Js farrar 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore multiple non-trival cites for reliable, verifiable and persistent sources. Meets BLP. Edivorce 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The sources are all fine: Bauer herself for non-controversial claims, her university for background information on her qualifications, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a large professional organisation that provides advice about finding suitable representation to writers (cited twice -- once from their own page, once from the official blog of "writer beware", one of their projects), a blog produced by an expert in the field of the publishing industry, along with primary documentary evidence of a court case. Despite two of the sources being blogs, they are both acceptable according to the definitions at WP:RS. No information is contained that is not backuped up by at least one of these sources. There has been no violation of WP:BLP here. JulesH 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - in that case, WP:BLP needs reviewing. Saying a source is unusable simply because of the format in which that source is published is so silly as to be beyond belief. Js farrar 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - I agree that this proviso needs reviewing. Surely the intent is to prevent Wikipedia from saying, "According to Barney Rubble's blog, Dick Dastardly has been seen cheating in races." Rubble has no standing of reliability in such a case. But if Rubble says, "Fred Flintstone tried to get me fired after I pointed out his illegal rock-crushing methods," and Rubble is a known expert in the field of rock crushing, then that is an appropriate source to cite. He is a) speaking within his field of expertise, and b) talking about what happened to himself in relation to the subject. This is the situation with Bauer vis-a-vis the two blogs mentioned here. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be. From WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." There is no process, approval or editing system involved in a blog. All you have to do is type and submit. That makes them, then, the least-trustworthy and least-credible sources, and for biographies of living persons, there is absolutely no call to use any source which is not absolutely and inarguably credible and reliable. If we simply publish endless piles of blog opinion about a person, what we get is not a biography but a scandal sheet, listing every gripe every person has ever had about said person, no matter how trivial, false or overblown. The only thing we can reliably say about Ms. Bauer is that she's been listed on this "20-worst" list, and that she has a college degree. FCYTravis 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be." And you're missing the point too: Publication method (which is what a blog is) is totally orthogonal to editorial process (which is what you're talking about). Some blogs *are* edited in the format you're talking about. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that this blog is attached to a reliable website. If they'd posted it to their website instead of the blog. We wouldn't be having this discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or is not self-published, which is the case for one of the two blogs in question. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - All sources pass WP:BLP and WP:RS, deletion was without merit. --Silas Snider (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I agree with Docs original assessment. Additionally, I'm not seeing why this subject meets WP:BIO and the article was certainly very overbalanced negatively while using completely unacceptable sources for those claims (per WP:BLP}. Shell ^babelfish 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if your issue is notability, then that should be discussed at AfD, after an undeletion, in order to get a wider audience for the question. The last AfD closed with a keep result. Nothing has changed, except that Ms Bauer has issued a law suit against Wikipedia, the SFWA (along with two of its officials), the operators of the blog that is cited in the article, the operator and former operator of the "Absolute Write" web site that is mentioned in the article, a person identified only as "Miss Snark Literary Agent" (!) and others whose names I don't recognise. Suing the SFWA is almost guaranteed to get an article in Publishers Weekly, so notability will be further confirmed there. JulesH 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - this is becoming a widely-discussed issue, and a wikipedia article on it would be helpful. Bias should be addressed through editing, not outright deletion. --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was clearly created as an sttack piece. It did not seek to provide a balanced view of the person, but rather to detail derogatory information. Since then it has improved somewhat but it is still unbalanced and too depepndent on inappropriates sources. Perhaps a restoration followed by another AfD would be the best way of resolving the matter. -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow article on agency; most of the claims of notability in the article pertain to the agency, not to the individual. Those that do relate to her mostly seem to do so in her role as a representative of the agency. It is the agency, not the individual, who has achieved notability, and the focus of the article should be on that. The founder's personal biographical details are not relevant. Xtifr _tälk 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per above. Grue 08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - Should have gone through AfD. --J2thawiki 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Additional third party source discussing Bauer (albeit briefly and in a manner rather hostile to wikipedia): http://www.israelnews agency.com/citizendiumlarrysangerwikipediawaleswoolbarhillelchapmanlibelisrael4877032807.html (delete space; for some reason this URL won't post without it being embedded) JulesH 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that "israelnews" is considered an unreliable blog whose writer has been banned from Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per JulesH and MCB, particularly MCB's point that Bauer's legal filings are a matter of public record, and the professionalism and expertise of the website owners providing factual information regarding Ms. Bauer. Noirdame 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The redirects done right don't involve deletion, and deletion is not requested – GRBerry 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

- I have reopened this, as this was not a merge, but a redirect, no content was merged, nor did the closing admin mention anything about merging. This may have been closed accidentally. --Xyzzyplugh 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, should have used the word redirect. Either way, you are not requesting deletion, and no deletion occurred, so there is no need for a deletion review. GRBerry 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin chose to Redirect this. First of all, this was redirected without consensus, many more editors were in favor of keeping than deleting, and gave reasons for their position. Secondly, the article was removed for violating Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, while it is not at all certain that it does. Specifically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not ban articles on words, it merely says we don't have dictionary definition articles. Removing this article violates long-standing tradition, if not policy, that we don't delete articles which clearly and obviously can be cleaned up and rewritten into high quality articles, simply because they are not high enough quality yet. Why is Thou a featured article, while "The" is essentially deleted? Etymologists have written vast amounts on the word "The", and if Thou can be good enough to be a featured article, undeniably The could too, if anyone bothered to do so. Deleting an entire class of articles, those on words, automatically unless they are already high quality and well-sourced, will prevent us from ever being ABLE to improve them into high quality articles. This violates the basic process that a huge percentage of our best articles follow: low quality stub becomes ok quality stub becomes ok quality article becomes good quality article becomes good quality well sourced article becomes excellent quality sourced article. If you auto-delete a certain category of articles half way through the process, claiming that the problem is the process isn't finished yet, then how is the process ever supposed to get finished? If we want to ban all articles on words, then rewrite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to say so, and start with Thou, a featured article, to prove we really mean it. Otherwise, this is an ok quality but not yet well enough sourced article, and we know full well there are reliable sources on this, here's one out of a large number which exist, do what we do in every other situation, keep and clean up. Xyzzyplugh 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn due to lack of consensus. Although, this is simply an editorial decision, so we should just be able to reverse the redirect - the history is there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse status quo. Redirect to article (grammar) ensures that the encyclopaedic topic of grammatical articles is kept, without the dictionary definition. Close is correct: "has potential" and "important subject" are just opinions and have no bearing on whether an article should be kept per policy. And the "in popular culture" section really was one of the worst of its kind that I can recall. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I admittedly do not fully understand the deletion review procedure - how does what you said relate to the central issue that, 1. there was no consensus to delete, and 2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not require the deletion of articles which currently contain nothing but a dictionary definition? WP:NPOV does not insist on deletion of articles which are currently POV, WP:V does not insist on deletion of articles which currently aren't full sourced, without even trying to look for sources, why would you assume Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary requires deletion of articles which are currently a dicdef(assuming that's what this was, which is not certain either, the editors advocating Keep thought it was more)? --Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by me: It is possible that I have not fully understood the deletion review process, in terms of the way I wrote the above. As it may be that I am merely supposed to explain how the deletion process was not followed properly: This article does not warrant deletion due to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:WINAD does not insist on the deletion of all articles on words. The fact that Thou, an article on a word, is a featured article, is the clearest possible evidence of this. Since WP:WINAD only requires deletion of articles which can never be anything more than a dicdef, and this clearly can be more, then no deletion is required by WP:WINAD. As no other reason for deletion was ever given, and as the presence of reliable sources clearly meets WP:V or WP:A or whatever we're using today, and as there was no consensus to delete, deletion(redirection) was inappropriate and should be overturned. --Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar. If restored, this article really should not have an "In popular culture" section. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV not needed because the article history still exists and the article is not protected. This can be handled by the standard editing process (and dispute resolution if it comes to that). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
technically not needed but the ed. bringing the DRV was not unreasonably confused because the effect of a redirect is almost the same as a deletion: it removes the staus of an article, and it removes the material. Potentially controversial redirect have a review process of their own--was this followed? was the ed. in question made aware of it? Finally, does appeal lie from Redirects for discussion to DR? DGG 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Internet troll squads – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that the article was neither an "attack" nor an original research. It summarized the investigations of Russian and Polish journalists and activists. The article's editor attributed all the paragraphs to the respective publications. I cannot find a Wikipedia policy mentioning the term "attack". The omnipresence of scabrous comments in the Russian online forums is evident. There are known cases of impersonation of Russian opposition figures and distortion of their statements.

I think instead of deleting the article, one should add more reliable sources to it such as court decisions. Perhaps, expanding the scope of the article to libel cases of vague origin would help. The article already included a reference to the work of Polyanskaya that mentions a court case of libel of Starovoitova.

On my part, I have translated from Russian a bio stub of Nikolai Girenko, a murdered Russian ethnograph who testified in court cases against nationalist groups. I am mentioning this article here because it shows the scale and nature of attacks against the civil dialogue. ilgiz 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here official decision on personal attack made by this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys. 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.

I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn obvious consensus to keep on AfD, and another outrageous deletion by User:A Man In Black. Grue 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the AfD was a trollfest, Grue's amusingly hysterical assertion notwithstanding. But we could relist semiprotected if anyone thinks it's worth the effort. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that most of those who voted "keep" are trolls? That's "hysterical assertion" if I saw one. What happened here is User:A Man In Black, who doesn't know jack about Russian or Polish politics, completely ignoring opinions of people who do. That's what I call "systemic bias", which we're supposed to counter, not encourage more. Grue 14:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, AFD is not a vote count. >Radiant< 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for the reasons I've presented above in this undelete request. ilgiz 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, AfD is also no place for ignoring votes and discriminating users' opinion. The discussion was NOWHERE NEAR a "delete" consensus.AlexPU 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, clearly no consensus for a deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Overturn. I have posted my opinion here User_talk:A_Man_In_Black/Archive20#Deletion_of_Internet_squads_article, and I am working toward improving the article under a different name. More sources are added, primarily about similar "Internet teams" in China. It would be great if Ilgiz (who perhaps knows this subject better than me) and other editors could help to improve the article.Biophys 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as stated already, this is from the AFD page, section titled, How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." not to mention the Admin's comments on the page, "I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping." Betaeleven 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - I believe there was some consensus to delete in the original debate - unless I am missing/miscounted something there were more !votes to delete. That said, there was more than a little confusion going on there and it wouldn't hurt to try and build a more solid consensus one way or another. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was made aware of Ukrained (talk · contribs) stumping for votes in e-mail on ANI, as well as this article being used as a brush with which to smear Wikipedia users. The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources and the fact that the claims made were not supported by the sources, and these arguments were poorly refuted by keep comments, if refuted at all. Thanks for the laugh, though, Grue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources". OK, let's see if it's really the case, or you're making it up on the spot:
  - "Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either" (great argument)
  - "Looks like a conspiracy theory to me." (aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  - "It's surely a conspiracy theory."
  - "OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition." (aka TLA alphabet soup)
- There were actually 7 sources, most of them inline. The delete arguments like "WP:NOR" are self-defeating. You made your decision based on some WP:ANI rumor, and closed the debate without even reading it. Just admit it, because we all know it's true. Grue 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
relist. We obviously did not have a proper discussion of this in the first place. DGG 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of the article. (1) Users Biophys, Ilgiz, Colchicum and CBR prepare new out of Wikipedia canvassing for this article. Please see the following messages: Message one, message two. I would like to stress that these users continue their out-of-wiki canvassing right there. I think they have attracted more users now. (2) As I am Russian speaking guy, I would like to notice that Biophys esentially links his article to three sources. First, eye for an eye publication which alleges that users of some forums are FSB employees, no evidence is given. Second source translation of the article by Polyanskaya which repeats the same pattern - asserts that some internet users are from FSB without any evidence. Third source is a fiction (Anastasia) written by some dissident. There are no any conclusive sources. if this is a Wikipedia, I believe we should cite not the yellow press, not the hoax reportes like UFO-nauts, but serious sources. While internet and e-mail spying is implemented in US and EU after September 11th, and everyone knows about that, we don't need to represent such an article about Russian using these dubious sources. If it would be an authoritative newspaper - that would be another case. (3) This article initially was created by Biophys in order to proclaim me (Vlad fedorov) and administrator Alex Bakharev, FSB employees for our position on some edits to the relative articles. If this article would be created, I feel that Biophys would behave uncivil to us and would continue his uncivil personal attacks. Vlad fedorov 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vlad, just what the heck do you mean by those diffs??? If users are just requesting each others mails - do they conspire to break Wikirules? If they are writing each other - should they be punished only for this? Presumption of guilt? ADMINISTRATORS!!! THIS USER SEEMS TO BE CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP, SPYING AND POLITICAL PROFILING ON WIKIPEDIA! IMHO, HE SHOULD BE PERMABANNED FOR DISRUPTION A.S.A.P.!!!AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I speak Russian too. So you should be honest with the naive Westerners, and I'll be watching you :)AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a very naive Westerner:Vlad fedorovis of course very uncivil in his argumentation, but anyone who doubts that e-mail is being used by these people to evade blocks, to attack fellow Wikipedians and, (specifically the point Vlad wants to make but getting lost in indignation), to canvas for votes: [33]. --Pan Gerwazy 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sense! How this new diff is relevant to discussion here? Your Vlad was talking of another editor and another situation! Please remove your post ASAP.AlexPU 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I've never received any mail or other messages about the article in question. BUT! Look what I got: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote." [34] They got a bunch of such reservations there. So, no rule for a decision huh? If you're against my admin POV, I'll invent a rule for you anyway? "Everything for my friends, law for my enemies"? Huh? My opinion: BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP! BTW, I should be reading rules regularly... Maybe some of admins that often block me would appear to be rulesbreakers themselves:)AlexPU 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on user AlexPU. Please see the following discussion between Biophys (author of the article about Internet troll squads) and this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexPU#Could_you_give_me_a_piece_of_advice.3F . It follows that AlexPU was attracted by Biophys to this voting out of Wikipedia using e-mail.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! BURN A MAN IN BLACK AT THE STAKE!

Typically, vote counts are ignored when it's clear that someone is actively influencing the vote count. If the solicited users had come in with convincing arguments, that'd be fine, but closing admins typically ignore the mass of numbers when it's clear that someone was stumping for votes.

By the way, Ukrained isn't being blocked or anything (at least, not by me and not to my knowledge); the "votes" he stumped up were simply ignored except insofar as the users made convincing arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you name the users whose opinions you ignored, and provide the proof that they were asked by User:Ukrained to vote as they did? Grue 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reports of solicits in e-mail, in both the AFD and on ANI, motivated me to ignore the vote count entirely. If you're asking how many noses I counted, the answer is zero. I ignored everyone's "vote" since the vote was clearly tainted and evaluated the arguments. There's no reasonable way to figure out exactly who was solicited and who was not, nor any particularly good reason to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The main argument still is that it is an attack page, and what is worse - the canvassing and the reactions of the people being canvassed prove that they not only want to keep it, but they want to keep it that way. WP:BLP and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --Pan Gerwazy 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar. Attack against whom? Original AfD nominator said: "Essentially an attack page against Putin". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_troll_squads. But it is not attack page against any specific person, as anyone can see looking at the article.Biophys 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should think about your trying to rig the voting in Wikipedia twice. Everything is evident about personalities of the individuals attacked from the Adminstrators noticeboard and your now deleted comments. I think that no one here would let you spit on the face of decent Wikipedia editors.Vlad fedorov 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It is an attack page, a WP:OR galore and a WP:BLP infringement. We had enough problems with conspiracy pages (*cough* 9/11 *cough*) to not restart them. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The rationale was clear, and some of the above comments make it clearer. DGG 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Looks clear enough to me that. I agree with the rationale to delete.--Dycedarg ж 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per JzG and others. Unsubstantiated libels against active politicians have no place in Wikipedia. I am very surprized by the attitude of Grue, which I find rather unhealthy. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice. User Biophys is going to make a new article on "Internet Troll Squads". Please see his stub here User:Biophys/tutorial.Vlad fedorov 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar: I do not want to get involved in this personal feud between you two (in fact, I find its very existence utterly abhorrent), but I would like to mention here what I mentioned on the talk page of that draft. I think the article may have a place on wikipedia if it is mentioned in the introduction that the existence of this is alleged, not an undisputable fact. I believe that it is notable (it seems to fulfill the primary criteria), but those sources, as far as I can see, do not conclusively prove it. It is notable for being an idea which has been written about and for being part of Russia's political landscape, but it shouldn't be presented as a fact. My main hobby is creating film articles, so I see no problem with writing an article about potential fiction, or even downright lies. That shouldn't be a consideration - what should be considered is whether this idea is influential. The sources seem to suggest that it is. As such, it should be written about from the perspective of not endorsing this accusation but of presenting it much as one would present the theories in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Note: I came to know of this article from Portal:Russia/New article announcements page. Esn 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to your comment:Yes and by making Wikipedia a storage place for the yellow press, X-files, allegations and hearsays, you also give to some crazy people ground to state that this Wikipedia editor is working for KGB. We would all thank you for this after someone here would be called KGB agent. The author of this article wasn't bothered for very long period after its creation, I never complained that this article was OR, or had unreliable sources. I complained after Biophys alleged and wrote section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he ignited discussion of the peronalities of Wikipedia editors. And this article was created by Biophys specifically for this purpose. I asked admins to check my IP and IP of Alex Bakharev, to confirm that we are not even from Russia. You, Esn, is not administrator and as such you cannot guarantee that Biophys and his friends won't start these violations of Wikipedia policies again. Vlad fedorov 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, that is not relevant to this deletion discussion. Second, what you are saying is factually wrong. It was an anonymous user who started that discussion, and I only reacted to his/her accusations. See: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Infiltration.Biophys 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad, I would like to remind you that it is not wikipedia policy to prevent the creation of articles about notable subjects if those subjects are likely to be vandalised. If we start doing that, the vandals have already won. Courage is needed, dear editor, not fear and appeasement. If the article is recreated, I promise to put it on my watch list (as will many others, I don't doubt) and revert any attacks against you or other wikipedia editors that may pop up. Esn 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Further comment: Any accusations against wikipedia editors, be it Vlad fedorov or anyone else, must be removed from the article immediately. This should not be a consideration on whether the article is to be kept or not. It doesn't matter one single bit why the article was originally created - what matters is whether its subject matter could have a place on wikipedia. I'm not qualified to judge this, but I notice that it survived a deletion discussion on the Russian wikipedia back in January 2006, and that the "keep" decision was unanimous. Esn 08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Russian Wikipedia is notorious for low quality articles, so don't advertise it here.Vlad fedorov 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Creation of the article, proposal for speedy deletion, vote on it, keep decision all happened on the same day. Most of the votes came after the article was marked both as POV and aa a Conspiracy Theory. Crucially: the very creator of the page (Jaro.p) provided a link to a Russian source calling it a dubious conspiracy theory. So there obviously was a willingness to make it NPOV. Note that the title of the Russian article is also far more neutral,a nd at one time had a interwiki link to "web-brigade" on English wikipedia. We are 1 year later now, the Russian article now has a chapter "Kritika", is still marked Conspiracy Theory, and I have not heard anything in the news all that time. --Pan Gerwazy 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should remain deleted. It's clear that whoever was its author had a crucial lack of info on Runet, Russian segment of the Internet. ellol 06:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think last part of this discussion misses the point. How can this article be violation of WP:OR (the reason for deletion) if it cited the following multiple reliable sources: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]. Not only this phenomenon is well known in Russia (hence the article in Russian Wikipedia and discussions of this subject in Runet by a Russian State official and numerous bloggers ^[4]), such teams have been reportedly created by departments of provincial and municipal governments in mainland China: the "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names" in 2005 ^[5]. Applicants for the job were drawn mostly from the propaganda and police departments. Successful candidates have been offered classes in Marxism, propaganda techiques, and the Internet. "They are actually hiring staff to curse online," said Liu Di, a Chinese student who was arrested for posting her comments in blogs ^[5]

^ Operation "Disinformation" - The Russian Foreign Office vs "Tygodnik Powszechny", Tygodnik Powszechny, 13/2005
^ Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer. by Anna Polyanskaya, Andrei Krivov, and Ivan Lomko, Vestkik online, April 30, 2003 (English translation)
^ Eye for an eye (Russian) by Grigory Svirsky and Vladimur Bagryansky, publication of Russian Center for Extreme Journalism [1]
^ Conspiracy theory by Alexander Usupovsky, Russian Journal, 25 April, 2003
^ ^a ^b China's secret internet police target critics with web of propaganda, by Jonathan Watts in Beijing, June 14, 2005, Guardian Unlimited

Biophys 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, these "sources" do not fall under the WP:RS criteria. They're all allegations, with some people thinking: "there is a discrepancy between people that should be present in the forums and views that people post, then basically these must be FSB agents in disguise). If this was a legal investigations (which it isn't of course), such an "evidence" would have absolutely zero value. "I heard someone saying..." stuff is nothing but conspiracy theories.

As for China, well, it's out of scope for this article. China filters Internet (and Wikipedia), Russia does not. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's discussed in newspapers, Wikipedia should have an article about it, even if it is a conspiracy theory. And looking just at the title of the article, I can't say why China is outside of its scope. Are you saying China doesn't have Internet at all? Grue 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: "verifiability, not truth". No any court investigation or "evidence" required for sources in Wikipedia. Not only all these sources satisfy WP:RS, but at least two of them are notable (Guardian Unlimited and Tygodnik Powszechny) and the claims came from notable people: Grigory Svirsky and Liu Di. As for China, everyone can read the source and see what it says: "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names". Of course, this article was not only about Russia, and I emphasized this at the talk page during the deletion discussion. Biophys 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat that again: verifiability, not truth. This is very important. If you will argue against this article, please base your arguments on wikipedia policy. If you don't like those policies, ask to change them on their talk pages. This is not the place for asking to change wiki policies. Esn 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm adding my vote to overturn or relist. I fail to see how this is any different than the 9/11 conspiracy theories article - same basic premise. As long the article is NPOV, I see no problems. It will be a target for vandalism - as all such articles are - but as I said previously this should not deter us. We must fight against vandals by doing exactly what they do not wish us to do. Esn 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet troll squads" gets a whopping 6 Ghits, nuff said. This being said, if someone is able to come up with a good NPOV version of the article (and NOT centered around Russia like the previous one used to be), then fine. But restoring the article as it is is just too risky imho. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. An article on the topic is possible but this one was unrepairable, starting from the title all the way to the content. When the deletion is debated, it is important to keep in mind that the issue is not whether the article about something along these lines is in principle possible, but whether the article at hand can be used as the basis for a possibly encyclopedic article this is to become. If the acceptable article would have to be written from scratch, the original article can be deleted no matter how encyclopedic the topic is. And it should be deleted if it looks like an ax grinding exercise created under deliberately inflammatory unencyclopedic and non-descriptive title. Users who keep repeating like mantra that WP:RM should not be confused with AfD or that the article simply needs an improvement and this is the issue of editing rather than of the deletion need first to see whether the article at hand is of any use for such hypothetically encyclopedic article. If not, than delete, even if the topic has a potential. Byophys seems interested in the topic. That's his right. He can write a new version under the new title and if he needs something that was in the article for his work on the future one, he can request any admin to restore it in his userspace. But no way that piece under that name could be restored. --Irpen 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you agree that the topic can support a wiki article, but feel that it should be created under a new name? Wouldn't that be grounds for speedy deletion - the recreation of a previously deleted topic? Esn 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rename. There was no consensus to delete, and renaming seems like the best way to address the problems caused by the rather unwise name.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort. Sure, we can rename article as Internet brigades (as in Russian Wikipedia) or Internet squads (no "trolls"!) if you think this is better. I thought "squads" is better, because "brigade" is a large military detachment, and I thought "troll" is related to Troll (Internet). Biophys 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question. So, can I recreate the article right now under a slightly different name and make it as neutral and encyclopedic as possible? Biophys 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since this topic hasn't been closed yet (despite being moved into the archives), I'll add another comment. I must say that the article badly needs attention from someone - and prefferably someone who reads Russian - who will cut the bias out of it. It is still rather biased and inadequate, but in more subtle ways - for example, the way it's currently sourced makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to verify much of the FSB section. The "eye for an eye" source, in particular, is given as a source for a whole bunch of statements, but it is extremely long and made up of various sections. Specific sections should be given as a source, rather than the whole thing. Also, the name "internet brigades" seems like a neologism, so perhaps the name "secret internet police" (which was used in the Guardian article) would be best. I'm still not sure how much meat is there behind the allegations, but I would like this to be discussed (and prefferably for some time) because at least some of it is legitimate. Esn 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, trouble is that if you try to cut the bias, you will get reverted by Biophys and it will be another edit war... Besides, reading Russian, I can tell you that there is not much meat behind those allegations. Basically, it is no different from the yellow press idiotics about flying saucers, vanished civilizations, torsion fields and all similar crap. The main "argument" worth more than $0.01 is the supposed discrepancy between the social categories using internet and the views one can see on fora. Trouble is, no one did a serious study on a subject, therefore people like Polyanskaya implicitely suppose that everyone having Internet and commenting on Russian-speaking forums would necessarily be a partisan of liberal views. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, no! So far, I could negotiate changes with any editor except Vlad Fedorov who deletes well referenced texts. By the way, you Grafikm, made a couple of reasonable comments with regard to Boris Stomakhin, so I tried to reflect them in the article. So far, I inserted only one word in the changes already made by Esn. Anything consistent with wikipedia rules is fine.Biophys 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't mix things that shouldn't be. Boris Stomakhin is a real guy, sentenced by a real tribunal (rightly or not, that's another question), so everything is "real", so it is not surprising that I tried to settle the dispute between you and Vlad on sources, interpretations and stuff. Here, we're talking about a possible conspiracy that no one managed to prove so far, so it's not the same thing by a league. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to me that the topic satisfies the general notability criterion. Wikipedia has articles on both UFOs and vanished civilizations because they have been written about by notable people, so it shouldn't be a consideration whether the allegations are true or not. This seems to be the case here - even if the allegations are false, they seem to have appeared in notable publications. What is real here is not necessarily the allegations, but that the allegations have appeared in important places. As such, it is my view (unless someone presents convincing evidence to the contrary) that it is not against wikipedia policy to have an article about them, as long as the article makes it clear that there is some doubt about their truthfulness. It would be helpful, for example, if some sources critical of this view were also found - they could then be added in. There's one currently (on the FSB accusations) but he's apparently a government employee (?). A rebuttal from a more neutral source, if one could be found, would be a good thing to add. Esn 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Smirking Chimp – relisted at individual AFDs, Rottweiler and Chimp – GRBerry 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The recent MFD discussion on GNAA's "war on blogs" led me to check whether several prominent weblogs I had heard of had been deleted as a result of such activity. I found at least two blogs that were deleted when, pretty clearly, they shouldn't have been. Note that these undeletions are not being proposed for personal political reasons; one of the blogs (Rottweiler) is far-right while the other (Chimp) is far-left.

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler's deletion discussion appears to have a solid consensus... but it turns out a lot of those voters were actually GNAA members, some of whom (including GNAA founder Timecop) are now banned from Wikipedia. The discussion on AFD should be re-run and kept free of single-purpose or bad faith accounts. The existing discussion can't reasonably be said to reflect an accurate consensus of Wikipedia users.

Smirking Chimp's deletion discussion had two keep votes and two delete votes. That is far from a consensus to delete. It's one of the few redlinked blogs on the lists found on our Political blog article. There is a metric ton of Google hits.

At the very least, both these articles should have a real, full discussion on AFD before they're deleted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, smirking chimp is a favourite of mine, or was at one time anyway, but the article as deleted had only one source: smirking chimp. No prejudice against a rewrite which satisfies notability criteria by reference to reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both deletions, reasons as given above. Additionally the AfD on the first mentioned article is rather old - perhaps it would be more constructive to re-create the article, properly sourced and written, starting from scratch rather than digging up old graves? Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also just noticed that The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler was speedy deleted per A7 and G11 back in December. Without knowing what the content was it's hard for me to judge but that seems to reinforce the original AfD asserting a lack of notability and sourcing. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both and relist. I am glad someone checked the list. It became clear that the deletions sponsored by this self-admitted cabal need review with more careful attention. DGG 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. One AFD result was influenced by sock and meat puppets and the other didn't have a concensus. At the very least they need to be given a fair chance. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist I'm not at all sure that either will pass an AfD, but they at least deserve a fair discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion --Tbeatty 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on the basis of new information. Restore and keep for a few days (i.e., do not relist immediately) to allow for article improvement. Relist after a reasonable time if articles still are unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At AfD, they get five days. I think that should be enough, if there's anything to justify a keep. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, definitely a troubling case, but AfD seems like the best way out. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Christina McHale – Speedy close, nomination by sockpuppet of blocked user – Core desat 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This information does validly cite its sources and there is no false information on this page. All information on wikipedia on Christina McHale can be found elsewhere on the internet so there is no reason to delete it. This is not an invasion of privacy because this information is already out on the internet and it was cited properly and posted on wikipedia for a biography. Please undelete this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitiful (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion. The main thrust of the requests was that the article failed to satisfy the notability guidelines, not that the article is false or uncited (which it must be as well). Also, "other people who know Christina McHale personally" does not constitute a reliable source. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Speedy close, review requested by a sockpuppet of currently blocked Worthadonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 March 2007

Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session – Speedily closed, keep decision not contested – trialsanderrors 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD was closed and renamed to Arlon Lindner. I wish to contest this renaming as it has created a massive undue weight problem with the controversy being about the only element covered in this article. If this would be overturned, I would gladly contribute to an article about Arlon Lindner (the person), but I cannot salvage this into an article with a completely different scope. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue for WP:RM if you don't want to challenge the "keep" part of the decision. ~ trialsanderrors 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to contest the result of the AfD. I was told this was the place to do so; sorry. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we're only doing the "delete" part. Sorry for giving you the runaround. ~ trialsanderrors 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Cluj-Napoca – agreement reached between nominator and admin – GRBerry 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was OK and there was no problem reported with it. It contained the history paragraph of Cluj-Napoca article and wanted to develop that part. The article just disappeared without any notice. Roamataa 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I deleted the article per CSD G5 ("Pages created by banned users while they were banned.") Since the article was started by a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, it meets the criteria. Khoi khoi 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of it, but that's because of the notes on my talk page ([35]) and at the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. However, since the matter has since been resolved (I've restored part of the article), you can close this if you want. Khoi khoi 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's fine now and the article is back again. This deletion review can be closed. Thanks a lot. --Roamataa 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barbara Bauer – Closed temporarily (see also the continued debate . – Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closure comments: What I understood from this mailing list post is that the article will be reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation legal staff ASAP, and Bastique (an employee of the Foundation) has requested to us to not undelete the article in the meantime. At that time, the legal staff will give us a bit of guidance on the issue. To use DRV jargon, that guidance would be "substantial new information" that would definitely affect the opinions of several users.

So, my closure is this:

If the Foundation tells us that we can take action on it, then restart the DRV, or ideally, file a new one. Give it the full five days with complete information. (This is basically the entire reason for my closure - so it will be restarted once we know what the heck to do without being afraid of the world falling out on top of us.)
If the Foundation takes action on the articles, this DRV will be moot anyways. Maybe they will decide to simply undelete it for legal reasons. Maybe delete it for legal reasons. Maybe WP:OFFICE. We just don't know yet.

I by no means intend for this closure to be permanent; I expect a vigorous debate when things are clearer as soon as the Foundation gives us the green light to do so. However, it is in their ballpark right now, and our [the Wikipedia community] actions could make things worse from a legal standpoint if we are not careful. Once we have all the facts, we can (and should, and most likely, will) revisit this. At the very least, consider this a time-out to think about arguments for that debate, and to determine how to bring the article out of WP:BLP concern territory, since at this time, there is no apparent consensus to keep it deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article is apparently, per a post on the wikien-l mailing list, suing the Wikimedia Foundation. Drove some new eyes to the article, where it was then deleted by User:Doc glasgow per BLP concerns. Cache shows a pretty decently sourced stub with perhaps some debate as to whether the quote was appropriate, but the deletion appears to be a pre-emptive strike. Barring any Foundation-level intervention, this needs a full hearing, IMO. badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Standing decision is the keep closure from June 2006, speedy deletion amounts to a de-facto challenge to that closure. ~ trialsanderrors 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to press coverage and the official docket, the Wikimedia Foundation and 14 other defendants were sued on Friday by the subject of this article. The Office has not yet had an opportunity to provide advice or instructions on what action, if any, should be taken. I strongly urge that no further action be taken on-wiki or comments made here until the Foundation has had a reasonable opportunity to provide input. I strongly urge that this review be closed for now, without prejudice. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to stop discussion on the matter unless the office requests as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Sunday. The Office may not be open. You really don't think this can wait a day? Newyorkbrad 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no reason to, honestly, especially when it comes to silencing what could be productive discussion on the matter. The full deletion could have waited a day, too, could it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably, but that's nothing that can be addressed now. Newyorkbrad 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - article failed multiple policies: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS and possibly WP:N, seeing as most of the cites were to her own website. In current circumstances this should not be recreated in the previous form: no prejudice against recreation, though. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you might want to check that. Only two of the eight sites were to Ms. Bauer's website; the links support the statements that she has a literary agency and a podcast. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Suspend restoration per Newyorkbrad, but that doesn't mean we can't already discuss the merits of the deletion. On these, I'd say restore. This is not a WP:CSD#G10 case, the article is prima facie well sourced and not obviously derogatory. WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:N are not reasons for speedy deletion (although sometimes I wish they were... :-) Sandstein 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspend restoration, per Sandstein's reasoning. While I think Doc jumped the gun on the deletion, there's no reason to have a wheel war now while the Office catches up with things. The article was a good biographical stub, with a two-paragraph section about her agency. A bit of trimming might have been in order, but this ten-month-old article certainly wasn't a G10 ranting screed smear job. I assume someone's already notified Brad; he's still Foundation counsel until the end of the month. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, since this will stick around for at least five days. Article seems well-sourced, and moderate in its critical coverage. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, I don't think the article was sourced that badly that deletion was the only solution. (But don't restore the article prematurely, and if the office steps in before the review has run its course, follow their lead. But I don't need to say that, do I?) -- Eugène van der Pijll 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. The article was well-sourced and meets WP:V and WP:BLP. BLP doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Probably sans the quote, which would appear the only real questionable bit. While I wouldn't say jump on it this red hot moment, and OFFICE actions will happen as they will, I would tend to hope that such systems aren't so fragile as to be really damaged by the normal process and discussion seen here. I don't see a reason, let alone benefit, to tabling discussion. Not like we're likely to be overruling an office action, eh? Bitnine 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not restore yet I do see serious BLP and sourcing problems with the March 20 version in the Google cache, I haven t seen anything later, so what I am saying may be out of date. The damaging info about her agency depends primarily on http://www.sfwa.org/beware/twentyworst.html, which would be generally acceptable for many purposes but not sufficient for this sort of information. The quote in particular talks about "worst 10" and as mentioned above, this is simply not specific enough to be acceptable in an article about her. I do not immediately see a link on the page to anything more specific. except complaints on their blog, which are not RSs for this. Newspaper or other professional media stories are needed, so they can be quoted. There should be some, a/c NY Brad. If he adds them, and quotes from them to support the key material, then the article can & should be restored. The best thing to do right now is to get a good article ready without these problems. DGG 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how my name is being invoked here; I raised only a process point (which is being roundly ignored), and said nothing about the specific allegations or sources. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article I deleted was a bloody disgrace of tittle tattle. I knew nothing about the legal matters - I nuked it as an unencyclopedic BLP violation. There was nothing noteworthy in it, and a lot of 'allegations' about what someone might have posted on a message board. And various criticism of her in undefined places. No reliable sources, no mainstream media interest. Whist we are not censored and all that shit, we are not a tabloid gutter medium. We simply don't need articles like this and there is no reason to upset the subjects. I stand by the deletion. Given the legal situation, I find the recklessness of asking for undeletion at this time unbelievable. If that's resolved, rebuild the thing - but find some evidence of mainstream encyclopedic value first.--Doc^g 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources. The Science Fiction Writers of America, a professional writer's organization which gives out the Nebula Awards, not a reliable source? Riiight. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Doc Glasgow's pushing the panic button because the subject is SUING WIKIPEDIA IN A COURT OF LAW IN ~~TRENTON~~ MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY is a ridiculously pre-emptive overreaction, not to mention putting his personal opinion of the article above encyclopedic standards. As for the BLP issues, hey, the official opinion of a professional writer's organization (the SFWA is not some random bunch of wannabes) regarding someone in their field counts as a reliable source for me. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading my post (only one above yours) before assuming my motives and then attacking them. The 'Trenton' quip isn't clever enough to justify ignoring the fact that I'd just said I had no knowledge of the lawsuit. Setting up straw-men to burn ill becomes you.--Doc^g 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read it -- notice that I quoted you, and isn't it weird how you feel it's okay to bray about other people jumping to conclusions while doing so yourself? -- and I stand by what I wrote. I read the article before your pre-emptive deletion, so I know what was in it, and I know you deleted it after I posted the notice about the lawsuit (a lawsuit, you know, mentioned in the article itself -- boy, how did you overlook that?), so let us say I'm skeptical about your claims -- both the content and your oddly coincidental timing. Got a problem? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Understandable deletion, but I think cleanup is both possible and preferable in this case. The reference to the SF Writers of America passes a reasonable test of attribution even for WP:BLP, and whether the other source is good or not (it is asserted that the site is a notable and reliable source of such information) is an editorial judgement which can be hashed out in the usual way. I don't think we need be scared here, since we are republishing documented fact (i.e. that the SF Writers listed her as one of the 20 worst agents) rather than asserting as fact that she is one of the twenty worst agents. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How do we get from "one of the 20 worst according to a list" to notability, though, particularly sufficient notability to sustain a controversial BLP? We don't typically have articles on literary agents for unknown writers, so far as I am aware. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion: focus your efforts on rewriting the article and not on this Deletion Review. Apparently, the article was bad enough as written to merit a BLP takedown. As an OTRS volunteer who deals with a lot of questionable content in biographies, Doc has some experience with articles that contain badly sourced or poorly sourced or content that doesn't merit inclusion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, nor is it an attack column. Cary Bass ^demandez 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it will short-circuit this, I'm happy for an admin to undelete it - if they will go thorough it with a BLP blowtorch and make sure we've nothing there that's not backed up with a solid source. All that 'allegation' and message board stuff needs to go, though.--Doc^g 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. It should be noted that the Mystery Writers of America points their members to the SFWA's Writer Beware project. The MWA isn't exactly a group of wannabe writers either. St jb
Endorse deletion. This article was saved from deletion months ago based on the idea that it would be cleaned up. The article remained a dump for comments from blogs and other unreliable internet sources. This has been a clear and persistent violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --JWSchmidt 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Delete - And contrary to Brad, endorse with with prejudice. --Tbeatty 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Without prejudice" was from when I thought we could wait 24-48 hours to have this discussion. (Silly me for expecting such patience.) Newyorkbrad 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. The version deleted was, IMO, not too problematic. The listing of her among the SFWA '20 worst agents' is from a notable organization in the field, and if she has an article it should not omit that information. I believe the quote is especially important since we're directly quoting the organization rather than using our own words. I do believe however that blog sources need more explanation of why they are notable opinions or sources - blogs can be acceptable sources if the author is notable/trustworthy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Foundation representative has requested that this article not be restored until they have completed their review. This should occur before this DRV is scheduled to conclude, but please do not close and restore early, no matter what consensus may be arrived at here. (This is from a Foundation representative on the mailing list; I am merely the messenger.) Newyorkbrad 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. More than a few editors (including several admins) worked for several months on this article, discussing the reliability and suitability of sources, adding as much positive and neutral information as possible, rewriting, negotiating, sometimes reverting, meticulously citing what was deemed appropriate by nearly all editors involved and deleting the more problematic ones. I realize it may seem distasteful to mention anything negative about a living person, particularly one whose notability stems largely from the controversies involved. However, it was all well sourced and carefully worded in as NPOV a fashion as possible. It deserves more than a superficial glance before judgment is rendered about its appropriateness and adherence to policy. For those who can see the history, I would direct you to the Talk page discussions, particularly with respect to the RS used and good faith attempts to verify positive claims about the subject. I would also refer you to the content of edits by User:Cannoliq, presumed by other editors to be Bauer herself. Finally, I would agree with Calton that it is not a good idea to summarily delete an article in the face of a legal complaint, providing that the problematic material is well-sourced - which this was. If Wikimedia Foundation decides, after a good look at the article, that it is indeed unsuitable, then fine - but it should not be done on the basis of a cursory glance, or the mere presence of negative information. Indeed, part of the notability of the subject is a history of apparently ill-founded legal threats, many of which were not mentioned in the article because they were primarily reported in blogs and on message boards. Thank you. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. As several other editors stated, the article was properly sourced with references to pages held by notable organizations and individuals in the writing field and was the result of extensive discussion amongst editors. The legal threat may be part of the reason this was deleted, but deleting articles based on spurious legal threats sets a bad precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's rationale: I deleted this under WP:BLP and not for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--Doc^g 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gravitational attraction – redirect closure endorsed – GRBerry 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You redirected to Gravitation a page that would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It was about Einstein's presently valid theory that implies that Newtonian gravitational attraction is an urban legend. The page was explaining that legend so simply that an high school student could understand it, without necessity of studying general relativity (which then might be a 15 year project). And so to understand why Newtonian gravitational attraction was once thought to be real and why since Einstein it is no more. Something what encyclopiedias are written for.

The reality of gravitational attraction, despite being not supported by science, is still very popular among non physicists and even many physicists and consequently they try to push their Newtonian POV, by using sentences like: "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases" (emphasis mine). This is what was done in Gravitation page and that's why redirecting Gravitational attraction to Gravitation that wrongly declares in its first sentence that "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other" (emphasis mine) while according to contemporary science they don't attract each other, is like redirecting a page Origin of species to Scriptures since consensus of editors likes better explanation of the origin of species in Scriptures.

The misconception about "gravitational attraction" can't be fixed in page Gravitation itself since there are so many people who believe in real existence of the "universal gravitational attraction", that they always revert edits to this page and that's why I decided after many attempts to reason with them, and not wanting to engage in an edit war, to make a page telling the story as it is told by science (reliable published sources). After deleting this page there is no way a lay person can learn that there is a simple (scientific) explanation for the illusion of gravitational attraction and so this lay person is likely to believe in the over 300 years old prejudice instead.

So please, leave the "gravitational attraction" intact, despite the consensus (9:1 for deletion), since as Wikipedia's policy says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. [...] The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

A main part of discussion about the deletion in which all concerns against the page were answered and none of mine (as you may see) is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational attraction. Jim 11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do here. Redirecting is an editorial decision, not governed by AfD results. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect. We're reviewing whether the AfD was properly closed as redirect, and it was, by plain consensus. The submitter's argument as to why his gravitational theory should have an article is beside the point; we're not discussing the article on its merits here. Sandstein 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't? I want to create a separate page since Gravitation to which it is going to be redirected does not respect reliable published sources on the subject of the issue of existence or non existence of gravitational attraction in nature. So IMO it is better when Wikipedia has at least one page with POV supprted by reliable published sources than none and is pushing POV that is outdated for nearly 100 year as it is now. And as I mentioned before, improving the Gravitation page is too tough for the amount of editors with a lot of free time who fight for it. So let them have their (non Einsteinian) gravitation as they understand it intact and Wikipedia would have one suported by reliable published sources for those who are interested in real gravitation and not only in a "model that works in most cases". Jim 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you care that Wikipedia supports an outadet for almost 100 years Newtonian view over Einstein's that is still a leading theory of gravitation? Accidentally I'm using Einstein's theory in my PhD thesis but it has nothing to do with the issue. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable published sources and right now it is not. So it is a matter of merits and Wikipedia's policy which is ignored. Jim 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not discussing the article on its merits here. Please read the text at the top of the page:

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time)."

If you want the topic to have an article again, write it in userspace, address the issues raised in the AfD, then submit it here for review. Sandstein 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted I am not happy with the AfD, which is mostly devoted to attempts at explaining why the theory is wrong. Wrong it is, no doubt, but that is not for an Afd debate to determine. There is no requirement that a WP article be correct, just that it be N, sourced, and not OR. The real reasons to delete the article is that it is 1/ 100% OR, 2/no notability is shown, for there is no evidence that it has ever been discussed anywhere, and it is 3/ totally unsourced, except for a general reference to one standard advanced textbook, which I doubt supports any of the material in the article. There is no reason to have another AfD is spite of what I think were altogether irrelevant arguments in the AfD, as it will surely be deleted again. OR is not among the reasons for speedy, or it would certainly apply. Sandstein's advice to try to write a sourced article is the best way. DGG 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment jim has also edited Total energy -- apparently to conform with his theory--as stated on that talk page, and expert attention might be needed there.DGG 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

myg0t – Speedily closed per last closure – trialsanderrors 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t (August 2004, delete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination) (March 2005, delete)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April) (DRV April 06, undelete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (May 2006, delete)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May) (DRV May 06, endorse deletion)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second) (DRV May 2006, endorse deletion)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July) (DRV July 2006, endorse deletion)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August) (DRV August 2006, endorse deletion)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September) (DRV September 2006, endorse deletion)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7 (DRV March 2007, speedy closed due to spurious "new" evidence - note: this is pretty much the same "new" evidence as presented below)

New sources have been both uncovered, discovered, and/or published since the last DRV which contest the previous decision of non-notability. The current sources are listed below.

Rolling Stone Magazine - article scan here.
PC Format Magazine - article scan here.
PC Zone Magazine - article scan here.
Computer Games Magazine - article scan here.
Church of Fools Incident - none of the articles mention myg0t by name but a forum post has recently been uncovered that shows the planning of the incident before it actually occurred and before the articles were published.
- Forum post dated 5/16/2004 - located here. Registration is required to view, use username/password combination of wikipedia/wikipedia
- The Lexington Herald-Leader covering the Church of Fools incident - article scan here.
- BBC News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
- CNN News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim show parodied myg0t's self-produced flash video "pwned.nl" on their show Robot Chicken with a word-for-word quote - comparison video here.

As per Wikipedia undeletion policy, this DRV should remain open for a minimum of five days after the date of this signature. cacophony ◄► 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article space isn't protected, there is no restriction to recreation.~~ DRV decisions aren't challengeable, if you want an article, write one. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation, but only after someone presents us with an article in userspace that contains not one bit of information that is not sourced to these sources, and is willing to patrol it for crap indefinitely (perhaps aided with indefinite semiprotection). Judging from the logs, this topic seems to attract a lot of crap, even if the press coverage above indicates that the group appears to be notable enough. Sandstein 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against my better judgement, allow recreation of article As long as the user can create a subpage (you can use User:SunStar Net/Myg0t if you wish) which uses these sources only - then I do not have a problem with recreation. Per the fact Wikipedia does not work to deadlines, I have no problem with this. --sunstar net^talk 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate. Would have to say recreate. Has more notability then a lot of articles on wikipedia. Can't deny just because some people don't like them. OverlordQ 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate. Finally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate. - Denny 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - excessive opportunities for, and potential publicity of, online harassment. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't understand what you mean here, could you elaborate? cacophony ◄► 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate. Clearly notable -- Jmax- 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I am concerned, only the Computer Games Magazine article serves as a reliable source, as all of the other scanned articles are merely tangential references. Corvus cornix 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. What has changed in the last two weeks since we last endorsed this one based on precisely the same sources? In what way are we supposed to allow for sources which admittedly do not mention this group? As before, only one of these references is anything other than a trivial passing mention, if any mention at all. Several do not even mention the group by name - the whole Church of Fools thing is blatant original research, a novel synthesis from published (or in this case published and self-published) sources. One is left with the overwhelming impression that absolutely nobody else in the world shares this group's belief in its own significance. Nothing has changed, no new information, speedy endorse. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Church of Fools incident is not original research, it is reporting from notable sources regarding an incident that involved myg0t. To say that the incident was nothing more than a synthesis from published stories is an outright lie, I have laid out irrefutable evidence of the event occurring in the manner I have described it as occurring. cacophony ◄► 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of getting myself involved in a topic I don't much care about, I am reopening this DRV to permit continued discussion to take place. I have made this choice for a number of reasons:

It appears consensus on the merits of the arguments presented is forming that the article should exist.
The closing admin in this instance is the same admin that closed the previous case
While the previous DRV was valid, it was closed more on the merits of the argument and the arguer (the SPA) then the merits of the evidence.
This DRV is needed to recover the deleted content (to satisfy GFDL) since the new article would be based on that content.
Consensus can change... and if the response this DRV has been getting is any indication, it appears it might be.

I am not taking a stance in this debate one way another. I may be consisted nutral. If anyone has any questions, feel free to shoot me an email, contact me on my talk page or leave a message here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed on my talk page. DRV closures are not appealable. Barring substantial new evidence once a deletion has been endorsed the next step is to create a new article and to present it here for approval. As Guy pointed out, there is no new evidence, so repeat nominations will be speedily closed. ~ trialsanderrors 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you didn't hide my comments and I would also like if you didn't treat me like a common vandal. Using a template to force the end of a conversation is inappropriate. Especially since there is no other venue to discuss the merits of inclusion of this article. I don't want this to turn into a circus... but consensus for inclusion or exclusion needs to be built somewhere. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No new sources since last deletion review, which closed earlier this month, several of the purported sources do not even mention the group and almost all the rest are passing mentions, the DRV request is almost identical to the one which closed only very recently including these self-same sources, there is absolutely no need to reopen it however hard they are trolling for it. The list of people who think Myg0t is significant but are not themselves members is very short indeed, and does not appear to include external commentators. No other venue for debate exists because none is needed. We keep discussing it (because they keep asking us to) and we keep coming to the same conclusion. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian Peppers in popular culture – clear-cut WP:SNOW - deletion endorsed, don't be so silly.--Doc^g 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted out-of-process with the claim that it was an "attempt to re-create Brian Peppers article." In fact, none of the content was taken from the original article (which I don't even have access to), so it did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Every single fact in the article I wrote was meticulously sourced. I made an effort to ensure that the article was about the Internet phenomenon and not the unfortunate man himself; the notorious photo was not included. No one has ever given a coherent, in-policy explanation of why Wikipedia must make no mention whatsoever of this prominent Internet meme. I would like to hear a specific justification for deletion based on our policy, not an emotional argument about Peppers' feelings or an argument from authority. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy-deletion. I am trying very hard to assume good faith in the face of what appears to be a WP:POINT violation. This is not and never has been a "prominent Internet meme". Rossami (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call 221,000 Google hits prominent.
You still haven't explained what specific policy the article violated. If you want to claim that an accurate, neutral, sourced article should be deleted, you ought to explain why. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This is the sort of erroneous belief that is why we don't have a Peppers article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - This is an attempted recreation of a deleted article - this is really no different than just Brian Peppers. Its deletion was endorsed through DRV before and I see nothing new that should lead this to be overturned, there are no new sources. Wickethewok 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and protect - Brian Peppers is a recurring meme in popular culture? Sounds like another grasping-at-straws attempt at recreating an article that should not exist. This repeated AfD/Deletion Review/Wikipedia Process mining is way past the point of being disruptive. Thunderbunny 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion We don't have an article on Brian Peppers himself so obviously we shouldn't have an article on this. --Folantin 09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, obviously, per Folantin. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse deletion. Brian Peppers does not and will not have a place in Wikipedia. Get over it. MER-C 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nicholas Ruiz III – request withdrawn – GRBerry 16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_Notability Nick.ruiz 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetngs administrator,

Please reconsider the following deletion for undeletion. Further, since this discussion between the administrator and I began, it appears that the adminstrator has additionaly taken the egregious liberty of deleting every external link I have entered for the journal Kritikos. I have only entered the external link on pages of relevance (e.g. postmodern literature, postmodern, critical theory, etc.) This additional action by the adminstrator is exceedingly unethical and unfair. The discussion link follows below. Many thanks for your consideration.

User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III)

Endorse Deletion very low notability, not covered by a reliable published source and it is a violation of WP:COI; given username of creator. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. If you think you are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, you really should wait for someone else to write the article. Autobiographies are bad for the project for a number of reasons. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleting admin; WP:CSD#A7 and WP:COI; see detailed discussion on my talk page at the link provided. Sandstein 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) -- Addendum: Oh, and I have not deleted any links. It was Hatch68 (talk · contribs) who correctly reverted the linkspamming for Dr Ruiz's journal. Sandstein 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the decision. However, Kritikos is an open acess journal, indexed in university library datatbases all over the world. Placing such a link in the appropriate article, as I have done, is a reference for further research--not linkspamming to a commercial site. I kindly ask that these links be restored. Thanks again for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, adding external links to the same webpage, when done by an editor with no other edit history, is most likely done for the benefit of that webpage, and not for the benefit of Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 March 2007

Duck on a Rock – non-vandalized versions restored with consent of deleting admin – GRBerry 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion log says only "notability" - but this game is considered to be James Naismith's inspiration when he invented basketball. This should be sufficiently notable! (As well, I might have missed it, but I don't recall seeing an AfD for this article.) Ckatz^chat _spy 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I can't see the article or find a cache, but there would be no reason this article would have been created without mentioning that point. Even if that were the case, games cannot be speedied due to notability issues, so it was invalid no matter which way you slice it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse deletion~~, abject nonsense on a stick. Also fails WP:NFT and WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The second is not a speedy criterion. The third is patently false if it inspired a major sport. The first is certainly not nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, abject nonsense' is a speedy criterion, failure to assert notability is a speedy criterion (and this actually asserted non-notability, which is worse), and WP:NFT means it would likely fail at AfD even if we did waste our time by sending it there. What do you make of this: [..] It was returning to the throwing line with his or her dump, they became the guard. The guard could not tag anyone until he picked up a dump at his feet, nor could he chase anyone until he put the drake back up on its platform. Recent findings believe the bible may be based on this game. However, it does seem that the problem here was that it had been vandalised, and that was the cause of the deletion. An unvaldalised version exists below the delrev text, and that is unproblematic, so that can be restored. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This wasn't nonsense (so that's out), not everything that fails to assert notability can be speedied (please read A7). That? That's a game, so it can't be speedied as either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the version I saw was nonsense. The problem was numerous successive vandalistic edits. And anything that fails even to assert encyclopaedic notability is fair game. Wikilawyering and rule mongering just wastes everybody's time. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Again, it would be nice to be able to review the article and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the text. The notability, however, is undeniable, and WP:NFT does not apply. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total contents of the page at deletion time was "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children’s game.", and a {{stub}} template. Nothing more. - TexasAndroid 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will note, I likely should have PRODed it instead of Speedy. But still, there was not even the slightest assertion of notability. Looking back through the history of the article, it appears to have had more information in older versions, but to have been slowly chipped away by anon edits until it reached the version that showed up on the Short Pages list and got my attention. Not sure why I did not notice the older versions in the history, I'm usually pretty thourough about checking them for vandalism. But still.... Anyway, I have no objections to it being overturned at this point, especially if someone will also restore the older versions that do have the notability claims. Not sure if I should do it myself, given that it's under review, so I'll leave that to someone else. - TexasAndroid 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texas. As the creator of this article, I would be happy if you would be willing to close this thread and bring the article to AFD. That seems like a good consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that this still doesn't meet any criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per JzG and TexasAndroid. Textbook speedy. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the article up to the version of February 16, 2007. That version is sourced and asserts notability. Since then, it had been vandalized down to a substub, but we don't delete articles just because they've been vandalized. --Carnildo 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn - I created this article originally from an AFC request. As you should be able to see from the page, it is mostly certainly sourced with no less a source than ESPN; so I'm not sure how people can say it's "utter nonsense". What's more, the notability concern do not apply, as A7 only exists for people, clubs, and organizations. I beg of you to at least give this article the chance of an AFD and not to go rouge on us and decide to delete it without community consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty clear what happened: some anons nibbled away at it until it was a short unsourced paragraph of nonsense, then someone converted it into a substub consisting of the sentence "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children's game", at which point it was deleted. I've seen this sort of thing twice before, where an article was slowly vandalized to the point of being a speedy-deletion candidate. --Carnildo 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore currently available non-vandalised version. That version is not patent nonsense. Sandstein 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I think the version of Feb 16 will need some expansion, but I agree with Sandstein that it is potentially interesting enough to be used to build on. DGG 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This entry is well-sourced with not just one but two sources, one of them ESPN. Notability and WP:NFT concerns do not apply. I concur with Carnildo's assessment about what might've happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is I think what happened. Previous versions going back some way were vandalism. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retarded Animal Babies – closed, recently reviewed and no reason presented to review again – Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no logic behind deleting it in the first place. The entire argument around deletion seems cenetered around wether or not the product has recieved notable reviews via newspaper, television, and other such media. Wether or not it has is irrelevant, as Retarded Animal Babies does in deed meet the criteria to have a Wiki site regardless of the content of ANY newspaper. I quote the third rule on Wikipedia's page for notability criteria. "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Newgrounds.com is in fact an online publisher and it is in fact both independant of the creators of Retarded Animal Babies, and quite well known. It's also been featured in G4's "Late Night Peep Show" in an episode that originally aired on 7/18/2006. 69.235.157.150 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse, valid AfD just closed, no new information presented. Not liking the result is not grounds for overturning it. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. – Nomination withdrawn, userfied per request – trialsanderrors 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted without any discussion or attempt to rectify anything which may or may not have been objectionable. Also it had already survived a nomination for speedy deletion. The controversy centers around 1.) Some find the humor objectionable. 2.) Similarity between B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A and a well known encyclopedia of similar name, ignoring the fact that the encyclopedia is spelled differently and is not an acronym. The Artical is not an attack on a competitor, nor is it a violation of copyright. Also The acronym appears on other pages without problem and is not deleted. The article was clearly marked as humor anyway, and there was no reason at all to delete it. If push came to shove it's not like the acronym couldn't be changed anyway. I'm sorry if the article offended an administrator, but I didn't make the acronym up, I was simply using an acronym that has already been in use on other pages. This Humor Piece was never given the five days of discussion required in the rules.Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cris! I withdraw the objection. The page just isn't that important. I would hope that somebody will move the page, undelete it, or at least allow me to change it, but what I won't do is make a spectacle of it, or myself. Do with the page as you will, I trust your judgements. I will go back to patrolling new edits, and when I become bored, perhaps write another article. Be well everyone, and thanks for listening. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? patent nonsense and/or trolling. Not remotely funny. We really don't need to debate this - take it away.--Doc^g 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:W.T.F.?. I could move it back to user space, seriously, what was the point of sending this to WP space in the first place? ~ trialsanderrors 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That will be acceptable- it was moved to WP because ALL of the humor pages it links to and links from are in WP space. As I pointed out, this is not a solo-page, or a solo-acronym, there are about 15 other VERY SIMILAR humor articles written the same way, and with similar content. My thinking was that if THEY are all in WP space, then so should this article. Move it to user space if that will save it from deletion, but I would much rather that the article get the same considerations as the other articles. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless it really is utter nonsense, I suppose it could peacefully co-exist with the rest of Wikipedia as a userspace sub-page. (I say that, as I got told off for using the word "userfy" earlier this week, silly me.) Chris cheese whine 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT The X Factor. There's no need to make a spectacle of it. Chris cheese whine 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E.N.D.O.R.S.E. deletion, valid rationale for deletion. It's either G1 or G10. --Core desat 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not as funny as Sue thinks it is, sadly. 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion endorsed As per Doc glasgow, the content appeared to be patent nonsense, and even borderline trolling. Humour is subjective. The deletion was valid. --sunstar net^talk 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Airforce-ti.jpg – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a free public domain image, published by the U.S. Air Force on their official website, of a female Military Training Instructor at a graduation parade. Image was used for approximately two months in the articles Drill instructor, Recruit training, and History of women in the military. On 22 March, the image was deleted pursuant to a WP:OTRS complaint. According to the deleting admin, the complaint originated with unspecified "people from the Air Force"; its general nature was that one of the persons depicted had undergone disciplinary action since the photograph was taken (explained in the edit summary of this diff by the deleting admin). This would seem to be corroborated by the fact that the Air Force has since removed the photo from their official website as well.

I've been over and over the image policy and can't find a policy justification for the image's deletion, unless it's WP:IAR. The image was in the public domain and did not contain any negative information about the individuals depicted. The deleting admin did not specify whether the complaint came from Air Force personnel in an official or unofficial capacity - either way, I can't find a policy supporting an undiscussed deletion for these particular circumstances.

I'm no attorney, but I guess the question comes down to this -

If the request was made by the Air Force in an official capacity, can they withdraw an image from the public domain once they have already released it?
If the request was made by Air Force people in an unofficial capacity, who simply have some objection to the person depicted in the photo, can they have the image deleted without discussion via a WP:OTRS complaint? RJASE1 ^Talk 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I should have posted this earlier, but, in case anyone wants to see what the image looked like, here it is as hosted on another website. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2 - The deleting admin has apparently gone on a WikiBreak and is unavailable to answer questions - can another admin get the ticket number and take a look at the complaint? RJASE1 ^Talk 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think the question comes down to is "Is it worth the trouble to tell them that they can't have the picture deleted?". So if there's a picture that would work just as well, pleas use that instead and save the trouble. If there isn't, which I suspect, it's more complicated, but we still shouldn't get into unnecessary trouble based on the fact that it's not really valid. -Amarkov moo! 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complications
According to the edit summary there, they apparently dismissed her for posing for Playboy. She is (former) U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Michelle Manhart. The WP article is well sourced , including BBC, but has no image. The Playboy pictures appear (as obvious copyright violations) at various places in the web, (and perhaps the dismissal was well justified by the applicable standards).
At present , the picture used for History of women in the military is that of Nicole_Malachowski, the WP article on her used a somewhat less striking picture. (It's the same person, as shown by http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pilots.html, which has the picture under question and her name). Her career seems to have been both distinguished and uncontroversial. It's a suitable replacement. For the other three pictures, an amusingly more stereotypical replacement was used, and is in fact appropriate.
However, the US government probably has no right to withdraw an image except for national security considerations, and perhaps it is our responsibility as citizens to see that our rights are preserved, and some think this best done by exercising them vigorously. I do not know just what photograph we had--possible the one from the BBC story? The picture should be restored to commons, and belongs, in the right place, the article on the person. I don't really see how we can defend it being used under drill instructor. We should simply treat it as an ordinary editorial decision. DGG 23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the problem is that the person in the picture is not identified as Michelle Manhart - though I agree with you the similarity in names is probably not coincidental. Has anyone established that this is, in fact, the same individual? I've searched for a reliable source, but have been unable to find one. And I guess the secondary point I wanted to make here was that, if other images for the articles were preferred, this was not the way to go about it - it should have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion despite the above original research - this is not worth the trouble. OTRS personnel are privy to private correspondence and have to make judgement calls. They should be left to make them unless there is incredible reason to do otherwise. This is not such a case. No, copyright holders cannot revoke free licences, but as a courtesy we routinely remove images on similar grounds - particularly when they contain identifiable individuals.--Doc^g 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I understand - I've never before had any complaint with the OTRS process. I'm not asking for the specifics of the OTRS complaint; I'm just hoping for someone to verify the deletion was in accordance with policy and to be informed (in a general way) of the specific policy applied. I don't think that's unreasonable. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When we receive complaints, we try to be helpful. When the request is reasonable and won't make wikipedia fall down, we try to comply. Wikipedia can have very negative effects on real people in the real world - OTRS operators use their judgement to try to mitigate that. It isn't always about citing specific policies by section numbers, it is about the spirit of the project and doing the Right Thing. It's often a difficult judgement call.--Doc^g 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - no arguments here. If there was the possibility of harm to an individual, or even if the person depicted in the image requested deletion, I would be first in line to support that. I'm just skeptical that this is the case here. (Although I do want to emphasize that I sincerely believe the deleting admin was acting in good faith, I just disagree with the decision.) RJASE1 ^Talk 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar The image seems to have been removed from its original location [36]. Not sure if it has been deleted or simply moved, but if the former we should probably follow suit. ~ trialsanderrors 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but why? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of US government public domain images on WikiMedia, most of which are not currently displayed on a government website. This doesn't invalidate their public domain status. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I'm guessing in this case it was pulled for a reason. ~ trialsanderrors 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Argh - I'm trying not to look like some psychotically-obsessed person by responding to every single post here, I'm just looking for a coherent explanation of what that reason could be. I should say I'm perfectly willing to drop this whole thing if someone could offer a substitute free image, of comparable quality, of a female enlisted Air Force drill instructor. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for identity, I think one of the not quite legit web sites has our picture as well. But after looking around a little in a scientific spirit, I can see why the Air Force would have wanted it removed. To describe it in words, one of the pictures had her wearing (only) a small part of a uniform similar to that of a drill instructor, and a good deal of fun was made with that concept in the legends. It wasn't the government being ridiculous--it was the govt being, actually, fairly sensible, though it may pain me to say it. Considering the readership of Playboy, legit edition and otherwise, it would have been a mockery to use her for this. We should pick another case to defend our rights. DGG 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. As a licencing and policy matter, the issue is clear: the image is PD, we infringe no laws that I can think of by keeping it, and it is of encyclopedic use (if only to illustrate Michelle Manhart - one can even read the name tag). I can imagine that the picture is mildly embarrassing to the ex-sergeant and the USAF, but since when is it part of Wikipedia's mission not to hurt the tender feelings of the U.S. military and the amateur pr0n stars it employs? We are, after all, not censored. Sandstein 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are a educational charity not a free-speech campaign group, or a gutter newspaper, which will defend its rights to embarrass people regardless of the educational metits. (Use of this image to illustrate Manhart would clearly constitute original research, anyway). Your argument is unacceptable.--Doc^g 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a newspaper or a campaign group, but neither are we a charity (the Foundation is). We are an encyclopedia, "a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge". What matters is whether that information is notable and within our scope, not whether it embarrasses someone. I'd have no problem deleting the article on Michelle Manhart, since it's essentially a (marginally interesting) news story more appropriate for Wikinews. But as long as we have the article, us including this harmless picture can hardly embarrass the woman any more, given that the porn images she posed for are already all over the web along with her full name. It's also a good image well suited to illustrating various military-related articles. (As to OR, no: the name is right there on the name tag, no research required.) Sandstein 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point. It's a good quality image, but not really representative of what air force training instructors actually look like - if it was, there would be no need to advertise for new recruits, they'd have to beat them off with a stick. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, per Doc glasgow. --bainer (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Doc. When identifiable people are concerned, and free replacements are reasonably available where necessary, OTRS people shouldn't have to publicly state every specific of the complaint. That would sort of negate the point of OTRS. If this were a major newsworthy photo, I might be willing to fight for our right to use it per freedom of speech concerns, but that simply isn't the case. If we're Byzantine about simple deletions like this, it will mean we lose all our teech when a real free-speech issue comes up. Mak (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nobody is asking for the specifics of the complaint. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. My own experience with OTRS and my familiarity with the way Doc handles these things leads me to the conclusion that even when not all the details are public, the decision that was made was the most sensible. We´re not censored, but neither are we obliged to follow the lead of other websites that make decisions based on other grounds or standards than we do. --Joanne B 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Absolutely no reason that this image needs to be used. At times we need to make judgment calls that balance Wikipedia's mission and that of people in the image and the image's owner. I trust OTRS volunteers to do their job and make these tough calls. FloNight 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, as deletion is the correct tool to be used when a not-public person has found a picture of themselves being published by us solely because copyright is not involved. Jkelly 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. The picture isn't the least bit embarrassing or salacious per se (no matter what hyperbole Doc Glasgow offers up about the "gutter press"), it's public domain, it illustrates an actual existing encyclopedic subject (Women in the military or Michelle Manhart -- whether the latter is worthy is an entirely separate issue), and "because the Government wants to sweep this under the rug" is a lousy excuse for a pre-emptive deletion. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Including this particular image smacks strongly of WP:POINT. Are there really so few pictures of air force training instructors that we absolutely must have this one? I think not. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Per Doc, FloNight, Guy, Jkelly et al... This image does not further the cause of the encyclopedia. We are not investigative journalists or tabloid press. OTRS was asked to do something, the trusted person that handled the ticket acted, and to undelete causes further needless drama. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. An image of someone who has now become someone specific and identifiable is no longer the best image to illustrate a generic article. Re: supposed censorship, WP:POINT. It's a judgment call, certainly, but I'd come down on the deletion side.--SethTisue 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Honestly, I appreciate the declarations of support for the WP:OTRS process - I share it, as I expressed above. But most of the votes above ignore and/or misrepresent my argument. Nobody is asking for confidential details of the OTRS complaint (Nobody has to, because the deleting admin already disclosed the reason for the complaint). So it boils down to one of two situations:

This is a free, public domain, photo of Michelle Manhart - a subject of a Wikipedia article and a public figure who is apparently notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia currently has no other free image of this person to illustrate the article. In that case the photo would be suitable for illustration of the article Michelle Manhart.
This is a free, public domain, photo of a person other than Michelle Manhart. In this case, I can't see any reason to delete the photo - even if not used as an agreed-upon photo for particular articles, it's certainly suitable for the Commons. Any reasonable person viewing this photo would agree that it couldn't possibly embarrass or demean anyone in any way.

The deleting admin is a teenaged high school student who is currently on a Wikibreak and is not anwering any questions regarding this undiscussed deletion. All I have asked for is a review of this deletion per existing policy (and I include WP:IAR and WP:AGF as part of that policy) to ensure it was the best thing for Wikipedia. So far, nobody has admitted to getting the ticket number of the WP:OTRS complaint and reviewing to ensure it was a correct deletion. I remind all that WP:DRV is not nose-counting, but a review of policy application, and respectfully ask the admin closing this case to carefully review all facts of this deletion (including the original OTRS complaint) to ensure this case was handled correctly. Thanks - RJASE1 ^Talk 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fact that Jaranda is a 'teenaged high school student' relevant? --Doc^g 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hugely relevent, only a contributing factor in my request that someone with experience review the complaint, that's all. I'm more concerned with the fact that Jaranda is not present to answer my concerns regarding this undiscussed deletion. Calm down. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so bloody patronising - I am perfectly calm. It is you that is engaging in the ad hominem.--Doc^g 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No ad hominem intended, as I stated in the comment immediately above yours. Are you going to address any of my other concerns? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Doc glasgow. I suspect that a hypothetical decision to restore here would receive attention at the Foundation level, and I find the undue emphasis on this image to be inexplicable. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason for your suspicions? RJASE1 ^Talk 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that OTRS-based deletions or redactions are often based on factors not appropriate for discussion on-wiki and therefore often are not subject to on-wiki review. I have no information beyond the public record concerning this particular deletion. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, no valid reason to delete what seems like a perfectly good public domain image. If the Air Force is embarrassed about it, there's nothing to say that we'd have to use it in the articles where it was used before. Maybe it should just go on Commons? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Laurence Scott – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still under discussion, information being added. Since its first entry, the very small piece on Laurence Scott has grown in information. It includes at least one citation, signaling that the subject has been written about by others. Further, more than one Wikipedian contributor had begun working on the article.

Finally, "notability" is not a black or white issue. There is a spectrum of "notability" that should correspond to the length of the article. Laurence Scott is not as notable as, say, Albert Einstein, but Scott is more notable than, say, my postman. There has been nothing that any rational person would label discussion about deleting this little article. Thus, we should let it ride as other people add information to it. James Nicol 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There is one source, not the multiple required by WP:N. There is no way that any rational discussion could arrive at a consensus that one source is multiple sources. -Amarkov moo! 16:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. As I said in the article's original AfD discussion, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. One article mentioning him as responsible for some paintings in a Harvard basement does not seem to me to establish notability. The article creator's continual recreation of it in the face of the AfD and several g4 speedies isn't very endearing, either. Deor 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse keeping~~. We see in Deor's remark that this has more to to w/ personality issues than w/ the quality of the article. Sources that have used Scott's translation of Propp are numerous. Would you like them listed? If Scott is not here, then where would one go to find out about him? How much space are these paragraphs taking up? In other words, what is the harm in keeping this small article and permitting it time to grow? James Nicol 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is your opinion, unless you choose to withdraw it. GRBerry 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, you don't get to respond to your own proposal. I strongly suggest that you strike out the response above. Deor 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't this a discussion? I can incorporate this remark w/in the proposal, if you want. I'd love to see those questions answered. James Nicol 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there's nowhere else people can go to find out about him, we can't have an article, because articles need to be based on sources, not original research. -Amarkov moo! 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, Amarkov, for conceding my other points: These paragraphs take up very little space, and there's no harm in keeping them until others, like the "Relister" below, add to the information. As for notability? How about publishing Pound & translating Propp? James Nicol 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't concede your other points. And there is harm in keeping them if they're unsourced, because they may not be true. And notability, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is defined as [[WP:N|having multiple independent reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Notability" is not defined as having multiple sources. "Notability" is defined as a contentious issue. Further, the Wiki-page on Bio says "The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion". As to truth or falsity, what are you disputing? James Nicol 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability normally is not defined that way, true. But Wikipedia articles don't just have to meet a definition of notability. They have to meet WP:N, which does require multiple sources. You're right that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but that isn't what this was. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting doesn't establish truth. Correcting establishes truth. We post what information we know about Laurence Scott, and others, who know more or different, add & emend. Behold: Truth. James Nicol 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist In the previous AfD there was no real discussion, nor attempt to improve the article. I usually spot these, but these was so little discussion I apparently didn't. Treat it as an appeal from my mistake if you like. Looking at the merits, Apparently Professor of Linguistic at MITs, student of Jakobson. The presumption is that Full professors at major universities are likely to be notable. It's true the article just says he taught at Michigan and MIT for all of his career, so he might possibly not have been a full professor--or possibly not even a professor but an instructor. Most likely a typical example of over-modest article writing from academic or their families--almost as frequent as overblown puffery from them. More career details forthcoming as soon as I check for them. (By my slip-up I posted first on the archived AfD page--I apologize.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Thank you! A voice of reason, rising above the ad hominem and bureaucratic. We should be looking at facts, not rushing to dismiss. Give us a chance, please, to make the case for Scott. I resent having Nicol's sins, if they are sins, held against me. -- SocJan 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Reasons have been well covered by other participants in this discussion.--SethTisue 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Few !votes, but a borderline A7 anyway. Clearly fails the professor test. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse re-deletion. Neither the recreated article nor this discussion have turned up evidence to justify overturning the previous AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason "the recreated article" doesn't have the evidence you ask for is that someone's too-speedy-for-comfort deletion caused my additions to the article to disappear just as I was uploading them. I had no idea that an entry could disappear in mid-edit! (See my comment, below, in which I sketch those additions.)--SocJan 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion A reasonably thorough search through a number of databases and catalog has turned up no additional book and no published papers--nor could those who had worked on the article provide me with any further information. He was apparently not a professor, but -- just guessing-- may possibly have been a language instructor such as many large universities used without having them actually on the faculty. There were quite a few ghits, and GS hits,and apparent database hits, but they are referred back to his editorship of Propp's seminal book--a book very widely cited. Delete and salt. It has now been thoroughly done, and there is no reason at all to expect anything else to turn up. I think the originator now realises this. I thank everyone for their patience while this was being double-checked. DGG 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Relist. Is a small press publisher, book designer, and master printer not "significant"? Educate me about what counts on Wikipedia. I was thinking of working hard on an A. Doyle Moore entry (proprietor of The FInial Press, publisher of many important concrete poets), but perhaps I would be wasting my time.

I first visited the Laurence Scott entry a day or two ago, noted that it had been tagged for speedy deletion, and immediately went to work adding what I know about Scott (which I believed adequate to justify an entry for him). But when I tried to save my work and clicked on "save", I got a message that WHILE I WAS AT WORK on the page, it had already been speedy-deleted! I could not recover my work -- which was fully attributed to reputable published sources. I could not even view the page. So first let me thank someone for protecting the text. I have now been able to read it and, as I feared, to confirm that my changes were lost.

Let me summarize their substance here; then perhaps we (whoever "we" is) can decide whether a Laurence H. Scott entry is justified by Scott's "significance".

What little I know about Scott comes by way of my interest in the career of Guy Davenport (among many other things, a Pound scholar). As the protected Scott entry reports, Davenport and Scott printed a limited edition of Ezra Pound's CANTO CX. What the entry does not (yet) say is that theirs was the world's first edition of that Canto; moreover, that their version is NOT the version that made it into the Pound canon currently in print. Anyone willing to check the holdings of major research libraries will discover that the Davenport/Scott CANTO CX is a prized holding of rare book rooms around the world.

Scott printed two other Davenport pieces, Davenport's "Ezra's Bowmen of Shu" (erroneously listed as a Pound piece in the protected entry) (but would not be had my work on the entry been saved). The piece in fact published for the first time a drawing by sculptor Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, whose "Hieratic Head of Ezra Pound" is justly celebrated, and a letter Gaudier wrote from the trenches of WW I to John Cournos, another friend of Ezra Pound, using Pound's "Song of the Bowmen of Shu" to describe his (Gaudier's) own situation at the front, where he was soon to be killed. Almost two decades later, Davenport used the Pound poem and the Gaudier letter as elements in his own tribute to Gaudier, THE BOWMEN OF SHU. A third Laurence Scott / Guy Davenport collaboration was Scott's setting and printing of Davenport's poem "Cydonia Florentia", dedicated to the infant son of experimental film maker Stan Brakhage. I own copies of two of those three pieces and can attest to their importance as examples of fine design and printing and as pieces of significance in Pound and Davenport studies.

If given another chance to contribute to a Laurence H. Scott Wikipedia entry I would, of course, provide this information more neutrally and with proper attribution, referring to published bibliographies and appreciations. The Joan Crane bibliography of Guy Davenport's work, for example, covers Scott's work with Davenport in some detail. See ref at Davenport page.

I am just this week in touch with others who know other (non-Davenportian) aspects of Laurence Scott's careers as artist and as small press publisher of important poets. I have reason to believe that they would strengthen the Wikipedia entry on Scott, if allowed the opportunity to do so. --SocJan 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can those supporting keeping the Scott page point to the specific language in WP:BIO (and/or WP:N and WP:PROF) that they think justifies Scott's inclusion? Some are arguing that Scott is an important and interesting person to some people, but I'm not seeing arguments that specifically address how Scott meets the specific requirements of WP:BIO. That's the real issue here.--SethTisue 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Scott meets this Wikipedia notability criterion: "The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance." His hand-printed limited editions of notable poets are found in the rare book collections of many important research libraries -- The Bodleian, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, NYPL, etc. Rare book collections are in the book world the equivalent of art galleries, no? (But, as long as it appears to me that the Speedy Delete Police are dead set against a Scott entry in order to teach Nicol some sort of discipline lesson, I ain't gonna do the work of listing his publications and the institutions that value them highly .)

I know only about Scott's career as friend and publisher of significant poets; he appears to have done other significant things that other people could document -- if only there were a stub they could find. Wikipedia used to allow people interested in an obscure figure each to contibute to that person's record, without first finding each other outside Wikipedia. Deleting an inoffensive entry that was not spam, that was not self-listed (Scott is dead), that did not violate copyright, destroys that potential synergy.

Police should concentrate on real crime -- and be careful not to shoot bystanders. Does Wikipedia have a police training academy? If not, maybe one is needed.--SocJan 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using your police analogy, the defendant (article) was arrested by me (bad cop) and sent to a judge (admin), where he had a bench trial (speedy deletion). The judge found the defendant innocent. The case was appealed and sent to a jury trial (AFD), where a jury gave their opinion to incarcerate (delete) the defendant, and a judge (admin) agreed. The defendant then repeated his prior violation and was re-arrested and sent to a bench trial again. That judge (admin) followed the previous ruling of the judge/jury and once again deleted the article. This was repeated two more times, and only now has the defendant decided to hire a few lawyers (you being one of them). The lawyers are arguing their case (this discussion) before an appeals court with a jury, and are on their way to losing. Now, tell me where did the "police" go wrong here? Maybe you should be the one attending a class of some sort. Betaeleven 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - as per all above. Betaeleven 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep for a time to permit article improvement, then relist if necessary. Good-faith articles should not be deleted based on an AfD with two !votes. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, O Sweet Lone Voice of Reason and Moderation.--SocJan 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time – Speedy close as copyvio – Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel this was speedy deleted without sufficient discussion to reach consensus (only one reponse was listed). I have seen similar articles go through more thorough discussion, and in some cases kept, and I think an article originating from a major publication like this should be given a bit more discussion before it is deleted. 23skidoo 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse, copyright violations can not be undeleted, regardless of the merits of the content. No prejudice against creating an article about it, but any article which is the list should be speedied as a copyvio. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse yet another copyright violating "best of" article. Even if it were not a copyvio, it would be unencyclopaedic - we do not need an article on every single seasonal spacefiller. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion as a confirmed copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Bikini Carwash Company – Sent to afd here – Doc^g 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a legitimate movie and the reason provided (Virtually everything in this movie is redlinked) seems odd to me? since when is it a reason for deletion. what are the criteria for inclusion of movies ? Hektor 10:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0103812/ ImdB entry[reply]

Send to Afd - probably crap, but needs a debate. IMDB is not indicative of notability.--Doc^g 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. What speedy did it qualify under? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was an unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is) but I don't care if it goes to AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sending to AfD - may as well debate it there.--Doc^g 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this course of action. Chris cheese whine 12:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So, in other words, it didn't qualify for speedy deletion. Thanks for reversing yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. In other words, it did qualify, but has been contested. Chris cheese whine 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UK Resistance – overturned and listed at AFD – GRBerry 00:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion log shows that this CSD "didn't match WP:WEB fully". I am appealing this CSD, as I rewrote some of this article, I know that I cited Edge (magazine) and Computer and Video Games (magazine) for certain passages. This did have third party sources, from very established reliable sources. It should have been prodded or AFDed. - hahnch e n 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, "doesn't meet WP:WEB completely" is not a speedy criterion. And seeing as the article deleted in AfD had no reliable sources, a new AfD is in order for G4 to work. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - notability guidelines are not policy and certainly not speedy deletion criteria--Doc^g 11:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, appears to be an invalid CSD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Hold on a moment, the deletion log for the article reveals it was deleted as the result a AfD a year ago, and the article was recreated without going through a review first. Wouldn't the speedy be justified under WP:CSD#G4? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, following Amarkov's comments above. I have recreated other articles without pandering to DRV such as Zen of Sudoku (although I did not originally recreate UK Resistance, merely tidied it up) - hahnch e n 12:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Natural History of South Asia mailing list – relisted at AfD by Chriscf. (non-admin closure) – Resurgent insurgent 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

((1st AfD))

Article was preserved on the basis that, amongst other things, the article was well-referenced, and notability was demonstrated. The references have since failed to stand up to scrutiny - one even turned out to be a complete misrepresentation (details on the talk page). Turns out that this is in fact Just Another Mailing List after all. Chris cheese whine 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. I think it needs to be made clearer that disagreeing with the consensus (or lack thereof) is not a valid reason to bring something to DRV. -Amarkov moo! 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought one of the grounds for bringing things here is "new evidence", which there is - namely that the evidence presented was bogus. I believe this may have materially affected the outcome, and a significant number of the keepers would not have been so inclined. Chris cheese whine 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I could be missing something, but I'm not finding anything explaining why any of the evidence was falsified. Could you clarify? -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No problems on this one on my end. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: On the one hand, ... there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed. Only the attribution later turns out to be fabricated, and this isn't a problem? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was acceptable to simply make up citations to put into articles. Chris cheese whine 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see no need for this DRV, really. The article was not deleted, and would never have been deleted from the discussion that actually took place. If Chriscf wants to list the article for a fresh AfD he can, but I think he should probably wait a little while; this was an intense debate and repeating it immediately would be foolish. Mango juice^talk 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse What parts of the evidence if any were bogus is being discussed on he article talk page, & I would not assume what the consensus there will be. I wonder what is so particularly wrong with this particular article that the AfD was thought worth the trouble of a Del Rev. DGG 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the complete lack of valid sources, but I could be wrong :o) Guy (Help!) 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete rogue afd result - article has precisely NO external sources.--Doc^g 11:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the AfD was going on, it did. Version just after AfD. Mango juice^talk 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... which is precisely what I said. They are all bogus - they are either false, circular, or do not attest to what they're being used to support. All of which is why those references are no longer there. Chris cheese whine 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I find the analysis of sources to be a compelling argument for deletion, but it's obvious to me from the above that more discussion is needed. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, if not Overturn. The discussion was closed as "On the one hand, per trialsanderrors, there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed." The argument by trialsanderrors was that it is a "scientific mail list that produced a number of noteworthy predictions" -- the article never stated anything about "number of noteworthy predictions" and there were/are no references to establish it. Most of the Keep votes were thanks to the creator of the article dropping notices on talk pages, and provided no solid arguments to explain notability ("notable in academic circles" - no refs, "number of noteworthy predictions" - the article never stated that, "Keep per...", "seems notable"). Incidentally, the creator has possibly a COI ("I entered our "Natural History India Mailing List" in the Encyclopedia (Wikipedia the free encyclopedia on the web) yesterday. Please keep a tab on the Article, after few days waiting time for new articles it will put the Wikipedia Article on our List on top in Google and other Web engine searches."). utcursch | talk 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - A misrepresentation of information and subsequent debunking of sources/claims warrants another look at this. Also, canvassing is not acceptable and the COI is worrisome as well. Wickethewok 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I am not sure I would have defended it as strongly on AfD had I seen the quote above. DGG 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on AfD where it's almost certain to be deleted in its current unreferenced state. Kudos for busting the fake refs. Resurgent insurgent 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist if not Overturn: The "citations" on notability all turned out to be trivial, one-sentence or less mentions of the lists name or list address. One of the "references" claimed to be from American Museum of Natural History, but my investigation showed it to be a page from an anonymous Indian web server. Under Wikipedia:Notability_(web), trivial one liners do not count as proof of notability. User:Atulsnishchal the creator of the page, also canvassed selectively to get keep votes in his favor, and misled the users by adding genuine looking, but misrepresented references, making a mockery of the AFD process. --Ragib 07:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to point out that I considered the canvassing claim in my closure and came to the conclusion that it wasn't especially damaging (not to say that we shouldn't have a new AfD). If you look, you'll notice that although Atulsnischal did ask for input from several users, including some that supported the article, s/he also solicited several delete !voters, including Lethaniol, Bluestripe, and Woohookitty, plus the solicitation was neutral on what view to endorse. Mangojuice^talk 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As nominator here, I have to concur. The on-wiki canvassing wasn't the typical "OMG GET UR ASS TO AFD AND KEEP IT NOW!", and there's no follow-up to suggest that the targets were chosen to be sympathetic. The canvassing isn't an issue here. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion is leaning towards a relist, I will do the honours shortly. Chris cheese whine 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 March 2007

Jeffree Star – closed, no new information since many previous reviews – Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article on Jeffree Star should be restored because he is a major celebrity. Right now, he has an EP that is #1 on iTunes dance. There is an article on this EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, as well as it's single, Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's The Difference?). Since both these two articles exist, I think this calls for Star's article to be restored. He has obtained celebrity status and has over one four hundred thousand friends on his artist page on Myspace. Nateabel 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The fact that someone created some articles on his songs does not mean that the article should be kept; maybe those articles should be deleted too. And notability comes from reliable sources, not Myspace friends. There was another DRV not that long ago, but I can't find it. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous deletion review here. Unless information not mentioned there is forthcoming, this should be closed. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kills me. When the hell can we update our reliable sources so we're actually up to date? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Speedy endorse unless information attributable to reliable sources are presented soon. As far as I can tell, this is the seventh DRV on this subject (and the fifth one I've endorsed), and none of them have presented any. --Core desat 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Coldsmith Briggs III – Speedy close, no deletion to review - this can be discussed on target article's talk page – Core desat 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was under major construction and was deleted by someone who did not realize this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazeedriver2005 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not for here. The redirect is not a deletion decision, and can be reversed. With such small input into the AfD and the fact that there's nothing really to review (nothing was deleted), there's nothing for us to do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Booty_Master – request withdrawn – GRBerry 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons are the following

This was a page about an online game that have been deleted some days before: 11:20, 20 March 2007 ChrisGriswold (Talk | contribs) deleted "Booty Master" (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7).

As I could not seem to understand why the page should have been deleted, I contacted the administrator through his talk page and asked why. He responded: The reason that article on your game was deleted twice is because your game is not notable, or if it is, you didn't show that at all in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, I do not feel that this is a right reason for deletion and I have not found any rule mentioning that popularity of a subject is to define if an article is suitable or not. I mentioned this to the administrator but he hasn't replied to me again. You can check the talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisGriswold#Booty_Master

On to further defense of the article I posted, I have to add that the page was deleted without any prior informing. I believe that this is not right too as the page have been there for 20 days and there should have been some , even minimum, time for me to attempt to correct anything not assorted correctly.

Additionally, I find it weird that other articles that refer to similar types of games like mine, and that are far less "notable" and consist by a far less encyclopedic value, manage to stay undeleted, while my article was deleted. Its my first time to post an article in Wikipedia and I am trying to learn all the rules etc but I have to say that this type of administrating does not help.

Finally, I would like to get an answer on why my page was deleted as I am left uncovered by the administrator response. Also, I would like a restore as I clearly feel that this was an unfair decision. Lastly, if it is judged that my page was against the rules, I would still like the page as it was before deletion, in order to correct what should be corrected.

Thank you Panagiotb 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. You don't seem to dispute that the article didn't assert notability, and not asserting notability is a reason for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#A7. If you think that other articles should be deleted too, nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid WP:CSD#A7. Article makes no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this one is proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Endorse deletion. Wikipedia just isn't the place to promote someone's webgame. The editor should probably familiarize him or herself with WP:NOTE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and maybe WP:COI. ~CS 15:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I read about the notability thing now. But since its a website, isn't it difficult to assert its notability? It has 300 unique visitors per day currently and growing every day. I guess I will re-write the article sometime later when many more people visit it daily. No way to get that text written eh ? thank anyways and I wasn't aware of the notability thingie. Panagiotb 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of hits are irrelevant to whether a website can have an article. Having multiple independent reliable sources to base an article on is what makes the difference. See also WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The notability criteria for websites are located at WP:WEB. And are you saying that you're withdrawing this nomination?Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse pretty clear A7-speedy candidate, and would never pass an AFD vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Southern mafia – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erroneous claims of HOAX or doubts about existence of the subject. OR, ATT, DECDIF, COPYVIO and SYN issues addressed in subsequent rewrites.

Endorse deletion. Assertions that the consensus was incorrect do not make it so, and nobody seemed to be convinced that your rewrites really did fix the problems. -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AfD is valid and no reason to challenge it. The statement that it is not OR might be more persuasive if thie were not a monograph. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - rewrites completed late last night; deletion occurred early this morning, so no time for consensus to develop after changes. Please read latest version. --MBHiii 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- *sigh*. Could we get it restored under a DRV tag? -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kommentar Everything from the AfD tag onwards is now in the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Request Could you do same for Unholy Alliance? --MBHiii 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There was a strong consensus to delete this, author made numerous edits to the article during the AfD process in an attempt to resolve the concerns brought up but as the debate shows none of these edits succeeded in making this article any better. As with Unholy Alliance I would suggest to MBHiii that if he wants to create an encyclopedic article on this subject his best bet would be to create something in his userspace and have it reviewed prior to moving it to the mainspace - trying to contest an AfD decision when you were the only person arguing to keep it is really grasping at straws and dragging the issue needlessly out. Arkyan 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If someone goes to Unholy Alliance oder Southern mafia and finds nothing, what's the most direct way of notifying him of a proposed article? ... a note on the mainspace saying something to the effect that a proposed article, open for review, debate and edit, resides at XYZ? --MBHiii 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer There's a {{drv}} template; the standard usage is to undelete all the history, replace the page with {{drv}}, and protect (in cases where the history is requested, such as this one). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Request Could you do same for Unholy Alliance? (same reason: rewrites completed late; deletion occurred early next day, so no time for consensus to develop after changes. Please read latest version.) --MBHiii 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Check the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Afd consensus was crystal-clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How could it be without reflecting upon the latest changes made? --MBHiii 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy. Nevertheless, you have to understand that while the guidelines are just guidelines and not hard and fast rules, they have to be followed to a certain measure. From the time an AfD is listed it has about 5 days worth of discussion - 5 days is ample time to resolve the problems that had been brought up. It it highly unlikely that a last-second change would have swayed anyone, particularly given the volume of changes that the article had already undergone during the discussion. Finally, the closing admin has to excersize a certain amount of discretion - you cannot expect that a closure will be invalidated due to changes just prior to closing, otherwise a disruptive editor could drag an AfD out indefinitely by constantly making minor changes to prevent closure.

Please do not take the deletion of an article you created as a personal affront - remember that no one owns the articles they create, and the decision that the content did not meet criteria is in no way an assessment of you as an editor. The article as it existed was heavily flawed. I will reiterate - if you feel you have an encyclopedic topic and have the research to support it, start anew rather than trying to salvage the previous content. However if the consensus of the other editors is that it is not encyclopedic, there is no sense in endlessly pursuing the issue. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins please note a novel argument is presented above by a self-professed deletionist: "the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy." Please read the article(s) and decide for yourselves. --MBHiii 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I've seen the argument of something "inherently" not being inclusion-worthy before, and I don't find anything wrong with it. Sometimes, the odds of something having enough reliable sources is so low that that they can just assume they don't exist. Furthermore, whether someone is deletionist or not doesn't affect how much their !vote should be considered, as long as they supply a good reason. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one refers to "all the sources" being unreliable and that's not the case here, right? (for either article) I still say that those who take material positions before a debate should not engage when that position could influence and ought not to. --MBHiii 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So... anybody who has any opinion on anything shouldn't engage on any debate related to that thing? Then you should recuse yourself from this debate as the page creator. I'm not saying I agree with your policy, I'm just saying that it can work both ways. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a matter of degree that should be perfectly valid to discuss. It all depends on whether the position "ought not to" influence the debate and how material it is to the debate. Any page creator can be assumed to have an interest in developing it further. If that interest appears to become a hinderance, there's nothing wrong in saying so.--MBHiii 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but simply being an inclusionist or deletionist shouldn't preclude one from engaging in AfD and DRV debates. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from debate; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing the log, as a matter of WK policy. --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's kinda absurd. It's like saying "You're not allowed to vote because you're Republican!", which nobody to my knowledge has ever seriously suggested. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from voting; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing the log, as a matter of WK policy. For example, User:Akyan nit-picked both my articles to death using official WK policies (much of which I was unaware, so good on him, so far) but then when I'd addressed his and others concerns, he falls back and punts with "the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy." an idea that was unexpressed by anyone, until now, and a misapplication of WK policy, to boot. As an expert nit-picker he would have known that the policy, Reliable Sources, defines as "unsuitable" those articles for which "all the sources" have "low reliability" which is clearly not the case, in either article. This is evidence of inherent bias, hidden agenda, (or incredible sloppiness) on his part. No one (including him) had made this argument, yet he asserts it as "consensus." His previously stated deletionist position should be given great weight by you all. --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look. You completely missed the point in the criticism regarding the sources - I never said they were unreliable, merely inapplicable as none of them provided evicence of the existence of a Southern Mafia. I don't know how many times someone has brought the point up that bringing up examples of someone using a term, regardless of how many, regardless of how "reliable", is not what WP:ATT is all about. Demonstrating that people use the term "Southern Mafia" does nothing to actually attribute the material of the article - all you are doing is digging up evidence to back up the use of a term. The complaint being made was that none of your sources established anything regarding the definition, history, evolution, or any other material information about the term other than it exists. That something is true/exists does NOT an encyclopedia article make! Furthermore, accusing me of having inherent bias or a hidden agenda is precariously close to a personal attack and I ask you to refrain from doing so further. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Arkyan squirts ink like an octopus and retreats to another position. Rather than meet head-on the criticism of his baseless claim above "consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy" and its official interpretation, then acknowledging it was inappropriate for him to make, he moves on to ATT which was more than adequately addressed already during AfD discussions and rewrites:

Weak Delete - appears to violate WP:ATT, but if attribution and notability (and existence) can be established, I'd be inclined to change my opinion. --Mhking 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It does little more than establish the existence of the term - the point of WP:ATT is not to simply find quotes but to tell us something, which this doesn't. Arkyan 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Southern Mafia" simply does not exist beyond a mere term of use and just can't be expanded beyond a dicdef - nothing out there seems to support anything more than that, and no amount of sourcing in examples will cure that fact. ... Arkyan 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing to me that, still, you don't believe it exists, so I added the case about which Hume wrote. --MBHiii 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the Southern Mafia doesn't exist... without substantive statements discussing what the Southern Mafia is, where it came from, how it developed, etc. the article is nothing more than a dicdef ... Blueboar 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note ... addition of areas of operation and summaries of operation from key refs cited. BTW on the discussion page, you said "The issue is whether such a thing as a 'Southern Mafia' actually exists." ... --MBHiii 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

From the above it's clear that Blueboar argues like Arkyan, ignoring or brushing off recent statements they make and replies to them in order to keep attacking, using other (even previously addressed) critiques. (Again, see latest versions of both articles.) Arkyan's and Blueboar's opinions should be severely discounted by you all. --MBHiii 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The AfD was noteworthy for detailed debate of the sort that would normally be found on a talk page. I think it is by no means certain what the consensus was. The fair thing is to relist and let people see if there is any progress.DGG 06:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you do the same for Unholy Alliance for the same reasons? --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request display of latest versions of both Unholy Alliance and Southern mafia with protection from edits for six months, so all discussion can proceed normally on their talk pages. Arkyan, I'm afraid, shows no sign of reform (see User_talk:Mbhiii#Please_keep_discussion_impersonal) and is likely to keep repeating what he has done here. --MBHiii 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply not done. Articles that don't survive AfD are removed from public view for a reason. If the AfD did get overturned (which seems unlikely at this point), there is also no reason to protect the page from well-meaning editors. If you wish to continue working on the page, I again suggest that you create a working draft in your userspace, where it can be reviewed to see if it addresses the concerns of the AfD. I find it odd that you haven't yet done so.
- Arkyan's comments in the link you provided seem entirely appropriate. I can only echo WP:NPA and his advice to comment on content, not on the contributor.
- On a final note, since I have not previously expressed an opinion in this DRV, I must endorse deletion as the AfD was clearly valid. - Þ 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - an editor who uses a bad form of argument, refuses to acknowledge it, and keeps harping on old, long-since addressed and now irrelevant points, should not be assumed to be well-meaning. Note, this last person, previously critical of both articles, seems to care nothing about Blueboar and Arkyan using bad forms of argument.

Repeat, these articles need protection from a couple of otherwise well-spoken, but seemingly disingenuous editors who abuse the deletion process with bad arguments to blank subjects they find "inherently not inclusionworthy." (Read the articles.) --MBHiii 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is drifting from the subject of the DRV, so I'm going to reply on your talk page. - Þ 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, irrelevantly cites WP:NOT#IINFO and never addresses central point on the bad form of argument used by at least two editors. These articles need protection from editors who persistently argue in bad form for deletion after useful criticism is addressed. -MBHiii 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Stallings (model) – relisted at AFD – GRBerry 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn - the reason offered for deletion was that the subject did not pass WP:BIO. However, the subject does pass WP:BIO as a television personality who was involved with well-known television productions. The subject was a featured participant in the television show Manhunt and in two seasons of the high-rated show The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency including the Christmas with the Dickinsons special. Stallings is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of him. The only rationale offered for deletion was failing WP:BIO but the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. No valid reason offered for deletion. Delete !votes were based on: "vanity spam" (in other words, WP:COI) which is not a valid deletion criteria and, since the subject was not involved with editing the article does not apply anyway; and on an incorrect understanding of WP:BIO suggesting that the subject must "offer (something) special" or be "prolific" or "establish a dramatic character" to qualify for an article, which is not supported by policy or guidelines. Mulitple independent sources were linked in the AFD and in the subject article. The AFD should be overturned and the article restored. Otto4711 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, the sources presented in the AFD do not indicate notability (they're just interviews). In fact, the interviews are almost the same, and the second one assaulted my computer with pop-up windows, which makes me wonder if it's even a reliable source to begin with. --Core desat 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, at WP:RS do you believe supports the notion that interviews aren't reliable sources or that interviews which are accompanied by popups are not reliable? Otto4711 07:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, I don't really know why that AfD was closed with only three opinions, when none of the keep !voters commented after your sources. I'm not convinced that he's notable, but I'm less convinced that it's so clear-cut it shouldn't go through AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid close, allow re-creation if multiple non-trivial independent sources can be found. Two sources were cited in the AfD but one was clearly not reliable. The other was an interview, not a biography. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AfD, valid close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I think there's a good case for continued discussion. I think interviews may or may not be RS, depending on who does this interviewing and whether it is more than just an opportunity for the subject to display his own accomplishments. Might be a good idea to discuss this. DGG 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obtree – Contested prod, restored – Fram 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A) It's not expired, B) Even if, it would be noteable because of a sounding history and because great technology often vanishes, a reason to keep in noted at least for one or two decades, especially if there are still hundreds of companies using it Metazargo 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Expired prod" means that some editor "prodded" (proposed for deletion) this article, and that at least five days had passed since the start of that "prod" without comments or opposition (the prod has then expired). It does not mean the product (the subject of the article) has expired. Having said that, I'll undelete the article (per WP:PROD: even after deletion, a reasonable undeletion request should be followed). The article is still a candidate to be deleted though, if someone decides to take it to WP:AfD, the formal deletion process. This deletion and undeletion have no impact on that discussion. Please check out WP:ATT (our general policy on sourcing) and WP:CORP (our guideline on which companies and products shouldn and shouldn't have an article) to see if this article does fulfill these requirements in your opinion. Fram 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 March 2007

Xtorrent – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this page, and I know my information was accurate, all photos used on the page were documented as being either a low-res screen shot or a low-res logo. I do not believe there was any major bias present as all information was based on 100% facts. I can find no reason for it to have been deleted. Xtorrent is a filesharing (bittorrent) client. It exists, plain and simple, so what's going on? Dreamwinder 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion- AfD was valid, nothing has changed since.--RWR8189 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The issue was not copyright or bias, it was notability. Not everything that exists should have a Wikipedia article, so we have criteria. There were no good reliable sources that proved that Xtorrent satisfied them, so it was deleted. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar While notariety does help dictate what should and should not have its own article, a software stub article being created is much more usefull, dare I say appropraite than say, making an article about yourself. Just because a piece of software or product in general is still considered "niche" doesn't mean it should be deleted for lack of notable merit.
- Comment When did autobiographies come into play here? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AfD, no new information. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If you have an issue with the fact that we are an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information, then get a consensus against those. Until you do, this is a perfectly valid AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Doctor Who people – Nothing to see here, move along please... – Guy (Help!) 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to merge or delete. Overturn Tim! 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the objection. The decision was made to listify all the children of this category. There is already a category for Dr. Who lists, so this category is redundant. If Tim! is objecting to the listifying of the children, he should make that clear. -- Samuel Wantman 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse merge, and speedy close per WP:POINT. Tim appears to be nominating this only because I disagreed with two of his closings earlier today, as his comment here indicates. >Radiant< 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to speedy close What exactly is the justification for denying people the right to comment on this? I am in favour of the original decision, but not of this denial of the right to comment. Choalbaton 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence Radiant!'s close was actually contentious, this is a private fight which I suspect both parties regret allowing to get to this point. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories – Jointly relisted at AfD – trialsanderrors 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

These two topics went up for deletion a year ago, and an overwhelming consensus was established that the two needed to be treated equivalently, either both kept or both deleted. Instead, what happened was that Blogging Tories got deleted but Progressive Bloggers got kept. It came to DRV and Blogging Tories was reinstated. More recently, they went up for AFD again, and the exact opposite result occurred; this time Progressive Bloggers was deleted and Blogging Tories was kept.

The issue, in a nutshell, is that these two blogging groups represent the two ends of the political spectrum within the Canadian blogosphere. They haven't had differing levels of media coverage from each other; they don't have significantly different levels of web traffic from each other. It constitutes bias to decide that one of them is notable while the other one isn't, because there simply isn't any valid criterion on which it's possible to say that they fall on opposite sides of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. People who voted to keep them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. People who voted to delete them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Lefties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Righties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently.

(ETA: I should add, as well, that equivalent sources, mostly from the same organizations, were presented in support of both groups; the result at hand was obtained not because one group had better or more valid sources than the other, but because the two closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources.)

Thus, I'm putting this up for DRV since the results have been inconsistent: do we keep both, or do we delete both? There's simply no case to be made that we can keep one and delete the other. Bearcat 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both And rename the second one to Tory Bloggers for similarity. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blogging Tories" is the proper name of the thing. We can't rename things at random. Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion of Progressive Bloggers No Opinion on Blogging Tories-Unilateral restoration of Progressive Bloggers by Bearcat despite a valid AfD, and especially because of the fact he was involved in that AfD was unfounded. This article may technically be a candidate for speedy deletion under G4, as no new information to establish notability has been brought forward since the AfD was closed in February. In the February AfD of Blogging Tories sufficient sources were found for a keep consensus to emerge, such sources have not been found for Progressive Bloggers either in the AfD, or since then. WP:V is not negotiable, and to assert that a non-notable article must be kept for the sake of balance is not a valid argument.--RWR8189 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way: what if deletion discussions resulted in the conclusion that United States Republican Party was notable enough for Wikipedia, but United States Democratic Party wasn't, or vice versa, because two different closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources? Don't you see how that could make Wikipedia appear inappropriately biased toward one political party? Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Build the straw man somewhere else. I have yet to see these equivalent sources you claim exist, and they are certainly not present in the article you restored or at the AfD. In the Blogging Tories AfD newscasts and newsreports that contained only information about the Blogging Tories were presented. We have yet to be presented with verifiable and attributable sources with regards to Progressive Bloggers. This wasn't a case of the closers making different determinations based on the same sources, it is different results based one having sources, and the other lacking them.--RWR8189 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar I'm inclined to close this speedily because it conflates deletion decisions without evidence that individual deletions were in error. The underlying policy questions strikes me as one for WP:RFC. ~ trialsanderrors 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar: an overwhelming consensus was established by virtually every participant in both rounds of AFD debates that the two had to be treated equivalently. Even people who voted to delete in the first round still viewed retaining both as preferable to keeping one and deleting the other. Even voters who were actually associated with one of the two groups agreed that deleting both would be preferable to keeping one and deleting the other. If you think there's a legitimate case to be made that Wikipedia can view one as notable and the other not, then you're going to have to overturn that consensus first. Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have to overturn anything. Are you challenging brenneman's closure or Yuser's closure? If so you should state this in the nomination. Instead you're simply creating a procedural mess, on top of undeleting the article out of process. ~ trialsanderrors 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two different closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources, on two articles that already had a clearly established consensus around the necessity to treat them equivalently to each other because they represent the two ideological ends of the same fundamental topic and have largely the same sources supporting them both. If there's a procedural mess here, I'm not the one who created it. Bearcat 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm asking you for the last time before I speedily close this as an invalid nomination: Are you challenging brenneman's closure or Yuser's closure? From your actions you seem to be challenging brenneman's closure. If you get the ok to restore it here, you're free to joint nominate them at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again: I'm challenging the inconsistency of these two results; I'm perfectly happy to accept deletion of both if that's the consensus that emerges. But when the same sources are being evaluated differently on two connected articles, the status quo cannot stand as is. So what other process exists to resolve the matter, exactly, if discussing it here is invalid? Bearcat 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I just explained it to you: Challenge the deletion and then joint nominate. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both results, if one group has multiple non-trivial independent sources and the other does not, it is not our fault, and we are not obliged to include any article because an article on some related topic exists. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"One group has multiple non-trivial independent sources and the other does not" is not the situation at hand. They have equivalent sources which were evaluated differently by two different closers: one made a judgement call on the quality of the sources, while the other one didn't. The sources themselves, however, were equivalent to each other. Also, the raw numbers count on Progressive Bloggers was 5 D to 4 K, which hardly constitutes a clear consensus. Bearcat 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both. It's not uncommon for AfDs on related articles to come to inconsistent results. I don't think that is something that's going to change. However, in this case, everything else being equal, we ought to have some consistency and, generally speaking, the default position is to keep. Agent 86 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Objection to this on the grounds of inconsistency is not valid in any way I can figure. So apparently these two groups have some similarity in the opinions of some editors - so what? This is irrelevant to our purposes here. The claim of bias is quite a stretch. Friday (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result at hand was obtained not because one group had better or more valid sources than the other, but because the two closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of equivalent sources, sometimes even the same sources. Why is Source X proof of notability in one case and not proof of notability in the other? Bearcat 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse both closures. I don't see a consensus that the sources are equivalent, but I feel like I'm missing something. -Amarkov moo! 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore both The two articles are different in quality; the Tories seem to have at this point a much higher quality job of editing, and their page is much simpler, more factual, and less devoted to internal arguments than the Progressives; perhaps this may have influenced the AfDs. .But the two are equivalently notable and article-worthy. Acceptance of a procedure that goes one way on one throw of the dice, and the opposite the next time, is like--well, like making decisions by throwing dice. Since the WP process has proven itself by clear example unable to be used objectively in this case, we should simply let the articles be, in the spirit of doing no harm--and hope that the two will refrain from using WP as a game of chance in the future. In general, if there is to be any confidence in the fairness of deletion procedures, the closers should try to decide equitable when there are multiple examples (I note that CfD usually does try to maintain consistency fairly well& unifies discussions as appropriate.) DGG 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that equivalent notability has been established between the two articles? I agree with your sentiments in principle, but it doesn't seem to be the reality of this situation. We have seen independent and non-trivial coverage of the Tories, as of now such sources have not been presented in regards to Progressive Bloggers.--RWR8189 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both The two articles are about two very important parts of the Canada political scene. While they may not show up as exremely important on an international scale, they must be included if Canadian politics is to be treated seriously by wikipedia. Jason Cherniak 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your basic argument isWP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL? WP:V is not negotiable, either we make exceptions for everything or nothing. The policy based reasoning for overturning the closure of Progressive Bloggers seems to be virtually non-existant.--RWR8189 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both If closing admins would properly place the burden upon those seeking deletion in AfDs you would not see such inconsistent results. "When in doubt keep" should have a leveling effect. Instead we get wild swings. Edivorce 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Townsend-Warner history prize – deletion of a copyright violation endorsed – GRBerry 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The information was based on the magazine 'Prep School Magazine'. The Townsend-Warner history prize is very well known throughout England, and I thought that Wikipedia might be improved if such a page was added. I'm sorry to realise that this was not the case. Kobayashis 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the first deletion (another mistaken "no context," apparently), but not the second (I trust that it was a copyvio in that case). As you were the creator the first time, was the content the same in both deletions? If so, it's possibly a copyvio in both as well, and you shouldn't have a problem with making an article that isn't a copyright violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of copyright violation, allow new article which establishes notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice, just as Guy has it. DGG 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bloodless bullfighting – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 18:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Woa.... wait a minute!!!! I just got wind of this "so-called" deletion request by Fethers. What is up with this person???? "Bloodless" Bullfighting is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLE from the Spanish style..... like the fact that it is "BLOODLESS"... the bull does not get killed. Fethers has no idea what he is talking about other than he has been hounding that particular article from the get go and the history can speak for itself. This should not even be here... nor should it be up for a debate. The aficions of the Spanish style will even attest to the fact that the "bloodless" style cannot co-mingle within the same realm of the Spanish style because of the "end" part of a bullfight.... where the bull gets killed. Contrary to anything that fethers has to say, the article is NOT any form of publicity other than making the public aware that there is another style to bullfighting. fethers is basically full of himself. The mere fact that you guys agreed to deleting this article served NO justice to the Portuguese people or to the art of this culture. This is un-real and I would like to request that the article be "undeleted" and bring respect back to it. I cannot believe that Wiki-admins made this decision solely on one person's request and did NOTHING to notify me to defend the rights of this article. This was an "unjust" decision.... I am at a loss for words.--Webmistress Diva 06:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Procedural DRV request on behalf of user by me fethers 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Does your article have reliable sources? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose to deletion -- Yes, there are and I had mentioned in the "discussion page" of the article that when time permits, I would include the source and I had also mentioned that I would fix the article so that it was within "Wiki" standards. This is a matter of a "power trip" by one particular user named ...fethers. Let's look at this "realistically", ok. For starters, I do not get paid to sit on "Wikipedia" all day long, so unfortunately, I cannot focus all of my time trying to get an article up to par with Wiki's standards. So for the upteenth time, who the heck is this fethers person and why is he/she so eager to delete an article that he/she has no clue as to what the subject is about. --Webmistress Diva 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources other than those written by User:Pebs96 on her website. See the conflict of interest discussion linked in the AfD. fethers 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Fethers' argument. There were 0 sources that were independent of the contributor. From the linked-to diff on COI/N: "Ranch Cardoso website is really the only accurate "English" speaking website on the net." You'd think that something in the USA would attract more English-speaking coverage, even if it's about a traditionally Hispanic topic. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oppose to deletion and Against Fethers arguments~~ -- Ranch Cardoso may be the only accurate "English-speaking" coverage on the net, but it DOES NOT mean that there are no publications and articles about bloodless bullfighting in California. It just so happened that I came up with the idea to putting all of the information under one roof.... what's the harm in that? And contrary to what any wikipedians say or think, Ranch Cardoso is NOT a commercial site.--Webmistress Diva 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If one person has the power to gather all the sources there are on a topic and put them on one site, there is unquestionably not enough coverage to even relist the AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oppose to deletion and Against Amarkov's arguments~~ -- I think you are mistaken. I SAID, there are PLENTY of publications and articles that this subject can be sourced from. Also, when I said housing it under one roof, I didn't think I have to explain in details that I put it in my own words. Just because the information is on a website does not mean that there's no other sites that exist. There are plenty, but the Ranch Cardoso happens to have videos and other details that the other sites do not have. Just like Wikipedia, the Ranch Cardoso website is an on-going project, currently going through a face-lift and researching more information. This is extremely draining to have to explain over and over and over again! --Webmistress Diva 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) ← Only one bolded opinion please. ~ trialsanderrors 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Lack of reliable sources, and only a single source given, means that this article does not have enough coverage in non-trivial third-party sources. Add to that the conflict of interest factor, and, as far as I can see, there is no reason to relist the AFD. --sunstar net^talk 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - per the original nominator's argument. If there's anything here, just recreate citing reliable sources this time. Perfectly valid AfD on both grounds of arguments and numbers. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tecumseh Fox – No consensus decision overturned, category deleted – trialsanderrors 05:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobody objected to deletion, but User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". CFD does not have a quorum, and regularly works on the principle that if nobody objects to a nomination, it passes. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 10:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per nom. Haddiscoe 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar there may not be a quorum, but the reason stated was not valid reason for deletion. Tim! 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was. Explicitly, even. Not that we have an exhaustive list of "valid reasons". >Radiant< 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per nom. Reason was perfectly valid. Mango juice^talk 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the two book articles are short and completely unreferenced, so should be merged to the character article anyway. Overturn and delete very small category with no potential to be anything else. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, clearly did have a valid reason for deletion, and even if it didn't, Tim should have said that instead of a wishy-washy and misleading claim of "no consensus"! Xtifr _tälk 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - as noted, there were no objections to deletion. "No consensus" is unsupported by the CFD. Otto4711 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. If nobody objects, you can not close as anything but delete. Relist, sure, and that's actually a really good idea when nobody else comments. But admin discretion doesn't mean "Nobody else bothered to comment here, so I decide completely what happens". -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting would show contempt for those, like me, who passively supported the deletion by not commenting! :) Xtifr _tälk 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, there was consensus at CfD. MaxSem 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, there's not much to say besides what the nominator at CfD said. Kusma (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - per everyone else. No objections to deletion, and the category clearly fails/passes? a deletion criterion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Choalbaton 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Nobody objects to the deletion and Tim is unable to find any other result than "no consensus". This either means that Tim willingly ignored the stated consensus for deletion or that he was truthfully unable to determine consensus; and either thing would be very sad. Charon X/talk 21:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to relisting - I guess I'm the one-off here, but there was "no consensus" in the vacuous sense that there weren't enough people to have a consensus of. In the bigger picture, I think it makes no difference whether we have this category or not, given the small potential membership in it, although I would think that if it's kept, then Rex Stout, the author of both the Tecumseh Fox and the far better-known Nero Wolfe series, should be added. Newyorkbrad 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Air Bud – No consensus decision overturned, category deleted – trialsanderrors 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has a reasonable debate with a clear consensus to delete; one of the original "keep" commenters even changed his mind as a result of the arguments. Nevertheless. User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". I'm afraid I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per Radiant. Consensus had obviously been arrived at here, I'm surprised that a closing admin would have failed to take note of it.

Xdamr^talk 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar no particularly compelling reasons to delete were stated in the debate. If you want to replace the category with a navbox, it would probably be a good idea to create it before nominating, so the two can be compared. Tim! 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, Tim, as a closing admin you're supposed to implement community consensus, not ignore it in favor of your own opinion. >Radiant< 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What like here ? You're just counting votes when it suits you. Tim! 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever objections you have to Radiant's conduct, or indeed to that of any other administrator/editor, do not give you carte blanche to discount clearly expressed consensus. The consensus was clearly to delete—disregarding this, subordinating it to your own desire to make a WP:POINT, is most unbecoming.

Xdamr^talk 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is just bad style Tim. Radiant's conduct is not of importance here. Yours is. And by pointing fingers you do not improve your status in my eyes. This is only a minor issue, but if you do not see what the problem is maybe you should consider filing a self-RfC for some soulsearching. Charon X/talk 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per Radiant. A navbox would be better. Dismas|^(talk) 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, consensus was clear, and if Tim disagreed, he should either have added his own comments to the discussion, or at the least, have specified his actual reasons in the closing. Claiming that this was "no consensus" is false, misleading and utterly inappropriate. Xtifr _tälk 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. There was a clear consensus here, and Tim ignored it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - I hate to bring this up, but the closing admin and I have been on the opposite side of a number of deletion discussions (both articles and categories) and I have some concerns that the admin has some issues regarding my nominations. I hate the idea that conflicts between the admin and me are disrupting the project so I hope, if that is an issue, that the admin will dialogue with me about the situation. Otto4711 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, I really hate it when people misuse admin discretion to mean "I get to decide that the arguments for deletion are invalid against consensus!" -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - per clear and entirely reasonable consensus at the CfD. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - the consensus was clear: to delete. I find it worrysome that Tim decided to ignore that and close it as no consensus. Charon X/talk 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete as the guy that changed his mind. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Melissa Scott (pastor) – deletion endorsed. This is without prejudice for creating a neutral and reliably sourced version in the future. For now, what little verifiable information is available can be placed in the Eugene Scott article and a protected redirect created at Melissa Scott (pastor). – —Doug Bell ^talk 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable individual; Wikipedia needs to have a page about her. Simply getting rid of the article is an "easy out." Badagnani 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment The de jure status quo for this nomination is the last consensus decision (Keep) as determined by the Afd closer (Mangojuice). Unless there is majoritarian support to overturn the closure it with be reinstated and possibly sent to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - Notable individual and Wikipedia needs an article for this person. Badagnani 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion article was fairly deleted under WP:A and WP:BLP. Plus lines like "saved by God's grace, unmerited favor, through faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice on the Cross." are highly inappropriate, ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm familiar with your favoring of deletions, which are well known. That aside, the solution should be a re-creation of the page with "just the facts." Of course I don't agree with the quotes you present; the solution to those is simply editing to make the article NPOV, not an "easy out" by deleting entirely the bio article of a notable individual. Badagnani 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per WP:ATT and WP:BLP concerns. The article appeared to be heavily POV, with unsourced claims. WP:BLP overrules the AFD result. A NPOV, sourced version can always be written in userspace. --Core desat 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - Of course, the editors who haunt deletion-related pages always support one another in deletions, whether they are justified (or logical) or not. In this case, however, you are incorrect. The deleted page says nothing about the page being able to be recreated; in fact, it says entirely the opposite. This is a notable individual and Wikipedia needs to have a biography page about her. I have already stated that I do not agree with the former POV text in the article; that is what editing is for! Deleting was an "easy out." Badagnani 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar Please assume good faith and be civil - don't make accusations against other editors. The article actually contains no such assertion, see WP:BIO. --Core desat 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I see illogical actions made, then supported, I reserve the right to be critical. You are wrong in stating that the Melissa Scott page states that it may be recreated. In fact, it states the opposite: "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation." Badagnani 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the oblique comment above is an assertion that this individual has no notability, why is it that she is constantly on television (the NBC network, throughout the United States)? This is getting just ridiculous. Badagnani 08:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hold on -- it seems that the result of the discussion was KEEP -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Scott_%28pastor%29 . The deletion of the bio article about this notable individual, as well as all relevant discussion, appears to have been a mistake. Please take care of this immediately. Badagnani 08:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restub. The BLP concerns should be approached by editing or a second AfD, not by unilaterally overturning a consensus keep on a previous AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - See above -- the result of the vote was KEEP. There seems to have been a mistake in the deletion of the article because I can find no discussion leading to a Löschen vote. You state that "editing" might be used; however, in case you haven't checked the page does not allow that, and in fact states "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation." All the comments below notwithstanding, it remains extremely embarrassing that a major encyclopedia would not have contain an article or, in fact, any information about this individual who is constantly on national TV--and, in fact, ban such information. That isn't the stamp of a "free" encyclopedia, it's more indicative of the efforts of a small group of delete-page-regulars mandating content (or lack thereof) for the WP community as a whole, and the world. This bad decision cannot stand. Badagnani 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two "bad decisions" we have to choose from, which is the worse? Creating a biographical article with nothing in the way of decent source to create it from, an article which we already know will be a magnet for POV-pushing, WP:BLP-violating anons? Or failing to have a biographical article for an individual upon whom it seems every other major news source has also failed to report? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's clear that not to have an article about a notable individual (on television all the time, all over the country) is very detrimental and embarrassing to our encyclopedia. The result of the last vote was KEEP. If there is a worry about unsourced or defamatory text being added, do what we do to Bill O'Reilly or similar pages: protect so that new or anon users may not edit. It's amazing that I need to even explain our core principles here. Badagnani 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Badagnani keeps complaining that it is ridiculous that such a "notable" individual should not have their own Wikipedia article. Well, if she is so notable, why has no one, including those who are most insistent that we have an article on her, been able to provide us reliable sources? God knows I've looked for them myself and can't find any -- not so much as a small-town paper fluff piece. The closest we have ever come for having the reliable sources we need -- and by "closest", I mean "not close enough by a long shot" -- is anonymous editors angrily asserting that if we just looked at the correct court records (none of which we have been given citations for) we'd know for ourselves that it's true. And we definitely do not have sources reliable enough for the major defamatory allegation made against Melissa Scott, which anons still keep trying to sneak in to other articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. First, there are no independent sources cited. Second, it reads as part resume and part advertisement for her charity gala. Third, "keep and source" is not an option for WP:BLP articles - no sources means delete because as Jimbo says we don't have articles on living individuals based on "I heard it somewhere". Fourth, I am having a hard time seeing what the claim to notability is supposed to be anyway. Married to a couple of guys. So what? Few !votes anyway, if this individual is genuinely notable then a much much better article can be written by applying WP:FORGET. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion There are no reliable sources for this article and honestly the number of people committed to keeping this article neutral are far outnumbered by the people that interject tabloid quality material about this person. If the article is undeleted, it is unavoidable that we will be back at this same position in less than 6 months. . -- Kurios555 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, revert and relist WP:BLP says in relevant part "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." (emphasis added). It took all of 60 seconds to find a NPOV version, namely that from 31 July 2006 by fuddlemark. It was easy to find because it is explicitly mentioned in the last AFD. I don't know what the right answer for this article is, but I do know that the deletion was contrary to policy, and that is enough reason to list it at AFD. We don't have to revert that far back however, there are newer acceptable versions in the history. I think the version of 17 October 2006 would be fine, and there may be even newer ones (the history was restored while I was doing further investigation). GRBerry 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion at this time - I tried to source this article reliably before it was deleted, and found it impossible. I have added the only RS sources I can find to the talk page, and would suggest leaving the talk page open for more sources as they come available. Then we can revisit starting up a new article. There isn't enough RS sourcing to have a standalone article, and she can be mentioned in the Gene Scott article. There isn't anything else that can be reliably sourced about her except that she took over for her late husband. The previous incarnation of this page was fraught with poorly sourced negative info. As more RS become available, my opinion could change. - Crockspot 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - "Internet-only" sources are not the only sources we may use, or rely on. Even so, this is a figure who appears on national television throughout the U.S. all the time, and should have her own article. Badagnani 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a url is not a requirement for a proper cite, but the source still must be reliable and secondary. The problem was there was quite a bit of unsourced and poorly sourced, and originally researched negative info. The BLP problems were too pervasive. If you have other reliable sources, cite them on the talk page, as I have done. Crockspot 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)further comment I would just like to add that I have seen her on television several times this year, probably the most religious programming I've watched in my entire life. I do find her interesting, and would like to see an article when we can write one that is well sourced, and not defamatory. When there are enough sources, I will be the first person to bring this back here for another review. - Crockspot 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and re-list for AfD. If there are more sources, let's see them. DGG 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if everybody knows who she is, but she's on TV all the time, sometimes on two channels at once, at least here in California. Presumably her church buys the air time for the programs, which are lectures on linguistic analysis of Bible passages. I don't feel compelled to research this one, so I have no opinion, but I wanted to throw this tidbit out in case it's not clear from the article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse deletion.~~ This was deleted out of process but not out of policy: WP:BLP and WP:ATT are completely failed here. I would change to "allow recreation" if reliable secondary sources were shown, but between Antaeus Feldspar and Crockspot, I think we've done our due diligence, and the article cannot remain if unsourceable. Mangojuice^talk 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist stubbed version, per Amarkov below. The stubbed version is okay, but if that's all that can be found now, the article might still need deleting for notability concerns (or for worries of future violations of WP:BLP), but that's for a debate to decide. Mango juice^talk 10:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse deletion~~. With an article on a living person, the decision is not "Are there any sources someone can find?" According to WP:BLP, the decision is "Are there sources that either are in the article or can be found and added within a short time?", which the article did not meet, seeing as nobody actually added much of anything in the way of sourcing. Keep the talk page open for a while, in case some sources do turn up, but until then, it should stay deleted. Regardless of how much she is on TV. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have written about all that can be written in this article, based on the sources, at the bottom of Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor). It's short and sweet, and those seeking the salacious aspect can go read the RS article cited. (The OC Weekly article even mentions this article being locked down.) I would not object to recreation of the article with this text (or something similar if the wording needs tweaking), and full protection, pending more sourcing and discussion on the talk page. Just a suggestion. Crockspot 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Relist the stubbified version, then, but the article still does not demonstrate notability, as defined in WP:N. I hate that name, because even experienced editors sometimes mistake "notability" for Wikipedia's purposes to be the same as the normal definition. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think what you mean is endorse and unprotect, unless you want to preserve the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion OK, I sampled the edit history and couldn't find a single sourced version, and quite a couple we want to banish from the history altogether. The only thing I could find from an acceptable source (ocweekly.com) just repeats the rumors (an excellent read though, Wikipedia is mentioned). Edit history is still open if someone wants to take a crack at writing a sourced article on her, but I haven't seen much that looked useable. WP:BLP concerns override WP:N concerns, so until we find a decent version in the history the article should stay deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - You can't possibly object to anything in the new stub? She is a public figure who is constantly on television throughout the country, giving weekly appearances to hundreds of audience members, and the information given in the stub is easily available. Badagnani 05:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, I think she meets the active notability requirement, she's done something that put her in the publich consciousness and given encyclopedic sources she should have an article. So I'm not objecting to posting your stub and running it through AfD, I'm just not recommending keeping the edit history. Some articles are better started from scratch. ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that the previous edit history has to go, whatever happens. - Crockspot 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - And if it turns out that documents in the public record do indeed elucidate other things about this individual and her past history before assuming directorship of her late husband's ministry? Wikipedia does not rely strictly on Internet-only sources, I am fairly sure. Badagnani 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these elusive public records? Write up a cite. - Crockspot 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - Good question. They were discussed in the history but to get new copies I suppose one would need to pay for them, then scan and post them online. The very basic information would of course be her date and place of birth and birth name. Badagnani 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be primary sources, and we don't do investigative journalism here. - Crockspot 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion BLP wins out - if someone wants to have a sourced neutral article, they are entitled to write it and then notability can be handeled at afd. However, simply reverting to an earlier version isn't good enough as it still leaves potentially libellous stuff in the history. Aggressive, invasive surgery is required for this type of thing.--Doc^g 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - No, you are incorrect. As stated above more than once, the tag on the deleted article clearly states that a new article may *not* be written! Badagnani 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles that are protected from recreation can be written in userspace and then presented here for discussion whether they're appropriate to move into article space. ~ trialsanderrors 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc is clearly wrong here. WP:BLP only authorizes deletion when there are zero neutral versions in the history. His claim that it requires deletion when there is at least one failing version is exactly contrary to WP:BLP; so long as there is at least one good version the admin is supposed to revert to that instead of deleting. GRBerry 17:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is this, some sort of "delete page club" with secret rules? If what you say is the case, it needs to be stated on the tag. Badagnani 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the very first revision, from which all other revisions appear derived, contains unsourced controversial statements, there is no way to revert to a version later than that and delete the offending material without severing the page history and thus causing copyright problems. If someone creates an actually new stub that is well-sourced and intends to maintain it against the warring lovers and haters of this person, then there would probably not be a problem. Otherwise, the page was originally and is heavily littered throughout with potentially libellous statements, and was and will be the subject of this warring that will add further such statements. —Centrx→talk • 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Five clicks to jesus – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

SWATJester decided that it was inappropriate, and I object. I at least want a review. He even deleted the talk page where I defended the existence of the page. PhoenixFire296 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as deletor. Article was speedied, recreated, speedied again and salted. Original speedy was as A7, but really should have been A1. Also, was GFDL incompatible off of facebook. Actually, upon further review, it would have qualified under A7 anyway, as "web content".⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: would you please write in normal English instead of "delete page-regular jargon-abbreviation-speak"?--thanks. Also, how may other editors give input here if they don't know what the page consisted of in the first place? Badagnani 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar:see above under instructions.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Second request: would you kindly write in normal English instead of "delete page-regular jargon-abbreviation-speak"?--thanks. Also, how may other editors give input here if they don't know what the page consisted of in the first place? Badagnani 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - yet another variant on the Wikipedia game, see Bad Article Ideas. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse OK, let me explain. The article was deleted without a full Articles for Deletion process, because it did not assert the notability of the subject. Then PhoenixFire296 recreated it, at which point it was re-deleted, and re-created with the intent of protection so it could not be re-re-recreated. A7 means deletion because of a lack of claim of notability; A1 is deletion because it's nonsense. I can see the content here because administrators can view deleted content. Also, deletion of talk pages when the main article is deleted is perfectly valid (and is speedy deletion reason G8). There was no real 'discussion' there, just a comment by PhoenixFire296. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
make visible. I'm glad Veinor can see the article, but this discussion is open to non-admins as well, so would he let the rest of us look? I probably will agree with him about the merits, but I do not think I should be prevented from seeing it. DGG 21:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Check the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - Thank you. I think the "Discussion" page should be visible so that the discussion that led to the deletion is known to the community of editors. Right now I don't see anything there. Badagnani 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of that page; I just restored the comment into the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - Certainly there must be discussion at that page's "Discussion" page that led up to the decision to delete? I still see nothing there. Badagnani 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check the history. There's just one comment. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - An Internet search shows that this is simply a "homemade" variation on the Wikipedia game, or Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Granting it a Wikipedia article with no evidence of notability vis-a-vis any other homemade Wikipedia games would allow the creators to gain instant notoriety via having its own Wikipedia article, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Badagnani 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly endorse deletion, even though technically A7 doesn't apply. A7 is for unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content, and this is none of those. And A1 (no centext) seems a bit of a stretch as well. Nevertheless, I think it's obvious that this unremarkable, unsourced, unsourceable example of something made up in school could not possibly survive AfD, and sending it there would be procedure for procedure's sake. Frankly, I'd like to see A7 expanded to cover "works" and "activities" (at least), but that's a discussion for elsewhere. This might be reasonable as something briefly mentioned on a user page, but clearly has no place in the main namespace. Xtifr _tälk 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, absolutely justified A7. MaxSem 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Eh? Whether technically an A7 or not, it is an excellent use of WP:CSD X27 "What the fuck? Nuke!"--Doc^g 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - per Doc, to the letter. No reason for us to break our own backs with more bureaucracy over a case of patent NFT. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I appreciate the temporary undelete by Veinor, and as I suspected it might, the article certainly shows the total absence of N, RS, Encyclopedic content, and all other factors. It might have saved a little trouble to get rid of it by a prod. But i can't see how it could seriously be defended. DGG 06:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 March 2007

Category:Stuart Little – Relisted at CfD by original closer – trialsanderrors 07:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn closure and delete - of three comments expressing an opinion, two were to delete and one was a weak keep specifically noting that deletion was also acceptable. How this can reasonably be construed as "no consensus" is a mystery to me. At the very least this should be overturned and relisted but it seems abundantly clear that a CFD that closes with no one opposing deletion should be closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nomination was based on something that was fixed almost immediately. Endorse and relist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there were two issues raised in the CFD. One was the use of the cat as performer by performance, which was corrected, and the other was the lack of need for it as a navigational hub because of the interlinking of the various articles. Otto4711 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per nom. CalJW 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13 so we can have some more discussion. Tim! 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Charlotte's Web – Relisted at CfD by original closer – trialsanderrors 07:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn closure and delete - of four comments, three were to delete. There is no reasonable way that 75% in favor of deletion can be construed as "no consensus." At the very least, this should be relisted to allow additional comment but I don't know how much more clear it has to be made to the closing administrator that this should have closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per Otto4711. CalJW 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The keep argument was a general statement nearly amounting to WP:USEFUL, and not necessarily an argument for keeping the category. Otherwise, there was consensus to delete. --Core desat 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13 so we can have some more discussion. Tim! 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Latitude and wealth – deletion overturned unanimously – GRBerry 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was started under a poor title by Futurebird (talk · contribs) and immediately sent to AfD (after a prod was removed). Within a day Novickas (talk · contribs) turned into a high-quality article on the macroeffects of geography on economic development, referencing the pertinent literature, roughly following the survey article by Jeffrey Sachs et al. in the Scientific American, and discussing both causal factors (climate, disease) and exceptions (natural resources, political regimes). The nomination nonsensically claimed this was a POV fork of latitude, and most of the delete !votes roughly fall into three categories: 1. outright unsupported dismissals ("NOR bullshit"), 2. hang-ups on the title ("Where's the latitude?"), 3. comments that made clear the commenter had no grasp of the subject matter ("there are exceptions so it can't be correlated"), and should have been ignored by the closer. ~ trialsanderrors 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Kommentar The article itself is in the Google cache DGG 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the full history can be viewed at the article title itself behind the TempUndelete notice.
Overturn. This is a rare instance where AFD got it wrong. The deletion claims were based on an assumption that this was original research. It is not. The thesis may ultimately be wrong but the bulk of the content is well sourced to independent, published articles. Rossami (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist Agree that many of the Delete votes should be discounted. Laughhead 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Clear failure of AFD. FCYTravis 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the nomination here clearly spells out why this was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's also worth noting that of the related articles, Development geography#Geographic variations in development has one reference, and North-south divide has zero. So the fourth kind of argument, that this topic is covered elsewhere, fails to convince. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I just viewed the text in the page history, and this seems to be a well-written, well-sourced article. I have no idea why it would have been deleted in the first place. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Crotalus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the article changed significantly during AfD. I do think the original article was problematic, and I'm pretty sure it was cut whole cloth from a contentious part of the Latitude article, which is where my POV fork argument came in. The title is still a problem, IMHO, though. Mak (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. Wimstead 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some background: I saw this in the new articles list and was unaware of its contentious history. Took me a while to realize that someone had used it as a place to stuff the cold-makes-your-brain-bigger theory; this is easily dealt with since everyone with a basic knowledge of anthropology knows the original brain expansion took place in the Great Rift Valley, see [37] etc etc. (This particular reference attributes it to fish, yuck). Yeah, it needs some work. About the title; latitude is a fair proxy in the sense that tropical and temperate are usually defined using latitude. Also it would seem that permafrost in the highest latitudes also impedes wealth, but since Siberia and northern Canada are not independent countries it's harder to source. But the discussion on the proxy issue, title, and so forth could be continued. Novickas 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW I disagree with the above description "poor title" - it's debatable but not poor. Novickas 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Poor" in the sense that at least 1/3 of the delete opiners tripped over it. It also implies a causation whenit's really just a correlation, so yeah, I would recommend changing the title. ~ trialsanderrors 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I was a delete voter in the AfD, nom puts it well. Pete.Hurd 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the nom, from another delete !vote. I remember this one well, and the nom here makes some good points. Under the circumstances, I think putting it back will be acceptable - but it would need to be made to feel unlike WP:OR if it doesn't change. (I do remember that it felt a lot like original research, thus my own !vote.) --Dennisthe2 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar How about geography and wealth? [38]Novickas 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- To expand: this reference, a Purdue University release citing the Toronto Star, uses the phrase "geography and wealth" in the course of a feature covering the SciAm piece that is, as trialsanderrors pointed out, roughly followed here. Novickas 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

ADERANT – restored and listed at AFD by deleting admin – GRBerry 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Someone has an itchy trigger finger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nricardo (talk • contribs).

Endorse Speedy Deletion - Article did not assert why the company was notable. Perfect candidate for CSD:A7. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion no reasons have been shown as to why the article shouldn't have been deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
resorted and placed on AfD even though I disagree about the A7. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Editors need to be given a chance to to amend deficiencies in articles. This can hardly be done if they are deleted with no warning whatsoever. --Nélson Ricardo 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been undeleted and is now on AfD, so I think this deletion review can be closed. --Conti|✉ 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists – deletion overturned, further actions at editorial discretion – GRBerry 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn: This is an anthology compiled by noted cartoonist Ted Rall. It was deleted as "advertising" (CSD g11), though last time I saw the article it was nothing of the sort. Articles on the other two books in the series remain and I am lead to wonder if it was deleted because it is about webcomics. The previous two wer about political and alternative cartooning and remain as of this post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this deletion, which made no assertion of notability and was supported solely by a press release, but without prejudice against another go (you can have the deleted history if you want). I find the list of redlinks worrying, mind, since there is a lot of webcomic material on Wikipedia - if we don't have these articles, I'm inclined to think there is a reason for it. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, of the 21 strips included in the book, we already have an independent article about the strip and/or the creator(s) for 18 of them. I don't think we'd be opening the barn door particularly wide here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. My assumption is that the style is similar to the first two, and thus shouldn't have been deleted as such. Without compelling evidence to believe it was spammy, best case scenario is to overturn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Reasonable book stub, and Rall is notable enough that his work deserves coverage. It looks like there are a LOT more mainstream reviews of the first two volumes, however. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google cache of the deleted page here. Seems comparable to the other two to me. All need further attention, but what on the site doesn't? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After seeing the cache, I have no clue how G11 is warranted here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editorially Merge the three into something like Attitude (anthology) or Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists; The page on the first notes "two sequels and three spin-off titles", so I'm calling Chicken Soup for the Soul on this one. Nifboy 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The articles may have been created by a User:TedRall, but they weren't CSD material. Nifboy's idea is pretty good though, for editors to consider in future. - hahnch e n 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn an obviously inappropriate use of speedy. DGG 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not written as an advert, and has suitable content as per the other books in the series. I would also support a merge for the whole anthology. -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This article was obviously deleted due to it being about webcomics. Yikes! Webcomics will take over wikipedia! Anyways, my prejudice aside... Ted Rall is notable enough to warrant a (long) article on Wikipedia, and thus I think a book by him should be considered notable on that merit. The fact that the book hasn't warranted a lot of (online) reviews is probably due to the fact that it was just published and is about comics, which generally don't garner book reviews to begin with. Considering the fact that the editor who deleted this has a noted history of being anti-webcomic, and the fact that the previous two volumes of this serious have Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, I think this one should be allowed to stay. That said, I like Nifboy's merger idea. Tedzsee 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedzsee (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Kommentar: I'd also like to point out that Sandstein also deleted the book's cover image as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looking at the comics linked to the article, Sandstein deleted Fighting Words 5 minutes later. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion of an article whose only sources was a reprinted press release, though history ought to be undeleted and redirected to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists as per Nifboy, Hahnchen, Dr Haggis, Tedzsee, etc. --Dragonfiend 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which speedy criteria is that? By the way, Editor and Publisher isn't a press release. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is a reprint, that still doesn't answer the first question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Badlydrawnjeff, you write above that you "have no clue how G11 is warranted here," so I think you're already aware of which speedy criteria this was deleted under. If you're still in doubt, just check the edit summary on the article's deletion log. --Dragonfiend 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Being cited by a press release does not make a G11. I know full well that it was incorrectly speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Royal National Theatre Company members – Categories restored by closing admin – trialsanderrors 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus supports this closure. Although it was argued that no information would be lost by replacing categories by lists, this argument is not supported by current deletion policy which relies solely on consensus, the purpose of categories being navigational not informational. Tim! 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Thoughtful, well-reasoned close. Changing a category to a list is not deletion of information. Also, consensus is not determined by counting the votes, but by weighing the arguments and whether these rely on policy/guideline or on personal opinion. >Radiant< 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as Radiant! says a thoughtful close. Listifying in this instance allows for more contextual information; if we kept these we'd soon need to split them into various subcategories for people who were famous before, famous as a result of, and not famous despite, appearing in a production by one of these (and why only these?) companies. 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
Overturn and recreate A clear-cut abuse of administrator power. Deletion of the category is deletion and is sophistry to pretend otherwise. The discussion was moving firmly towards retention. The closer blatantly acted on his own opinion rather than on consensus, introducing (weak) new arguments at the point of closure which he thought no-one would get a chance to challenge. CalJW 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is nothing within this debate that justifies ignoring the continuing consensus that performer by performance categories are a Bad Thing and should be deleted or listified. The case for an exception was not made here. On the broader issue, turning a category into a list is improvement, and preserves the information contained in the category. No sophistry involved, and unsupported claims of "abuse of administrator power" never make for a very convincing argument. The purpose of categories is indeed navigational, and that purpose is not served by the addition of performer by performance categories. Yes, Wikipedia is inconsistent, but not wilfully so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was nothing arbitary about this inconsistency, it was deliberately chosen on the basis of real world facts. Honbicot 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore The referee didn't like the way the game was going, so he picked up the ball in extra time and put it in the net on behalf of his preferred team. These are career defining category for British stage actors, and once this was made clear a consensus to keep began to develop. Haddiscoe 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The decision clearly did not comply with the relevant criteria: "Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." Wimstead 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus for deletion. If the closer was not happy with the outcome, the appropriate course of action was to leave a decent interval and then renominate, not to over ride the outcome of the discussion, which was moving towards retention. Honbicot 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn we should have another chance to think about it and attract more people to the discussion. The closing admin said very clearly that in the absence of consensus he was deleting it based on his own personal view of them matter, which he explained in detail. Closers are supposed to be neutral so they can fairly judge the discussion. DGG 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the closure must have been a misjudgement on my part (although I thought about it very carefully before deleting it). I have restored and repopulated the categories. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like no-one to imagine that I reversed my deletion because of baseless accusations of "abuse of power". I object very strongly to comments by CalJW questioning my motives ("…which he thought no-one would get a chance to challenge"); I perceive accusations such as these as part of a trend towards confrontational discourtesy by many Wikipedian editors, a trend I deplore partly because it is so unnecesary and counter-productive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, so can we please collaborate? --RobertG ♬ talk 06:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. Choalbaton 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral There were good arguments presented also to show why lists were more suitable here. Overall, I think the closure took a fair balance, and it would be justifiable to endorse it. However, the discussion here has shown that what was thought to be consensus might not have been so, and probably the question should be discussed some more. There was nothing antagonistic about the discussion, and if people think we should have exchanged views some more, there's no reason not to. DGG 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think RobertG made a good well-reasoned decision. I'm sorry I missed this CFD, my comments would have been similar to the closing comments. Closing xFD's is not about counting votes, it is about trying to reason through the comments as best you can. RobertG acted in good faith. It looks like CalJW's incivility and lack of good faith in response has driven a valuable admin away from Wikipedia. I find this distressing. -- Samuel Wantman 09:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - this is a textbook example of a situation where consensus is not all about the numbers. The reasoning for listifying it was solid, the keep voters (and vote they did) did not address the issues at hand. WP:CCC, but five users asserting that the companies in question are notable does not overturn the consensus that already exists. Too many users fail to understand this. Chris cheese whine 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I think that the wording of this nomination is a nasty case of putting process before product. Chris cheese whine 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Penn, Schoen & Berland – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable company article with legitimate critical commentary Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale: The Google cached version of the article clearly had its problems, including a PR-boilerplate lead and overview and a "contact" section. But there were also separate sections on controversies in which the firm has been a party and the external links led to a number of news articles demonstrating notability such as [39] and [40]. In any case, the principal Mark Penn (official bio) is known as a pollster closely associated with Hillary Clinton going back to international work done for the Clinton administration. I believe this shows at least the possibility of an appropriate article and I believe an AFD is in order rather than deletion. If the whole of the article had been advertisement I would not challenge. From what I can see, it is possible that the article was only recently turfed with sections at the front and back, and the history should be examined to determine how much editing work was really promotional. (Note: Mark Penn was speedied a year ago, I have no knowledge of the contents of that article. AFD may wish to decide whether the firm or the man is more notable.) -- Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, not a G11, as it wouldn't require a fundamental rewrite to meet our prose standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unholy Alliance – duplicate request – >Radiant< 10:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request History only undeletion to enable restoration of unquestioned portions (no middle paragraph) with last version on the discussion page for reference. Tried to do some of that, but network failed and had to reboot. --MBHiii 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as there is already a DRV discussion on this article that has not yet been closed. Arkyan 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

G.ho.st – Speedily closed, no substantial new information – trialsanderrors 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New External References that validate novalty, please see http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=341908011 213.6.46.103 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two previous DRVs from 6 February 2007 and January 16. The Amazon link doesn't change a thing. Speedy close as been there, done that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse as above; the piece is written by them, which makes it useless for showing notability. I'm not quite sure it's that clear-cut, though, so I'll leave it for someone else to actually close. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 March 2007

Fixity of species – Redirect set per request – trialsanderrors 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to History of evolutionary thought#Pre-evolutionary Thought. Content was moved there according to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_16. "Fixity of species" gets 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits as well as is referenced in every biology text book I have ever read. 199.106.86.2 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The decision in the referenced DRV debate was "endorse deletion", which means that content can not be moved to another article according to it. -Amarkov moo! 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red wings (Sexual Act) – deletion endorsed – Picaroon 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted for CSD#A5 before any AfD consensus had been reached. (CSD#A5 requires an AfD consensus of "transwiki") Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar This one took a little time to track down, but basically:
- AfD started on Mar. 4th.
- Transwikied as a dicdef to wiktionary on Mar. 7th, subsequently deleted by wiktionary admin.
- Speedied via A5 on Mar. 10th. [41]
- Article re-created and re-speedied via A1 on Mar. 16th. [42]
I don't really have any opinion on it, but it did appear to be a straight-up dicdef and was correctly transwikied, but wiktionary rejected it. Not sure what normally happens in these cases, just wanted to provide the background so no one else had to go digging for it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Background - The phrase "to earn your red wings" may be a slang term used to describe performing cunnilingus on a woman when she is menstruating.[43]. -- Jreferee 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The AFD discussion ran the normal period and had clearly reached a "delete" consensus. The fact that the deleting admin put the wrong reason in the deletion rationale doesn't mean we have to revisit the decision. Furthermore, every version was a mere dictionary definition. The fact that Wiktionary decided that they don't want it doesn't mean that we have to take it. If Wiktionary with their skills and resources for researching words concluded that it's unsourcable/inappropriate, that confirms that the decision to get rid of it from Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AfD - The subject matter of the March 4, 2007 AfD apparently was deleted from Wikipedia before the closed of the AfD. The AfD then appears to have been closed because the content of the article already had been deleted. Since the ability of editors to effectively participate in the March 4th AfD ended abruptly when the Wikipedia content of the article was deleted while the AfD remained open for comment, the article should be relisted at AfD to complete the AfD process. -- Jreferee 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - No substantive new information and no reliable sources cited, so there's nothing to suggest that it would pass a new AfD. Therefore, there's no reason to send it back through again for the sake of process. FCYTravis 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse transwiki and delete. Looks like a valid outcome to me, regardless of people's determination to preserve in perpetuity a Wikipedia article on anything that has even a tangential relationship to sex. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The AfD was open for the usual five days and was pretty much in favor of deletion. Even without the speedy, it still would've been closed as a delete anyway. WarpstarRider 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If you want to take this up with anybody, it should probably be Wiktionary (not that I blame them for deleting it). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleting admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I tend to want to keep such articles, but not this one, and the consensus was clearly to delete. DGG 19:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Inappropriate speedy deletions all over the place, here. If the consensus is to delete or transwiki, AfD is the forum to do that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a speedy deletion. AfD consensus was transwiki or delete (i.e. "not on Wikipedia"). The fact that Wiktionary didn't want it either is not our problem. Only one Keep at AfD, which acknowledged that the article had only a single source indicating no particular wider significance; AfD was registered 23:09, 4 March, listed 09:21, 5 March 2007, article was deleted 19:13, March 10 - more than 5 days. Not even the most legalistic interpretation of deletion policy makes that invalid in any way. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse—given that Wiktionary didn't want it (as evidenced by the fact that they quickly deleted it), and given that the obvious consensus at AfD was delete (with transwiki an option), overturning this would be nothing but a pointless excercise in bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, even if there was some minor procedural problem (which I'm not sure there was, given Guy's comments). Suggest nom might find Wiktionary Deletion Review a more appropriate place to review this matter. Xtifr _tälk 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I've defended (and WP:HEY'ed) sexual slang terms before, but this one is of marginal notability and pertains chiefly to biker gang subculture, and it's already in a couple of those articles. I see no reason to overturn consensus. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lasse_Gjertsen – relisted at AFD – GRBerry 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was was deleted and protected because Lasse Gjertsen was regarded as not notable. The Norwegian Wikipedia has a well documented article that states that he is notable. Hogne 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see inclusion is not notability. We have silightly different standards from other language projects? Not a surprise. Vive la difference, and endorse this deletion of "a musical/video artist whose work has become popular on youtube", as ever. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out, and all that... Guy (Help!) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD closure, but relist. I can't read Norwegian, but it seems like there are some substantial links and attention the subject has recieved. It's worth a look while weighing the evidence we have now and didn't at the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, valid AfD. As noted, each language's version of Wikipedia sets its own policy and guidelines, so it's absolutely possible for a page to exist in one and not the others. Besides, the Norwegian article has only existed since January 31, and only two editorshave worked on it, so it's certainly possible it just hasn't attracted enough attention to get deleted yet. In any case, it certainly isn't anything that would override our own solid AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we may be misunderstanding the nomination. The assertion of notability, one would assume, comes from the multiple sources that are linked in the article. The issue appears to be more that they're difficult to read, but being in a different language doesn't preclude WP:BIO - multiple, non-trivial sources don't have to be in english. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that he is notable to a Norwegian-speaking audience, it's likely there are very few Norwegian YouTube "celebrities". Where are the on-trivial English sources? Guy (Help!) 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need English ones? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the multiple norwegian interviews says is also presented in the wall street journal interview with him - Hogne 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have requested help from the Norwegian Wiki. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost in admiration for your determination to save an article on some pimply teenager who has never, as far as I can tell, sold a single record; God alone knows what titanic feats you would perform in support of a subject with some objectively provable merit :o) Guy (Help!) 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heart the obscure. My recent appreciation for old American lower-than-b-movies has given me a lot to play with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Money isn't everything. There are many peopple who have spent much of their time on this guys work (over 10 million hits on youtube). Several tribute works to Lasse Gjertsen is released. The fact that there are 400.000 google hits isn't an argument for this article, but one of the first google hits is of cource to the deleted page here in Wikipedia. I think therefore that this article should, as the Norwegian page do, site the (few) non-trivial articles that exist. Hogne 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Translations of those Norwegian sources would be nice, but the WSJ article is enough reason for me to want it relisted. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I created the Norwegian article, after he appeared in most of the main media in Norway. He has been on television on NRK (the Norwegian public boardcaster a.la. BBC). Now he is nominated in the category Most Creative video at YouTube's 2006 Video Awards 2006 Video Awards. Nsaa 09:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He will probably start working for MTV producing 8 animated films. [44]. Nsaa 11:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might count, but any award from YouTube for YouTubers is equivalent to Navel Gazing Weekly's Special Award for Helping Navel Gazing Weekly to promote navel gazing in an attempt to increase the circulation of Navel Gazing Weekly in my book. Incidentally, I prefer Joel Veitch myself :o) Guy (Help!) 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's winning? We're all winning! --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Do I have a "vote"? if so I vote for relist.....of course.

I read some place that I like him isn't an argument. Why is I prefer another... an argument? Would this article be deleted today with the documentation that is presented now? Hogne 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Game (game) – See last week. And the week before. And the week before that... – Guy (Help!) 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a common enough game to be listed in Wikipedia. This is of course a subjective comment. Looking at articles objectively, "The Game" needs no more justification as an article than Tag (game). This article is tagged with not citing sources, which is part of the problem with The Game (game). "The Game" should be undeleted and a tag added calling for sources. These two articles should be treated with the same objective standards. Personally, and subjectively, I'm a camp counselor and "The Game" has been played at every camp that I've worked at where "Tag" is played. I personally hate the game so you can't blame me for teaching it to them, but the game exists. Perhaps it's a Northeast/Midwest thing that hasn't made it to the deep south or west coast, but if it spans the country from New York to Chicago I think that's significant enough for listing. 5000 is the current number for significance, right? I'm sure that more than 5000 children in the state of Illinois alone play this game. In Defense of the Artist 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biostudentgirl – deletion endorsed – Picaroon 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable Resources/Shouldn't have been deleted PinklBabe 11:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The consensus of a previous deletion discussion disagreed with this - there are no new notable references that significantly change this. You should not have recreated the article - and it should be speedy deleted. Soap On A Rope 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article was previously deleted by consensus, and the sources in the article do not substantially change the article's status since the valid deletion. Leebo ^T/C 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I think the phenomenon has not gained enough notability to overthrow the AfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the G4 deletions were valid (article was a repost) and the original AfD also looks sound. No credible reasons given for overturning the AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid Afd, no reason given to overturn. In case anybody's wondering, it got 106 unique Google hits at the time of the AfD, and more than 6 months later it has 119 unique Google hits, so it can't be said to have exploded in popularity since the AfD or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD, with no reason given to overturn but a vague assertion of notability. -Amarkov moo! 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kings of Chaos – AFD deleted version relisted at a new AFD – GRBerry 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliable source: Washington Post article about the game and its creators published Dec 24, 2004 http://www.kingsofchaos.com/post/ 129.174.184.3 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The only keep argument appeared to be WP:USEFUL, but there was not much input in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure That's a great source, 3rd-party, non-trivial, and detailed. However, it will take more than one such source for it to have a fighting chance on AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. If the same thing happens, oh well, some people spent 5 extra minutes. But I'm not convinced it will stay deleted with a Washington Post article. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly worth finding out, anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Relatively little input in the discussion, and since the primary objection was a lack of reliable source information, a WaPo article like this one could tip things significantly if incorporated into the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. One outdated human interest story in the local paper isn't enough to overturn an AFD even when your local paper is the Washington Post. There has been no follow-up in the 2+ years since that article was printed. Google News turns up a number of hits on this phrase but zero relevant to this subject. Rossami (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, the new information may change some minds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikistock – deletion endorsed – Picaroon 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was provided, as a result of adding Wikistock to the list of other Wiki's on the List of wikis page. Wikis listed on the List of wikis page, each have an interlink providing further information about the wiki.Rovo79 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there another reason why it should be included? We don't allow articles just because someone added the name to a list. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid A7 (article simply says what it is and that its content is relevant to stock traders, and that's it). No prejudice against writing a new article that asserts attributable notability. --Core desat 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. Wikistock fits in no less perfectly than 80% of the wikis listed on List of wikis. Such as: Wipipedia, ZineWiki, Wikinfo. As with wikis listed on List of wikis, each wiki has a seperate page providing more information about the wiki, thus the creation of Wikistock.--Rovo79 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those articles all contain sourced assertions of notability - this one didn't. --Core desat 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Coredesat since I was deleter.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. True enough, a fair proportion of the others should perhaps go as well, a good number have already been nuked. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. Notability? Who deems this worthy of notice title? Wipipedia, is notable? By whose standards? SkipperGuide, a cruiser guide is notable? Where do you draw the line on what is notable and not? --Rovo79 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also see Wikipedia:Notability. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this is the case, I would highly recommend avoiding the headache of such events in the future, and strip the list down to the essential kin of Wikipedia, and lock the page. According to Wikipedia:Notability,"The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works." is the main criteria. I doubt the majority of those other wikis have been published in anything of merit. Hmm, merit, another term subject to....subjectivity, which the page on notability claims is avoiding. It seems a transparent claim.--Rovo79 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The other wiki articles you are slagging have references. Corvus cornix 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eliot Bernstein – deletion endorsed – Picaroon 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted initially by an editor that failed upon request to disclose if conflict exists with this subject matte. It was edited by several editors who failed to disclose if they had conflict, when requested. Although the reasons for delete were stated and changed to comply with wikipedias rules, several of the editors continued to move for delete. Certain of the comments made by editors were wholly false, ie that there were no sources other than press releases when several news articles were cited. Those editors claiming such had removed the news articles although being informed that they were from highly reputable sources and were unbiased articles on the subject not press release. Many of the editors, although all were asked to disclose any conflicts, refused such courtesy, casting a negative light on the whole review as biased and possibly jeopardizing the integrity of Wikipedia, these authors claimed even that editors are not under conflict rules themselves. Several of the editors were trying to work on the article to make it work and it originally was worked on and approved by the initial editor of a related article Iviewit, also under deletion review. Iviewit was also removed by the same editor who fails to disclose conflict here under repeated requests. If Wikipedia has no rules for editors to disclose conflict with their edits when requested than Wikipedia has lost its credibility and integrity and that will be a shame for all who use it. I request that these matters going forward, due to the nature of the issues involved and reasons already stated in the discussions, begin and end by editors willing to disclose conflict prior to action or opinion. No conflict, should equal no reason not to so state publicly, it is not an insulting request it is a request to insure integrity in matters where conflicts could prevent unbiased edits and editors removing significant source material and then claiming it is not there. I would also like a rules committee to review the editorial conflict rules and assess if under extraordinary circumstances as these require, this is a viable request, upfront conflict disclosure upon request, to maintain the integrity of the publication. Since these statements have no harm if no conflict exists, and greater improves the integrity of the publication it seems only prudent. --Iviewit 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse my deletion. The AFD had a valid consensus to delete, and the nominator of this DRV made no attempt to solve conflict of interest, POV, and sourcing problems presented in the AFD. Instead, he went on a tirade and accused all editors arguing for deletion of having a conflict of interest against the subject of the article (the nominator initiated a dispute with KPBotany and accused him of anti-COI, among other things), thus not assuming good faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not a battleground, either. --Core desat 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Iviewit (talk · contribs) has falsely claimed on my Talk page that a) I closed the deletion discussion, which I did not; and b) that "After reading your biography, you certainly should have stated if you had conflict with Eliot Bernstein or Iviewit prior to and after your opinions." This is, of course, nonsense, and similar claims about other editors probably have equal merit. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse: Iviewit is not assuming good faith by accusing all users of having a conflict of interest unless they explicitly state otherwise, and twisting my words to make me sound homophobic. We tend to assume a lack of COI unless otherwise stated. Iviewit has also claimed that I closed the deletion discussion, which I did not, as I participated in it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse all DRV nominations that start with "The person who deleted this had a conflict of interest". People whose nomination starts with that do not have any valid reason. And in this case, there isn't even an attempt; not once does the nominator actually interrupt his long diatribe to explain what was wrong with the deletion, other than all these supposedly COI editors. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse pending any concrete demonstration that anything went awry with the deletion debate or closure. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Amarkov and Luna. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AFD, and suggest that Iviewit might do better by assuming good faith on behalf of the editors who participated in the discussion. I *did* state that I had no idea who the person was prior to my comment on the AFD, but that doesn't seem to have mattered; after that, Iviewit questioned me regarding my "credentials" on my talk page. I read the required guidelines, and opined that the article didn't meet them. That should be all the credentials needed in this case. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Interesting that User:Iviewit should assert conflict of interest on the part of the deleting admin without mentioning that www.iviewit.tv is run by Tony Frenden & Eliot Bernstein. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion and salt this title and Iviewit. (Eliot has this thing about COI so: I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Bernstein and am one of two people who deleted Iviewit.) Nothing has changed in the brief time since the AfD closed. I am sorry Eliot, but we just do not find you, your company or your claims in the slightest bit notable. -- RHaworth 09:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - Again, we find mostly the same nonsense from editors. I stated my conflicts with the issues in my first response and repeatedly throughout and explained the need for such conflict. I never accused a single person of conflict, except stated that refusing to disclose if one existed seemed ridiculous when asked and remains jeopardizing the process. In fact, RHaworth who initiated still refrains from confirming or denying if one exists. On those who stated if they had conflict or not, I stated their comments stood and was willing to work further. I tried to explain that in highly contentious situations such as Patentgate that centers on the Iviewit inventions and where car bombings in attempts to kill inventors of killer apps is the center of the article being discussed, conflict checks amongst editors is typical, customary and non-offensive in almost all press organizations. Conflict check is only offensive to those that have conflict, read carefully these responses from most of the editors, some continuing to influence without disclosure and you find they are upset about being asked. Clearly, with nothing to hide, it is against "good faith" to fail to disclose when asked. I did not state that anyone had a conflict, nor did I accuse anyone.
To see the full discourse on this subject please include the discussion of article Eliot Bernstein and all those comments where many of these issues were discussed in full. Again, the damage to a publication of Wikipedia to fail to have editors disclose conflict when requested and hide behind the request, claiming they are accused of something, will have damning repercussions on the integrity of the publication. In fact, I think due to the fact that Wikipedia utilizes the Iviewit technologies across its video applications, was reason to request COI from anyone within the organization, not in an accusatory tone, just to maintain integrity. To all of you editors crying that you have been accused of COI, this seems like a way to hide behind the inadequacy of your edits on both articles.
Again, I stand ready to work with any of the editors who confirmed or denied and let their edits and works stand in getting the article done correctly. To close these articles now with perhaps conflicted parties may very well have the kind of bad faith this valuable resource tries to distant itself from. Clearly RHaworth speaks for others, many of who stated nothing of notability to endorse his views:
"I am sorry Eliot, but we just do not find you, your company or your claims in the slightest bit notable. -- RHaworth 09:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)"
when in fact other editors have found it notable or did not so state. This is the bias that could have been avoided had RHaworth in good faith stated if he/she is conflicted.
I would ask that this debate start again with the original documents and that all authors in good faith going forward either state conflict or no conflict and let the debate begin again. Good faith works both ways. In this instance, where conflicts have been found and ordered for investigation in Supreme Court bar organizations, etc. in these matters, it is very reasonable to start the process with acknowledgement of our good intent. --Iviewit 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding your comment that other editors found you or your company notable: I see zero people who disagreed with RHaworth in the AfDs and DRVs for this article and Iviewit, so your claim lacks proof. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who has supported your position. And if you think that a conflict of interest should preclude people from participating, then never edit any page related to this or Iviewit again: you have freely admitted (see above) that you are the owner of Iviewit, Elliot Bernstein, so you have the largest possible COI. Oh, and for the record: I don't have one. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The AfD was closed properly. There is no evidence that the removal of the citations occurred in connection with the AfD or were not otherwise available to those participating in the AfD. Although Eliot Bernstein may be important and/or have fame, there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Even if edits were made by editors having conflicts-of-interest or by editors who failed to voluntarily affirm or deny conflicts-of-interest in response to a request, that does not create sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Comment: There was a similar article entitled Biography ~ Inventor Eliot Ivan Bernstein - Iviewit Technologies. -- Jreferee 06:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I was also falsely accused of being the one who deleted this article, among other false accusations. The only issue is this debate and the article should have been deleted sooner. This sort of baseless, continual, neverending accusations against anyone and everyone who came near the article are what wind up happening when editors, in good faith, attempt to make a good article out of an autobiographical COI resume--they get maliciously attacked for everything under the sun. We're all the bad guys for failing to comply with a policy that doesn't exist, while User:Iviewit does not acknowledge his own assumed risk in doing precisely what Wikipedia advised him not to do: write his own fluff piece for Wikipedia. This could have been prevented, or ameliorated a bit, had the article been deleted in a speedier fashion. I do not wish to be further involved in this matter in any way. Please, Iviewit, do not post again on my talk page. Thank you. KP Botany 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 March 2007

Another Anime Convention – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I had conceded my first argument, the strong keep due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But throughout the discussion new sources and references had been added, and an entirely new claim to notability was introduced. Users such as Squilibob, SeanOrange, Farix, and PDelahanty had not had time to be exposed to the new information that was introduced. Also User:Roninbk and I were still discussing the verifiability of the new claims. Please ignore my first Strong Keep paragraph: I conceded that point. Instead, new information about the Convention (the fact that it is the only & largest in the state) had been added that other users did not have a chance to discuss. While this may or may not be of significant notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, that should be discussed in a new AfD, especially considering that most of the users that participated in this AfD never were exposed to the new material. Kopf1988 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - while there were claims of notability made, the editor above was not able to come up with acceptable references for the article. His most recent reference additions ([45] and [46]) were trivial mentions, and did not confer any notability or independent editorial opinion about the event in question. Also, editor's claim above that other editors had not had time to be exposed to the new information is based on what, exactly? Personal opinion, at best. Perhaps the other editors were not swayed by the references and saw no need to change their votes. In any event, the references provided were all either trivial, simple listings, or first-party citations, and the deletion should stand, as there was nothing out-of-order about the process, personal opinions from one camp aside. MikeWazowski 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three sources were [47], [48], and [49], to show that the information was verifiable, the requirement for Wikipedia. Kopf1988 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar The requirement is attribution to reliable sources, not simply verifiability. --Core desat 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The attribution is to the AAC homepage, while verifiability to those other two sources. Kopf1988 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of obvious logical error You can't assert attribution (and thereby notability) using the topic itself as a source. /Blaxthos 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint - You can assert attribution using the topic itself so long as you can verify that the topic is not just puffing up itself. If RuneScape claims to be the only MMORPG, and Google/Dmoz/etc show it, then it would be included in Wikipedia, right? Kopf1988 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - This is simply not notable... if it were, it would assuredly be WP:ATTributable. Notability and attribution are wickedly intertwined. I believe that it's in poor taste to challenge other AfD contributors' opinions. I believe the appealing party has let WP:ILIKEIT cloud his judgement and application of our criterea for inclusion and sourcing, as evidenced by his vehement argument with every editor with whom he disagrees. /Blaxthos 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so you know, I've never been east of Chicago, so please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have argued with the other editors because I truly believe that this topic is notable. I'm fighting for that belief, not really for the convention. Kopf1988 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per two valid AFDs with no attributable information provided. --Core desat 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - unless you can provide attributable sources, the topic is not notable.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - being the only or even being the largest in a state isn't automatic grounds for notability. I don't remember seeing a reference on the page so back up that claim anyway, was there one? And what about precedent? If we had articles for the largest anime convention in every state in America then we'd have to include the largest in every state in Australia, every province in New Zealand, UK, Canada, South Africa, etc etc. --Squilibob 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - ...for the exact same reason as above. It's what I would have posted if he didn't beat me to it. I know this is the largest anime con in NH, but that doesn't really matter. While it could help for notability, that fact alone does not establish notability, IMHO. --PatrickD 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It's just another Anime convention. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't make it unworthy of being noted, does it? Shrug I'll just wait for more sources on this years convention in October then. Kopf1988 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad endorse deletion I love anime conventions (hell, I love anime conventions more than I love anime), but if there aren't reliable sources there can't be an article. It's that simple. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug Oh well, its not like it won't be created again next year after some people write about its 2007 convention. I guess I'll just have to watch Fans View next October. Kopf1988 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No reliable sources have been given, and they have to be attributable. --sunstar net^talk 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There is no reason to giving me more time to reconsider my delete stance. The article continued to lack reliable third-party sources at the end of the AfD period nor was any evidence presented that such sources existed beyond the directory listings. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would recommend that this DRV be speedy closed since the whole reason for this review was to allow fore more time so that four editors can "admen" their comments. Since three of those four editors have already commented here endorsing the outcome, there is no point in going further for process sake. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beaner – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – trialsanderrors 04:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sufficiently notable term. This was first speedied, improperly in my opinion, as a neologism and a racist expression. I made a new version that I thought would pass G4, since it provided references to establish notability, but my rewrite was speedied as well. Of course it's an offensive term, but that doesn't mean it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. As to whether it's a neologism: yes, it doesn't appear in dictionaries. But the word has been used for a fairly long time. ~~The earliest newspaper reference I could find with Lexis-Nexis was from 1991.~~The word was first listed in a slang dictionary in 1965. notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, invalid G4 as it has not gone through an entire AfD. Furthermore, the original speedy may not have been proper, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, slang dicdef at best, nonsense at worst. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still needs an AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. WP:CSD#G1 for nonsense, WP:CSD#G10 for attacks. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure what the nonsense is, nor the attack. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Attack on Hispanics, nonsense (and arguably vandalism) in having an article illustrated with a picture of a tin of beans. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So remove the vandalism, problem solved. We're not going to delete kike because it attacks Jews, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Which gets you WP:CSD#A1. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Doubtful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        How was the article an "attack on Hispanics"? It identified the word "beaner" as "a derogatory term" and explained its origins. Nowhere was the conversational use of said term endorsed. Had it been, that's what the "edit this page" link is for. Likewise, the image was inappropriate and should have been removed (though it didn't come close to being patently nonsensical). If I were to add this image to our kike article, should that be speedily deleted too?
        Additionally, the version of the article deleted by Jpgordon contained no image and several references. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - dicdef. Doesn't matter how notable it is, it is still a dicdef. I can't see any evidence that one could write an article that wasn't. Recreate as a redirect somewhere if you want.--Doc^g 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, we don't need a debate to know it is a dicdef.--Doc^g 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, we do. I disagree with your assessment. If there were no room for such disagreement, "dicdef" would be a CSD. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pretty much any offensive term that is widely used can be expanded beyond a simple dicdef with content explaining why or how it is offensive. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that my rewrite was speedied almost immediately, so you all may be thinking of the original version. Mine included a referenced part on the origin of the term, as well as references for why it's considered offensive, meaning it was more than just a dicdef. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Both speedy deletions were improper. I agree that a standalone article is unwarranted, but this can be simply be merged into and redirected to List of ethnic slurs (where the term already is listed). Of course, this should be decided at AfD, not here. —David Levy 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My speedy of the recreation of a deleted article was proper, but the early closing of the AfD wasn't. Put it back on AfD. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, CSD G4 doesn't apply to the re-creation of speedily deleted content. Secondly, the version that you deleted was not substantially identical to the version previously deleted. —David Levy 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, neither speedy deletion was valid - the subject of the article is a racial slur, but the article doesn't read like an attack page (so not G10), and the second speedy deletion was not valid because G4 does not apply to previous speedy deletions (that includes AFDs that result in the speedy deletion of the article). Give it a full AFD and let it be deleted that way. --Core desat 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist Dicdef is not a reason for speedy--the article might reasonably have been prodded-- perhaps. I say "perhaps" for I cannot see it, and it might be more than a dicdef. Nor is it a reason for a speedy closure. Apparent abuse of process. DGG 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Both deletions were apparently improper, and it isn't our role to stifle the growth potential of articles that need it. RFerreira 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - The topic, IMO, can merit an article if written properly. Send back to AfD. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist well, firstly, it seems inappropriate for the article to not be at least a redirect; but in any case, it should go through the process of AfD. JuJube 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Dicdef. Only claim to fame is that Mencia says it a lot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not AfD. "Dicdef" is not a CSD. —David Levy 05:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, but we know we delete dicdefs, so an afd is unnecessary process at this point.--Doc^g 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, your determination that this was a dicdef is not sufficient justification for bypassing discussion. If it were, "dicdef" would be a CSD. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I know where I am. Dicdef is not a CSD, but No Context is as well as attack page (racist against mexicans)⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - Right, but neither of the above describes this article (especially the version deleted by Jpgordon). —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:SNOW. No sense in sending it to AFD when it's obvious that AFD will end up deleting it anyway. Not a bureaucracy, folks. >Radiant< 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd that you think this is so obvious that it would be deleted at AfD. I certainly can't predict the future, but I think this has a good chance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I predicted the above remark, so I'd say my chances at predicting the AFD are pretty good. >Radiant< 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I doubt that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh ye of little WP:FAITH... :) >Radiant< 13:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm a WP:ATHIEST. d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW?! It isn't remotely "obvious" that this would be deleted at AfD. To me, it's a perfectly reasonable candidate for merger into and redirection to List of ethnic slurs. (In fact, I just noticed that Bobo The Ninja created such a redirect a couple of hours before the article was re-deleted.) —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per badlydrawnjeff. Haddiscoe 13:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AFD. Merging is seen as a real possibility at AFD so WP:SNOW is not appropriate. It is not patent nonsense in the sense we use the term on Wikipedia. Attack pages refer to articles which disparage the subject of the article, and this article did not exist to disparage the word. Trying to invoke those speedy criteria is stretching them to application in places they were never intended for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. This should go through a full AfD debate to determine its fate, the speedy was not appropriate. Arkyan 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and AFD. Being a shitty dictionary definition is not a reason to speedy the article on a potentially viable topic, it's a reason to improve the article, or merge it, leaving it a handy redirect to where many of these sort of slurs get dumped (an excellent idea, as it's one article to police for trolls instead of hundreds). And did Jeff mean WP:ATHEIST? Neil (not Proto ►) 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - we can have legitimate and well-written articles on racial slurs that are not just dicdefs; see Nigger and Kike. Also, neither speedy deletion had any legitimacy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redeletion as a rare instance of WP:IAR. The AFD was closed early so G4 should not have been applied. The claim that the most recent version was an attack page is also thin. But the recently deleted version was a mere dictionary definition and showed no possibility of expansion past that point. The discussion here confirms my opinion of that assessment. It included only the meaning, origin and usage of the term. I'll happily help you transwiki the content to Wiktionary but it really doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I also have no problem with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a merger into and redirection to List of ethnic slurs? By endorsing the deletions, you're arguing that it isn't even reasonable to discuss the possibility. —David Levy 17:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - It was definitely not a dicdef, just a stub. I can see how content relating to how the word is offensive might be mistaken for a usage guide, but a usage guide is just "avoid this word because it's offensive", with no explanation. The deleted version contained references including a professor of ethnic studies's views on the word, a linguist's observations on how the word is in the middle of changing perceptions, and an article on the peculiarity of ethnic insults being derived from food habits, with beaner being listed as an example. This will be my last word here, but I'm just disappointed that people are basing their judgments on speculation about the content instead of whether the deletion was valid, which is what this process is for. I spent a couple hours getting the references for this, and I just want them back, because I doubt I'll bother to comb around for them again after this hassle. And, for the record, I don't really care if it is merged or not, given its short length. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not disagreeing with your comments about the word but I feel strongly that you are shortchanging Wiktionary. All the content you just described is lexical, not encyclopedic. It's all information about the word, not the ethnicity. It is exactly the kind of detail that I would hope to see in a truly great entry in an unabridged dictionary. Remember Wiktionary is not paper either. It's good content, it just doesn't belong here. Rossami (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a determination to be made at AfD. You aren't arguing that the article should be deleted. You're arguing that it's entirely unreasonable to even consider any alternatives.
      Personally, I see no valid reason why the article shouldn't be merged into List of ethnic slurs (which certainly wouldn't preclude a Wiktionary entry). —David Levy 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. We have lists of derogatory terms, we have articles about derogatory terms. This is a well-known slur, even if it's just a redirect, it shouldn't be a redlink. The AfD didn't have a lot of discussion. And WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid deletion criterion. Corvus cornix 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above. Just because it might sound like nonsense, or be offensive to some people, doesn't mean we should delete. And there certainly is no speedy criterion that backs this up. Mango juice^talk 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be relisted at AFD, but the other alternative is just to merge it into List of ethnic slurs. I am not certain we need an article on every ethnic slur that exists. --sunstar net^talk 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matrixism – Deletions endorsed; if the sources contain encyclopedic material, a new article should be started in userspace – trialsanderrors 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
See also: [[50]], Matrixism vandals

Reliable References

Bouma, Gary (2007). Australian Soul, Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13 978-0521673891

Kohn, Rachael. The Spirit of Things, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National, August 20, 2006.

Possamai, Adam (2005). In Search of New Age Spiritualities, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN-13 978-0754652137

Morris, Linda. They're All God Movies in Mysterious Ways, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 19, 2005.

Jordison, Sam (2005). The Joy of Sects, Robson Books. ISBN 1861059051

In light of these reliable and verifiable references it seems that an article on Matrixism should be re-visited. At the very least the dicussion page for the Matrixism article should be unlocked. 206.188.56.24 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect. Only one AfD that I can find, and the result was a merge. Locking the page is inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of this nonsense article which has been deleted 18 times by various admins over the years and has been the subject of trolling over much of that time. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AfD was a merge - editorial decision. The second was speedied as a repost, an invalid speedy since there was never a deleted AfD to qualify a repost for. Whether it's been speedied 18 times is completely irrelevant here - that's 18 invalid speedy deletions by various admins over the years, and if it needs to be deleted, it should get a full hearing. From the looks of the sources, the result may surprise you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, this article always is and always was bullshit from beginning to end, which is why it has been deleted so many times. The last version had a single source cited: a geocities page, most likely that of the WP:SPA who posted the "article." And you'll never guess what's right above this one at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Matrixism... Guy (Help!) 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It'd be a great argument for a new AfD if you don't think the content is appropriate anywhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are more credible citations now. Why not allow the article to be re-written such that is not the "bullshit" that you describe? Also where did you look at the edit history? All that I can find are edits of the particular forms of deletion.206.124.144.3 10:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I agree that the speedy deletions were out of process, but it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD, and just seems like a waste of time. It's sad that I'm torn on clear religioncruft. :/ JuJube 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due process isn't a waste of time. It's how we create an encyclopedia that "doesn't suck". 206.124.144.3 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and unendorse processwanking. --Calton | Talk 06:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - crap--Doc^g 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion fancruftyness /Blaxthos 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Mr 206, if you believe an encyclopaedic, referenced, neutral article can be created on the topic, please do so (either by creating an account and doing it in the userspace, on the talk page of your IP address, or at Talk:Matrixism), and let me know. If it asserts notability of the subject, and is reliably referenced), I will gladly move it back into article space for you. You can even write the article on your own computer and email it me or post it to my talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Matrixism talk page has also been locked and salted. I think that deleting and protecting the talk page might be a tactic used by unscrupulous administrators to subvert transparency and accountability in Wikipedia. I am no expert on how to make the deleting/protecting/review process work but I would gladly write a fair, modest and well researched article on this subject if allowed a place to do so. The reason that it is important to review the deletion of this article is precisely because its talk page has also been deleted and salted. 206.188.56.24 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, attacking the admins really helps your case no end. Oh, perhaps not. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said, make an account and put it in your userspace. Making an account is painfully easy. JuJube 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a placeholder at User:Neil/Matrixism - 206.x or anyone else is more than welcome to try and create a viable article there, which could be moved across at a later date. I think there's one in this somewhere, despite the stuff existing to now being subpar, to say the least. Neil (not Proto ►) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. To the anon above - it's standard to delete the talk page when an article is deleted. There's no grand conspiracy there. Kafziel ^Talk 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: Someone has edited out large parts of this deletion review. It seems that some people are unwilling to give this article a fair hearing. Perhaps this should be reported to administrators. I would do it myself but I am not yet familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. 206.124.144.3 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Offhand, I can't find proof of that. Can you tell me whose contributions were removed? It'd help. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted contributions that I spotted have been returned since I reported this abuse to other Wikipedians. However I cannot be sure that all deleted contributions and votes have been returned. Neil's contribution along with my response to it was deleted and then returned as well as my comment that begins with Attention. These would be good places to begin looking for whoever is behind this abuse. 206.188.56.24 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion According to the log, this has been deleted twenty times by a number of admins, going back to 2005. No, that's not a typo. TWENTY TIMES. I don't think it's coming back at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I note two things: First, though the article HAS been deleted 20 times, several sources referenced at the top of this request have been published since that time. This may represent an improvement in notability, perhaps enough to merit an article. And second, many of the more recent deletion requests (and some comments here) were/are based on the quality of the article, not the suitability of the subject by Wikipedia standards. While it IS true that many of the older versions of the article were poorly done, and deserving of deletion at that time, and while it is true that, for the time frame in which those 20 deletes were imposed, there was no clear notability, am I correct in understanding the above comments to mean that a short article MIGHT be merited, if it were both well-written and met notability standards? If so, as a neutral party (via the ref desk discussion), I appreciate Neil's talk page offer, and will encourage 206.188 to work there which both directs appropriately to the articles on Matrix and to related religious/belief systems, and cites those newer sources appropriately. Jfarber 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn if the sources are accurate. Regardless of how many times the article was deleted out-of-process, if these sources indeed refer to the article subject, it's probably possible to write a legitimate article. Long-term salting should be discouraged anyway, as it's inimical to the goals of the encyclopedia. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stupid.com – Deletion overturned, relisted at AFD'oh – trialsanderrors 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was deleted due to failing WP:CORP, though WP:WEB should technically apply. It had a very weak consensus. Also, it did not fail the main notability criteria. It was the subject of this article from the Dallas Morning News, this article from a Mississippi news source,and this article from the New York Times. (Unfortunately, the last 2 articles are paid subscription only, so only part of the text is available) According to the AfD, it was also featured on Good Morning America and CNN. The 2nd AfD, (where it was actually deleted) can be found here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, neutral on a relist. I don't even think it fails WP:CORP. Looks fine to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I've personally seen this website prominently featured on international television more than once. There was no "obvious consensus," and Radiant overstepped his bounds by disregarding another admin's decision to relist (particularly considering the fact that the previous deletion discussion ended with a result of "keep"). —David Levy 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really now. Please point out any policy or guideline or precedent that indicates such? Deletion debates can be closed after the requisite number of days (i.e. five). Just because one admin does not close a particular debate doesn't mean another admin cannot close it. >Radiant< 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The relisting of an AfD discussion is not a form of inaction on the part of an admin. It's a formally prescribed process step stemming from the determination that due to an insufficient amount of feedback, no clear consensus has emerged. (The alternative is to close the debate with a result of "no consensus"). You unilaterally overruled another admin's determination that there was no clear consensus.
    I see that you received a complaint on your talk page, and A Train shouldn't have backed down. —David Levy 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're attaching way too much importance to a page with some instructions on them, that despite your claim is nowhere near "formally prescribed". WP:BURO. >Radiant< 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly, AfD relisting is included in the deletion policy as well.
        Secondly, you're the one demanding that I "point out any policy or guideline or precedent" instead of applying common sense, so your WP:BURO remark is unwarranted.
        Again, relisting an article is not indicative of inaction or indecisiveness. It's an actual decision (the determination of a discussion outcome). "Relisting" is shorthand for "no clear consensus, but there wasn't very much discussion, so we'll wait for more." You unilaterally overruled another admin's determination that there was no clear consensus.
        Thirdly, while none of this automatically means that A Train's assessment was correct and yours was incorrect, that's precisely my take on the situation. I see no consensus whatsoever, let alone "obvious" consensus. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it was certainly called for. I asked for a policy, guideline or precedent, and you responded by an overly formal and bureaucratic interpretation ("formal prescription", your words) of a simple instructive page that is none of that. It is entirely unhelpful to accuse people of "overstepping bounds" when in fact those bounds aren't defined anywhere. >Radiant< 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, AfD relisting is included in the deletion policy as well. I thought that it would be more helpful to direct you to the page on which the details are documented (because it didn't occur to me that you would reject it on the basis that it lacks a "policy"/"guideline" tag at the top). Do we really need to spell out "don't unilaterally overrule other admins' AfD decisions" on a policy/guideline page before you'll accept that doing so usually is inappropriate? —David Levy 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, unilaterally overriding somebody's AFD closing is inappropriate, but no, a relisting is not a closing, and is not a decision but the lack of one. >Radiant< 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, that simply isn't true. Relisting is indicative of the decision that there is no clear consensus (due to insufficient discussion).
        A Train determined that no clear consensus existed. He could have closed the debate with a "no consensus" outcome, but he decided to extend it (per policy) in the hope of reaching one. You then stepped in and unilaterally overruled this decision. —David Levy 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on this: [51]. Policy? Feh. That rocks :o) Guy (Help!) 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, as closer, endorse without prejudice. The links given so far were not articles about the site, but passing mentions of the site in web directories ([52], [53]). If there are actual sources that'd be a big improvement. >Radiant< 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist I was quite surprised to see the close of the 2nd AfD, even though I !voted "weak delete", for it did not seem there was consensus. DGG 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn-and-relist.com. There was no clear consensus to delete, I'm not sure what the closing nominator was referring to. RFerreira 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Seems like it meets WP:CORP. FCYTravis 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. (Tongue-in-cheek) When I nominated this for deletion, I had no idea it would cause such a stir. Of course I endorse the deletion, but my opinion should not count. YechielMan 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

FreeCol – restored with consent of deleting admin – GRBerry 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted as non-notable. FreeCol has won last Februaries Sourceforge.net's Project of the Month (as was stated in the article) and has 115,000 hits in Google. Kc4 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, not a legitimate speedy (being a major open-source group's project of the month is a valid assertion of notability), and the deleting admin appears to have extended A7 to require sources in this case, which is not what A7 requires. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (and relist?) No idea whether this is notable or not, but it needs discussed. Afd is the place for discussion.--Doc^g 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. Almost certainly notable, but definitely not a speed candidate. Relist probably isn't necessary, but if anyone wants to they can always be bold and do it after the article is recreated. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 19:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn me! I apologize - to me, being Sourceforge.net's project of the month means absolutely nothing; I didn't take it as any more of an assertion of notability than I would if it had said, "My little sister thinks it's awesome." My mistake. I certainly would never speedy an article just for being unsourced; I honestly didn't recognize any credible assertion of notability. I looked at the (proposed) guideline for pointers on how to tell, but didn't see that this claimed to meet any of the suggested criteria. Anyway, feel free to overturn it (or I can do it, if it cuts through any red tape - this is my first restore, so I'm not sure what's appropriate). Kafziel ^Talk 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

FRS Plus (antioxidant health drink) – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitrary speedy deletion unwarranted. This article was speedily deleted within an hour of its creation, preventing me from adding more information. The health drink is the beginning of a new market of antioxidant drinks that claim to have wide-ranging health benefits. A Wikipedia article that provides information about whether these claims are valid is "notable". Americanuck 05:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the admin who speedy deleted the article. The article as written contained a list of ingredients and a link to the company web site. Nothing in the article indicated any notability. Vegaswikian 05:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The product needs to be notable, not the Wikipedia article about it. Claims made about a non-notable product are non-notable as well. --Ezeu 06:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal How is the product non-notable? It is the first of its kind. An antioxidant health energy drink. It is potentially the first of an energy-drink revolution geared at health benefits. The article itself wasn't given enough time to develop and list the claimed/proven benefits, it was deleted too quickly.Americanuck 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, article provided no context and was also a pretty clear ad. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal Look, the reasoning behind no context/lack of content is flawed. The point of Wikipedia is that it is a community effort right? I started out the page with the intent of adding the claimed health benefits etc., and hopefully others would pitch in their own research. When an article is deleted as quickly as this one was, it defies the purpose of the community effort. Judging that an article has no potential within an hour of its creation is a poor opinionated assessment. Obviously there is an extreme bias among the administration here. When an article is deleted you stand up for each other? Due to your obvious resilience to any potential damage to your dignity, I ask this: if I write the article with more information and then post it, can I have any assurance that it won't be speedily deleted to protect your egos, and instead considered impartially as a positive addition to Wikipedia? Further, why are there many other "energy drink" topics out there that haven't been deleted. I understand that this is a poor argument (well why does he get to have an article?), but I sincerely feel a "ganging-up" attack on this article. So put your egos aside for a few minutes and actually consider that this article may be notable with more content.Americanuck 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors don't get to grant notability, on the contrary, our policies bind us to disallow articles that have no reliable sources to back up their claims. This article was comprised entirely of a list of ingredients which, while useful, doesn't really provide any context for the product. You claim that it is a "health drink", has it been approved by the FDA as such? Has it received significant coverage in the media? (outside of advertising) Does the company manufacturing this product have a notable history? There was nothing in that article to indicate a positive response to any of these questions, so the obvious conclusion was that this was merely an advertisement. Endorse deletion ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, Clear spam. Article contents were one sentence, an ingredients list, and the beginnings of a "health effects" section, not to mention partial nutrition facts. --Core desat 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THIS Notice how I didn't write "Health benefits??? You aren't reading/responding to my points. My point is how could I add to the article when it gets deleted so quickly!? A simple google search of "frs plus review" will give you plenty of independent reviews/studies of the drink. The drink was invented by prestigious professors of American universities. There is a lot to add to the article. This drink is to athletes as bawls is to gamers. I'm not associated with this company. My whole drive to write this article was because I wanted more information on the drink that wasn't just from the company's website, but there was no wiki entry on it (however there are plenty of worthless wiki articles on other less-notable energy drinks). The deleted article was the very beginnings of the entry, just as Coredesat pointed out. I mean come on. How can you determine something is spam before it has been completed? The responsible thing to do would be to watch the article and if a couple days passed with no changes, then go ahead and wreak you havoc. At the very least send me a copy of the wiki entry I made so I can edit it in a text file and avoid the self-righteous speedy deletion squad. Americanuck 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write a draft that includes cited information from independent reviews and studies of the drink, track down mentions of athletes or athletic organizations that use/endorse it, find information on the drink's manufacturer. You can store this draft in a User:Americanuck/sandbox in your userspace. Make sure that the tone is neutral and the information is verifiable. This discussion concerns only the article's state when you posted it. At that time it clearly satisfied several criteria for speedy deletion (a1/a7/g11). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have populated User:Americanuck/sandbox with the text that was deleted. Vegaswikian 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for obvious reasons, and endorse Anetode's suggestion above as well. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deleted article was literally only a link, an indredient list, and a short opening sentence. That's all, and if undeleted would be speedied again probably within minutes. If the creator can write a good, solid, well-referenced article with every fact backed up by reliable sources, go ahead and do so and we'll consider that, but there's no way the previous version is coming back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, per everybody, with no barrier toward re-creation in userspace (if it can be done, since I'm skeptical). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Anetode. No reliable sources were given for anything; the only links were to the manufacturer's web site, which we cannot cite due to the conflict of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe their should be an article for Antioxidant Health Drink, and all the sources and reference to this can go there?? Kopf1988 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion As it stands, there's no encyclopedia article. By the way, if the author can recreate it as something suitable, it should be simply at FRS Plus. JuJube 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The original article was unencyclopedic, and little more than advertising. As Starblind says, it needs reliable sources, and the conflict of interest factor means there is little to no chance the original article will be restored.

--sunstar net^talk 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs – speedy restore – John Vandenberg 10:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a maintenance category that is only empty for a short time after the cleanup has been completed, until the next run of the Smackbot that tags articles with {{Please check ISBN}}. John Vandenberg 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore of course we need it--how did it come to bedeleted?DGG 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log says it turned up on User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted, which I presume is filled with cats that have no entries. John Vandenberg 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Voice of All is already littered with a variety of other complaints about categories (that were temporarily empty) being indiscriminately deleted due to appearing on that list. Dragons flight 05:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dean Roberts (criminal) – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted as memorial/non-notable individual MadMax 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously created an article on Dean Roberts, a Yardie-affiliated drug dealer who had been a longtime requested article at WikiProject British crime when it had been nominated for deletion during the last week as a memorial and non-notable individual. However, while it is arguable weither or not his criminal career itself was notable (which indeed remained the main focus of the debate), he was one of two notable victims (the other being prominant music producer Henry "Junjo" Lawes) regarding a series of unsolved Yardie gangland related slayings occuring in London during the first half of 1999 (which as cited in the article, caused Scotland Yard to form a government task force to deal with the revenge killings). The main point which I made was that his notability, at least in my opinion, was based on the fact that he was a victim of a highly publicized unsolved murder spree which would ultimatly result in the life imprisonment of Rickey Sweeney and several members of the North London-based "Lock Street Crew" in 2002 during Operation Trident. Other gangland murder victims have similarly been covered on Wikipedia such as Arnold Schuster, Ferdinand Boccia and Eddie Cummiskey. However, while I left several reponces to a number of editors, only one user (User:TBC) replied and later recinded his own vote in favor of merging with Operation Trident. After its nomination for deletion, I expanded the article significantly and provided at least 4-5 additional resources including news reports and articles regarding his unsolved murder and his murder being the principal cause of the Lock Street Crew's downfall, however, no other comments were made after March 13. MadMax 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, consensus was crystal clear. --Ezeu 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on the basis of such invalid arguments as (one of the 6 gangland murders, so he's not partic. notable individually) The arguments amounted to Idontwantotoadmithesnotable., asserted in the face of good sourcing--which is now apparent better, and gives a reason to relist. DGG 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Seems there are sources, but a valid qwuestion over whether this is really about Dean Roberts or about the gang war that followed. Is there a suitable merge target? Guy (Help!) 13:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar. The article was largely foused on Dean Roberts unsolved murder, most of the sources provided were used for the basis of:
  1. Establishing he was the victim of a highly publicized unsolved killing spree.
  2. The killing spree was ganglard-related as a result a gang war between the North West 10 and Lock Street Crew, both major Yardie posses operating in London's underworld.
  3. The murders resulted in the formation of a government task force which was created specificly to investigate the "revenge" killings of which he and music producer Henry "Junjo" Lawes were victims of.
  4. His unsolved murder would be used during Operation Trident to convict Rickey Sweeney, a major Yardie gang leader who recieved life imprisonment, and several high ranking members of the Lock Street Crew.
- The sources provided, I feel, supported his notability as a murder victim, the gang war in which he was killed (and the subsequent investigation by Scotland Yard) and the aftermath of his murder resulting the virtual dismantling of a major Yardie posse in North London. MadMax 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... much of which, from your description, isn't about him himself, and so is presented in the wrong way if it is presented as a biographical article about this person's life and works. (After all, the events that you describe are hardly this person's life and works, given that he is dead when they occur.)
    I suggest that you look at Glasgow Ice Cream Wars. That isn't split into biographical articles about the individual victims. Given that the first two of the sources that you cited both began with an attention-grabbing paragraph or two about an individual act and then proceeded to talk about Operation Trident at length, it would appear that Operation Trident is the right place to write what you want to write based upon these sources. (The other two sources gave this person a 1-sentence mention in long laundry-lists of murders, and do not support having a biographical encyclopaedia article on this person because they are not non-trivial. Their actual subjects are Yardies and unsolved murder cases in London.) Uncle G 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I had been trying to assert was that his notability was based on his status as an unsolved murder victim. I could find no sources online regarding his criminal career, however there are any number of unsolved murder victims covered by Wikipedia which cover the same ground as you've stated (the individual's murder being the focus of the atricle). The sources I provided support statement made as to his notability and the effects of his murder. The article was never about the unsolved gangland slayings as information seemed to be inconsistant on some details, however the article did support the notability of the event (from which the initial complaint stems from). While I believe Roberts' murder as well as the 1999 gangland killings do deserve mention on Operation Tridant, Roberts murder is notable by itself remaining unsolved for over two years prior to Operation Tridant. As stated in the AfD debate, I have no opposition towards merging the article to Operation Tridant. I only disagree with the argument that he is a memorial/non-notable article despite citing sources to the contrary. MadMax 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. These arguments were all made in the AFD discussion. I find no process problems in that discussion and no new evidence here to justify reopening the debate. The changes that were made to the article were made early during the discussion period and failed to sway the participants. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I've been unclear, however the debate became effectivly inactive after March 13 and no replies (or reasonable disputes) either to my arguments for keeping the article or comments toward any improvements I contributed had been made by anyone until its eventual deletion four days later. Also, the one user who responded to my comments did change his vote. My purpose for proposing this article for undeletion was, if failing to have the article itself restored, then to at least have the information on his murder be transfered to a related article. To be fair, I have at least proved his death was at least a notable event of Operation Trident. MadMax 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, consensus was clear and read properly by closer, no new information's been brought up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unholy Alliance – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Work in progress, also need history, discussion, and discussion in delete proposal. MBHiii 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus on the AfD was read 100% correctly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD was mostly, but not all, "delete" with people who identified themselves by religion or as Republican leading the charge. As the article was edited by different people, largely in response to POV and OR complaints, it gained supporters. Please read the latest version of the article before deciding; it's much changed from what was first flagged. --MBHiii 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AFD was valid. --Core desat 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Valid, the AfD was. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHEM, did any of you guys read the latest version, or did you base your decisions solely on the (now largely irrelevant) AfD log? When you evaluate an AfD, do you weigh more heavily the later votes and comments that reflect changes made to the document after the AfD started? --MBHiii 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse all deletions of soapboxes. Of course we did not read the article, or the debate - we are the unholy alliance of deletionists. We are all biased and working on the basis of personal prejudice, just like you said the !voters in the AfD were. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox? That's defined at that link as 1. Propaganda, 2. Self-promotion, and 3. Advertising, none of which were present. Look, my questions were serious. Being new to this, I have little to no idea how you operate. I assume, from your answer, that you all did read the latest version; is that correct? You did not answer my other question as to weighing the logs more heavily toward the end of the debate; do you? I'm trying to understand. Also, I do think it should be a matter of policy that those who feel so strongly about a particular religion, political party, or anything else, for that matter, that is primarily a matter of personal belief and personal commitment (which would exempt merely academic interests), as to advertise it on their personal pages, should be expected to recuse themselves from a deletion debate involving that subject. That still doesn't prevent them from having someone else argue for them on the merits of their case. It just interposes a buffer to constrain the usual source of unintended bias from contaminating what should otherwise be an academic debate. I'd like to propose that be adopted as policy; how do I do that? --MBHiii 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. See how many people think it was inappropriate advocacy? Quite a few, by the looks of it. Perhaps your judgement of the content you wrote is at odds with ho others view it? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The AfD was valid and the consensus was clear. The nominator may not like it and may argue ad nauseum about how we all need to recuse ourselves from the discussion for one reason or another, but the AfD was 100% by the book. If the author feels he has a valid article that he can create might I suggest doing so as a subpage in his user space and ask for some advise before recreating it. However there's no reason to overturn the deletion of the previous material. Arkyan 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and applaud the AfD nominator for the sinthesis/synthesis joke. There was a clear-cut consensus on the AfD that the article did not quote reliable sources and consisted mainly of attacks. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, "Uncle!" request "History only undeletion" to enable restoration of unoffending documented portions (no middle paragraph without more backup) with last version on the discussion page. Also, please check Southern mafia --MBHiii 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Www.jackcolton.com – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedied per CSD:G11, deletion contested at Talk:Www.jackcolton.com and [54]. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and AFD. Not G11, but should probably be deleted anyway, given that all but one of the sources are blogs, and the last source is an irrelevant article by the website's namesake. --Core desat 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to weak endorse per Guy. Didn't notice the COI, which does make this somewhat self-promotional. --Core desat 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Overturn and AfD. I don't think it's quite spammy enough to satisfy G11, but there's no way it'll pass an AfD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. Since it has no realistic chance of passing an AFD, there's no need to invoke bureaucracy and send it there anyway. >Radiant< 10:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - I was tagging this for lack of NPOV, lack of sources, spam linking and basically being an advert etc, and had just decided it was an unsalvageable mess which needed taken outside and shot when an admin deleted it anyway. No chance of surviving an AfD so there seems little point in bringing it back just to kill it again. StuartDouglas 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, clearly not an G11, and actually has a shot at surviving an AfD if another source can be found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of blatantly promotional article, user name is CMedia, website produced by Colton Media ([..] information contained on this site is exclusively copywritten © by Colton Media 1998 - 2006). WP:COI plus WP:SPAM = WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the page a copyvio of the site at hand? If not, what does their copyright have to do with anything - I source articles from copywritten texts regularly. COI, again, doesn't not require deletion, and while this may have been created with spam in mind, it's not written as such and may, in fact, meet our standards, thus not a G11. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing, it's the user name. WP:COI + WP:SPAM, like I said. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So there's really no reason to endorse this other than an equation that has nothing to do with how we judge article content. Got it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, if there's no chance it'll survive an AFD, there's no need to waste time with one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per everyone. No chance this would pass AfD as written, so no reason to put it through the motions just for the sake of beaurocracy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really only one source away from meeting the relevant standard at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One source away from a legalistic inclusionist's perspective, perhaps, but from mine it is several sources, some Factiva hits and an independent author away. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. No prejudice against a rewrite based on independent, verifiable sources. Autobiographies are bad for the credibility of the project, even (maybe especially) when they are corporate autobiographies. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Perhaps not a G11, but the text exudes an advertising/POV motive, so it would probably lose in an AFD. YechielMan 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black people – speedy keep closure endorsed – GRBerry 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper Speedy Keep Jd2718 01:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:CanadianCaesar speedy kept Black people, citing WP:SNOW. I object strongly.

There was no claim that the article met any of the 4 criteria for speedy keep.

Support for the deletion extended beyond the nominator. While Afd is not a vote, we should observe there was actually significant support for deletion.
The nomination was neither frivolous nor vandalism.
The nominator is not banned.
This is not a policy, nor is it a guideline.

The admin cited WP:SNOW, but I believe this was an uphill battle, not a place for snowball.

Snowball is not policy.
This AfD failed the SNOWBALL test: '"If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."'
A recently closed ArbCom case included the following finding: 'The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy, and also recognizes that there will be some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks. However, in general, early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.' This finding was endorsed by the Arbitration Committee 10-0.

Per SNOW (which I understand is an application of IAR): 'If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause and the action should, if possible, be undone.'

I believe this applies here, and ask that the discussion be reopened and allowed to run its course.

Comment Just let it run. If it'll be kept, it'll be kept, and we'll live. But us editors learn to follow Wikipedia's rules and policies. It is not easy. Why hold admin's to lower standards? Jd2718 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, invalid speedy keep. Nom is correct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, WP:SNOW is fine when a debate is unnecessary. However, as we are now going to have a debate anyway, I'm minded that we should simply reopen the AfD for a day or so anyway. Otherwise we have a debate here about having a debate there. Suggest closer reverses it for a bit.--Doc^g 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy closure Since when do two votes constitute significant support? JuJube 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy closure, no real claim was made in the deletion nomination or arguments that the article topic itself is not an appropriate one for an encyclopedia, only that the article currently is not in good shape, and there was no realistic chance of this coming out any other way. WP:SOFIXIT, and if there's a dispute, there's a resolution process for those. AFD is not cleanup or dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. Yes, it was an invalid speedy keep, but this article will not be deleted. There are eighty-six sources. Absolutely no good will come from a discussion about it, while much bad will. Oh, and the nomination did not cite a single even marginally valid for deletion, or, for that matter, anything logical. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse speedy closure, there was no point in that debate at all, and there's no point in this one either. Someone please end this before we waste more time on this. Mango juice^talk 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE It's an silly topic for an encyclopedia. I proposed to either rename it or just delete it. It can be re-written as a general topic that covers many subjects in history to world relations, AA, civil rights, challenges, racism, views, accomplishments, notable persons, slavery issues, that can include the different 'blacks' around the world. Or to African-Americans in Slavery. see my proposal on talk page. As it is now it is nothing but a message board type topic where people share their opinions, views, politics, and racism. It is a forum. It is a joke, as it is right now. It's always going to be controversial, always! The topic Black people too broad. Awww. UGH I give up. This is sad. Jeeny 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kommentar Deletion Review is about process, not about content. The chance to comment on the content of the article was back at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure Nomination was frivolous and did not meet any standards for AFD other than "I don't like it". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure. The AfD nomination was flawed, and the speedy keeps were piling on, and would have kept piling on. --Ezeu 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This is just silly. – Steel 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while it seems that there is legitimate room for debate about the future direction of this article and similar articles, it's clear to me that articles for deletion is really not an appropriate forum for them. --bainer (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. That nomination was incomprehensible. None of the editors advocating deletion gave reasons that were even remotely grounded in policy. Even if the closure doesn't fit WP:CSK exactly, I'm perfectly willing to ignore it. That AfD was downright silly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Virtually all the people who voted to keep the article had little experience in maintaining and developing it, and thus may not have been aware of how difficult the article has been to maintain up to wikipedia standards. The article has required repeated protection, repeated tagging, has over a dozen pages of inflamatory debate archived in the talk page, has lead to numerous editors being blocked sometimes permanently, and has given rise to hundreds of personal and racist attacks. It has demonstrated no ability to achieve long term stability and limited ability to achieve neutrality. Based on extensive experience at this article and research into its history, I've come to the conclusion that the topic is simply too controversial to be maintained to quality standards. Shortly after the nomination was closed I caught an editor once again removing cited content that did not conform to his POV and replacing it with original research that did. This occurs on daily, sometimes hourly basis and appears to have done so since the article's inception. I think this article was a fascinating experiment in the type of topics that don't work in wikepia and I think we should learn from our mistake in creating it, rather than continuing to damage wikipedia's credibility. I don't think you will find a credible encyclopedia that has a topic as nebulous as black people in it, and with good reason Iseebias 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been involved with that article for a long time, and I am quite frustrated with it too. But that is not a reason to delete it. The closing admin was absolutely right to close the AfD. There is no way an article like that will get deleted on the grounds that people cannot get along, or that it is a cause for discontentment. --Ezeu 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I sympathize with Iseebias, but Ezeu is right. If debate is getting too heated or editors are acting inappropriately, we do have ways of helping that out: see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But we can't delete articles on controversial, important topics just because (unsurprisingly) the editors of those pages have a hard time getting along: no matter how heated discussion gets, we should have an article on Evolution and we should have an article on Abortion. Black people fits in the same category. Mango juice^talk 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar It wasn't my nomination, but it closed before I could digest and comment. The admin certainly seems unaware that the article has been a magnet for well-sourced non-encyclopedic information. I suspect... but it doesn't matter what I thought, as the discussion was closed after a mere 4½ hours. Jd2718 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... it doesn't matter if it's a magnet for non-encyclopedic information. That's not a reason for deletion. If you'd like to revise policy so that we can delete things because the attract unencyclopedic stuff, go ahead and try, but until it happens, doing such is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you arguing about whether it should be deleted? That debate was closed (improperly). The point is, you don't know what else was going to be said, and neither did the closing admin. I have more to say; may I argue for deletion here? I don't think that is appropriate. Jd2718 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is silly, but please don't speedy close it. It's never worth it to speedy close a DRV of a speedy keep. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure No consensus will ever come to delete these articles and I think speedy keeping it was the right move. — Moe 04:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the pile on "keep" votes on the other AfDs, AfD:Caucasian race, AfD:White people and AfD:Asian (people), all by the same nominator, certainly show that the closer made a good call. --Ezeu 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those have now all been speedily kept. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious speedy keep. Ral315 » 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, being a problematic article is not a valid reason for deletion. MaxSem 08:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention Major article. Honbicot 11:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention/closure/etc Beyond the fact that this will never get deleted, both Black people and White people sort of pass the bar for notability without trying too hard. any further arguments are just stupid. Also WP:FORTHEPEOPLE: we shouldn't delete stuff for the possible good of the people or because a extreme minority of users will be stupid and/or disruptive later. If they are stupid and/or disruptive over any given article, it is a problem with those users, not the article--sanction the user who has no self control, not the valid article. - Denny 12:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy close. There genuinely was no realistic chance of consensus to delete and the AfD was far more likely to be a cesspit than to reach a consensus to remove an article on such a clearly encyclopaedic topic. Resolve your content issues on the talk page, you'll not remove a term which has this much support in academic references and other sources. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy keep, relist at AfD. Since the AfD debate was closed prematurely due to WP:SNOW, I think that procedural correctness requires that a full AfD be allowed to run. I express no opinion on the merits of the article. SNOW is only allowable if its really snow. If a lot of people come by later and *reasonably* say that it's not SNOW, then you should rerun the process in full. Those !voting here to Endorse Closure must be assuming that all the complaints *raised in this DRV* by people like User:Jd2718 were unreasonable, and that it's unreasonable to expect the criteria for speedy keep actually to be observed. The full AfD may well result in *Keep* but that will go into the Talk page record and may serve as a useful reference point. The language of the original AfD nomination suggests that the nominator had limited experience with WP but, as said above, it was not frivolous or vandalism. Also this is the *only* AfD nomination ever made for this article. EdJohnston 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Close this was a patently rediculous nomination, nominated inappropriately either as a gross misunderstanding of policy or as a disruptive reaction to editing problems. It had no business at AfD. WilyD 18:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Closure. While I agree that even one "delete" vote in agreement with the nomination technically means you can't speedy keep an article, this is a case of common sense and not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Let's not get too hung up on technicalities. Kafziel ^Talk 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy closure. No one presented anything remotely resembling a valid reason to delete this article. When someone nominates a page for deletion because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, it's far more disruptive to prolong the unjustified debate than it is to speedily close it (especially when the article pertains to a contentious issue). We don't follow the rules purely for the sake of following them. We do what's best for Wikipedia. —David Levy 21:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if the AfD is invalid, re-opening would be policy for policy's sake. Controversy is never a reason for deletion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy closure It is perfectly possible that a nomination of United States might fail to meet any of the 4 speedy closure criteria. What this suggests to me is that additional criteria are needed. Haddiscoe 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. All we need is to continue to apply Clue when the outcome is really really obvious, as it was here. And perhaps apply Cluesticks to those who bring such cases to deletion review... I am soooooo tempted to snowball this review! Guy (Help!) 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, would be a nice dot on the i. --Ezeu 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a common-sense application of SNOW, even if it failed the technical criteria. YechielMan 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy closure If the current rules make this speedy controversial, it is the rules that need to change. CalJW 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

* A Week in the Woods – Deletion overturned by closing admin – >Radiant< 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper A7 by User:Xiner of a well-known children's book in the United States by the author of a number of the most important books for the age group he writes for over the last 10 years. One, books are not A7 candidates, so the deletion reason is invalid. Second, it's a noteworthy book by a highly notable children's author, thus meeting the significance portion of WP:BK even in the off chance that A7 did apply to books. Is now protected against recreation for absolutely no useful reason whatsoever, to boot. Should be undeleted immediately. badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind, I see nothing in the criteria about the notability of the /author/. Nardman1 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read CSD A7 recently? You're the one who tagged it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant WP:BK. You wrote "a noteworthy book by a highly notable children's author, thus meeting the significance portion of WP:BK". There is nothing in WP:BK about the notability of the author. Instead it demands the same reliable sources any other article would have. In any case read my tag, I didn't tag as an A7. I just wrote in a reason. Nardman1 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok I re-read it, and it is in there. I still don't think he's so notable that his books are notable without sources. He's not a household watchword like Isaac Asimov. Nardman1 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Why was this speedied? I'm hoping the deleting admin had some good reason I can't fathom, 'cos this looks like a terrible judgement call. AfD it if you want - undelete immediately.--Doc^g 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even after speedy deletions by two other admins over the past few months, the again-recreated article did not assert notability. The infobox contained minimal info, and the full text was "A Week in the Woods is a children's book by Andrew Clements. Part of his School series, it was released by Simon & Schuster in 2002." Xiner (talk, email) 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice (nor would I have cared) about prior speedies in this case. Regardless, books simply are not A7 candidates. The article was created this afternoon, still a stub. Your speedy was incorrect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff is entirely correct here. The fact that it was badly deleted in the past is no excuse - we don't speedy because one editor sees a lack of notability. What amazes me is that when Jeff challenged this with the admin, he was forced to bring it here. Given that there was no CSD justification, and given that there has never been a debate here - why on earth didn't the admin undelete and send this to AfD??--Doc^g 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To make it even weirder, the original version, though needing cleanup, was more substantial and contained a plot summary and list of awards, and that version was deleted as a G1!! This is a bit of a "WTF?" case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Damn, I would have used that if it was there. Good catch, thanks. Saving that info now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I looked in Google...I can find nothing of awards or multiple reliable sources, the type we'd expect of any other article. The original version of the article mentions some "awards" but there's no articles about them in Wikipedia, leading me to suspect they are mere fancruft awards. Nardman1 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That still doesn't make it a valid speedy. Please, again, read CSD A7. If you felt that way, you should have AfD'd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Simon & Schuster's site lists a number of awards for this book. You looked on Google but didn't find the publisher's website? In any case, dismissing state reading list awards as "fancruft" is downright insulting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Simon and Schuster does not a independent reliable source make. And yes, they are cruft awards. WP:FANCRUFT says "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". The California Young Reader Medal is run by the California Library Association [55] which is simply a consortium of libraries. The Kentucky Bluegrass Award is similarly awarded by a consortium of libraries. [56]. Similarly with Keystone to Reading [57]. These organizations don't even have Wikipedia articles. They are non notable in themselves. Their opinion does not confer notability on an otherwise non-notable subject. Nardman1 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So the awards are invalid fancruft because libraries in several states are supposedly staffed solely with diehard enthusiastic Andrew Clements fans?! Ooookay, well, that's certainly an interesting opinion you have there, although I'm not quite sure I agree with it. Besides, sorting out what awards are valid or not is exactly the sort of thing an AfD is good for--the mere fact that it won so many awards pushes it well out of speedy territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion completely non notable book, even my schoolteacher wife has never heard of it. Nardman1 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list at afd I agree it's not a valid speedy, but I still believe it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nardman1 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a wind-up vote, right?--Doc^g 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm so holding my tongue right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong undelete per Jeff. Books don't make good A7 subjects, and besides this is a notable book, part of a significant series from a major publisher. I'm positive it would survive an AfD, although expansion is needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I was deleting it under A7. If you must find a rationale, it'd be A1, and the author is not historically significant. Please see the relevant notability guidelines for books. Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Notability guideline DO NOT constitute grounds for speedy deletion. Please review the the WP:CSD. I am currently going through your deletion logs and I have to say I am far from convinced of you comprehension of deletion policy.--Doc^g 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was afraid of that, but I couldn't tell from the little I could see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your deletion summary was "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject" - that's A7 language. If you meant A1, it's still invalid - the context of the book is expressly clear. Remember, "[L]imited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome to your opinion, but I strongly disagree that author Andrew Clements "is not historically significant". He has an enormous amount of awards and press coverage, and several of his books are bestsellers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep (first choice) or list. Well-known book title by a well-known children's author. At an absolute minimum, there should be a redirect rather than a deletion, and in this case there should be more than the minimum. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If someone wants to list it they can but I don't think we should. There is a REASON that not all things can fall under A7, and this is why. Mango juice^talk 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've undeleted this as a patently bad deletion. I invite someone to speedy close this DRV. The deleter can go to afd if he wants. I'm afraid I have big questions about the competency of the deleting admin, who seems to misunderstand and misapply policy. Deleting itself was bad (but we all make mistakes), refusing to see the error when challenged was worse and continuing to defend it here is simply incompetence. A quick look at his deletion logs gives me further cause for concern - and I invite others with more time on their hands to go through and review that in more detail. For now I'd ask the deleting admin to stick off deletions for a while until he reviews policy and gets a handle of the CSD. Speedy deletion is not a licence simply to unilaterally delete stuff without a debate, because you can't see its notability.--Doc^g 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List on AFD, "product with no assertion of notability" isn't part of A7, even if it should be. Go easy on Xiner though, that's an easy mistake to make, especially as the article really does make no assertion of notability whatsoever. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed an easy mistake to make. But when pointed out, it should also be a quick one to notice and correct. You just have to read the CSD.--Doc^g 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict) I agree with Doc about the merits of the deletion, but would prefer not to focus on the "competency" of the deleting administrator, who has been an admin for less than a week. I suggest that further concerns about his overall deletion record be taken to his talkpage for future guidance. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I used my previous teaching connections and called up a trusted reading specialist friend of mine, and was told that this was a high acclaimed book. But y'all are right, that doesn't really matter. Sorry I got certain guidelines messed up in my mind. Xiner (talk, email) 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is susceptible to accidental misuse & I too don't consider this error blameworthy in any personal sense.DGG 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nobody is suggesting any actions be taken against the deleting admin. Given the brevity of the article and the fact that it had been deleted twice before, it was an easy mistake to make and is now undeleted with no harm done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already overturned by the deleting admin. Let's speedily close this. Kla'quot 09:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 March 2007

A Shanty No Lemon – deletion endorsed again – GRBerry 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please allow the posting of this Columbus Podcast, I have received several outside sources, including a link from the Columbus Alive Newspaper. http://www.columbusalive.com/?sec=services&story=alive/2007/0208/l-lunch.html to indicate that this is a valid piece of information. Further information can be written to this page to indicate it's authenticity. Ironhide1975 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The problem is that WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial sources - something simply existing isn't enough. That source is trivial (it's just a short blurb in a list), and it's only one (one isn't multiple). This article was deleted four times at A shanty no lemon, as well. None of the articles asserted any notability, and simply listed the content on the podcast if they weren't one-line articles saying "it's a podcast". --Core desat 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Coredesat said exactly what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a podcast directory, please try a site that is. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above. Doczilla 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Women writers – relisted at CFD – GRBerry 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The decision to delete the category "women writers" should be reviewed: i) the discussion was not complete; ii) it is a useful category for many editors and users; and iii) "women writers" is widely recognized as a distinct category in publishing and literary studies. There are good arguments for reinstatement on the category talk page, as well as here. scribblingwoman 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: the deletion debate showed a clear consensus. "The discussion was not complete" is false; the idea that it's WP:USEFUL is not an argument. NOTE that Scribblingwoman has extensively and one-sidedly WP:CANVASsed this discussion among the keep-commenters and people interested in the subject. I have notified all people involved in the earlier debate that she had not notified (i.e. those in favor of deletion). Other than that I have no particular opinion on the subject. >Radiant< 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: discussion of the above notice can be found on the talk page. scribblingwoman (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is clear that categorization by gender is appropriate, and this situation meets all tests. A head article has been written at Women's writing in English. A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per the guideline saying it's allowed, with the aforementioned head article. But if consensus is to delete again, then don't come back here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs). [58]
Um. That looks like a thoughtful debate, the issue of writers closely identified with women's issues is addressed by the (retained) Category:Feminist writers and both Category:Men writers and Category:Women writers did indeed seem to be underpopulated per Category:Writers, so unless we can identify a credible reason for this subcategorisation which is not addressed by a more maintainable genre-specific category I am strongly minded to endorse. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category has little to do with the politics of particular writers (whether or not they are feminist, or anything else), but is more concerned with their position as women. In addition, "feminist" is a pretty recent category (lots of debate but I would argue it can reasonably be used by the end of the eighteenth century) while women have been writing for centuries. And whether or not a writer is "identified with women's issues" is tricky. Arguably, any issue is a "woman's issue" as long as a woman is interested in it. So I would argue that "feminist writers" is a fairly specific category reserved for writers explicitly engaged in writing about women's rights/oppression/emancipation/situation/etc., whereas "women writers" is a broader category which allows us to look at women within literary history as a class of writers. Anyway, to a large extent the point is moot as "women writers" exist far and wide as a recognized category and so whatever individuals may feel about it, we surly must follow suit here. scribblingwoman 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure about the underpopulation of the category - before it was deleted, it was much more heavily populated. A Musing (formerly Sam) 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much better populated: I had initiated twenty-four myself. But there was a pretty thorough culling via bot. scribblingwoman 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. While the discussion which resulted in its deletion was not thoughtless, it didn't involve many of the editors and users who did find the category useful. Since that time, a head article has been written, and my impression is that this illustrates some serious wikipedian interest in maintaining Category:Women writers, despite its potential size. And I agree that Category:Feminist writers doesn't quite seem to meet the need: being a feminist writer is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for being a woman writer. Dsp13 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: There is a marvellous article on Women artists which demonstrates the viability of gendered categories and artistic production. scribblingwoman 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate. Especially in my area of interest (science fiction and fantasy) there is much room for discussion of the roles of women writers in the genre, the number of women writers who used gender-neutral real or pen names in the "Golden Age" (C. L. Moore, Leigh Brackett, Andre Norton), and the impact of a large number of women entering the field in the 1960s and '70s. A category for women writers would be useful to students of this topic. - PKM 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Reinstate, as per scribblingwoman's comments. This is an important and quickly growing field in academia and the history of literature; to ignore its importance here on Wikipedia would be a shame. María: (habla conmigo) 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Do Aphra Behn, Jane Austen, and Charlotte Bronte have something in common, other than just being dead, white English-language novelists? I'm thinking yes. Do they belong in Category:Feminist writers perhaps? Probably not (although Aphra Behn is categorised as a feminist, but let that slide). JzG is right that this was a broad debate as CFD goes, and a serious one, but revisiting the subject won't hurt. The arguments against are strong: Barbara Cartland and Jacqueline Susann would go in the same category. Perhaps there's a compromise out there that would resolve all the concerns. Worth another try anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep deleted~~. The question that needs to be answered for me is whether this category is about "Women's writing" or "Writers who are women". If it is the latter, then the category should remain deleted. If it is the former, then there should be clear criteria for which women writers are included and which are not. Perhaps a better name is needed. I am skeptical of the idea that this category should contain all women writers. Quoting from Women's writing in English:
The question of whether or not there is a "women's tradition" remains vexed; some scholars and editors refer to a "women's canon" and women's "literary lineage," and seek to "identify the recurring themes and to trace the evolutionary and interconnecting patterns" in women's writing, but the range of women's writing across time and place is so considerable that it is inaccurate to speak of "women's writing" in a universal sense: Claire Buck calls "women's writing" an "unstable category." Further, women writers cannot be considered apart from their male contemporaries and the larger literary tradition. Recent scholarship on race, class, and sexuality in literature further complicate the issue and mitigate against the impulse to posit one "women's tradition."
If this is, as Claire Buck says, "an unstable category" then we should not have it as a category at wikipedia. Unstable categories imply that membership is unclear, and needs explanation. If so, the subject would be much better served with a list. In short what I'm saying is if the category includes all women writers it should probably remain deleted. If it includes just some, it should be a list. -- Samuel Wantman 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My sense is that many university courses on 'women's writing' start from identifying, extensionally, the category with 'writers who are women'. That this can be called an 'unstable category' means not that this is an extensionally unstable category (i.e. that membership is unclear) but that it is intensionally unstable (i.e. that its connotation, implication etc. vary - e.g. over time & place, with race & class, with literary genre and so on.) This sort of instability isn't an argument against making the category the object of academic study, and I don't feel it need be an argument against having the wikipedia category. Dsp13 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So are you saying that the category should contain ALL women writers, and that is what is meant academically when studying "women's writing"? If so, I'll change my opinion. -- Samuel Wantman 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. (Of course, different academic courses will differ in the selection of material they take as representative of the category for the purposes of study - but I don't think that's a fact about the category itself.) Dsp13 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK. I'm convinced that this is worth discussing more. Relist -- Samuel Wantman 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate I had found it a particularly useful category to work on. And never figured why an argument for deletion was being "overpopulated"! User:Dimadick
Keep deleted There was a legitimate debate, and the main reason for rejecting the outcome seems to be simply that some people don't like it. AshbyJnr 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted There was a legitimate debate, for nearly 11 days. The fact that "many of the editors and users who did find the category useful" (including you, A Musing (formerly Sam), Guy, Dsp13, PKM, María, and Angus McLellan) chose to ignore the CfD during its run is immaterial. That category deserves the same fate that Category:Men writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD) got - any other treatment would be sexist. Also, I object to the canvassing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is inflammatory language. Editors did not "choose" to ignore the debate; they were not informed it was taking place. And the idea that recognizing legitimate differences between groups of people is "sexist" (or racist, or heterosexist, or anything else) is misguided, and in fact can contribute to the very sexism (or racism, or heterosexism, or anything else) that this editor wants to avoid, by sweeping differences under the rug. "Equal" means "entitled to fair and equal treatment," not "exactly the same as." Anyway, I really think the point is immaterial for the purposes of this argument, because like it or not, "women's writing" as a category already exists in the wider world. It is the job of Wikipedia, it seems to me, to reflect that fact, neutrally and fairly. scribblingwoman 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category was tagged and listed in the usual way, so those who have an interest in keeping this category have no one to blame but themselves for not participating. Doubtless many additional editors who would have favoured deletion also did not take part. Piccadilly 12:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - From Wikipedia:Categories for discussion:
      "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator, any main contributors of the category and the relevant wikiprojects that you are nominating the category. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the category. Please indicate in your nomination who has been notified, so that if you fail to notify the creator, contributors, and relevant wikiprojects, someone else can do so."
      scribblingwoman 13:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff, WP:CATGRS suggests that gender asymmetries in categories - such as that which would pertain if Category:Women writers existed and Category:Men writers didn't - should sometimes be allowed (the example there is Category:female heads of government), and not denied a priori as sexist. In this case, the asymmetry results from the fact that historically women writers have been a fairly self-conscious minority, and is visible today in the larger number of academic courses devoting themselves to literature by women than those devoting themselves to literature by men. I'd have no objection to having a men writers category if there were sufficient interest in properly maintaining it (here I should perhaps confess a bias - I'm a male writer myself!) - but when both categories existed it's a fact that the women writers category was much more satisfactorily populated. Dsp13 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Restoration would suggest Wikipedia is biased towards a feminist agenda, thus compounding the problem that it is perceived to have a liberal bias. This perception is in danger of becoming self-perpetuating by discouraging non-liberals from contributing, thus making the goal of neutrality unattainable. Honbicot 11:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion If fully populated this category would probably contain a five figure tally of articles, and most of them would be about journalists and so on and of no use in discussing women's writing, or would be feeble stubs, and of no use for that reason. The alternative is subcategorisation, but that would be extremely unwelcome because some people would be in half a dozen of the subcategories, or even a dozen. In any case, one can find women writers from most parts of the world easily enough by browsing through the existing subcategories. Piccadilly 12:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scholars have been interested in women 'journalists and so on' since the time of the C19th periodical press. That a category contains feeble stubs is no argument against the category, but against the stubs themselves. But I totally agree that there's a serious general problem about large categories versus combinatorially proliferating subcategories. Dsp13 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, deletion was proper. Votestacking to drown out a discussion is never helpful. >Radiant< 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - This deletion had clear consensus. About 15 people endorsed deletion/merging, while only 3 people wanted to keep the category. The number of people involved in this debate was larger than the typical WP:CFD debate, which suggests the category was thoroughly reviewed. The nomination was open for over a week, which should have provided ample opportunity for feedback. I can only conclude that the deletion was appropriate. In fact, keeping the category after the WP:CFD discussion would have been disruptive. This review should have never been initiated; the category should stay deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Setting aside the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL arguments, no valid reason to overturn has been raised. The discussion lasted for the 11 days, far, far more than the required 7 days. After 11 days, with consensus overwhelmingly in favour of deletion, any contention that the discussion was incomplete is nonsense. It is the responsibility of editors to watchlist those articles/categories/templates/images that interest them, it is not the responsibility of others to search them out when something affecting them comes up—editors have no rights of ownership, physically or morally. This CfD is not flawed by virtue of the fact that certain editors have emerged after the event with objections to the deletion. The CfD followed standard practice and consensus was overwhelmingly achieved. Xdamr^talk 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of "wikilawyering," I quote the following from Wikipedia:Consensus:
  Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.
  I would argue that the discussion has now achieved such wider attention, and that arguments that the consensus was originally reached should only be credited so far. There was also a discussion on July 18 2006 and the result was "no consensus." By the same logic, should that not have been allowed to stand? If the current request for reevaluation is illegitimate, then was not the previous one as well? scribblingwoman 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that since deletion a new head article, Women's writing in English was written, addressing a major substantive point raised in the CfD discussion (that one of the requirements for gender based categories was that a head article could be written about the subject). Thus, there are new facts being presented for discussion. Note also that the level of interest in this arises from the fact that in drafting that article, input was sought from a variety of quarters (authors of relevant lists and articles, literary wikiprojects), and input was received. Isn't that the kind of collaborative and substantive response appropriate to Wikipedia, and doesn't that present a new and valid reason to overturn? A Musing (formerly Sam) 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the CFD was completely proper and no relevant reason has been given to overturn it, just a disagreement with the result. On the merits, the grouping of all women ever who were writers in any capacity is meaninglessly broad, because chances are that the individuals included—and their writing—will have nothing in common. Obviously there are specific cultural groupings of women writers that are academically significant, but this is a matter for articles (or targeted lists) to discuss and develop. Postdlf 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category Here are some "relevant" reasons to keep the category.
1. Restoration would suggest Wikipedia is biased towards a feminist agenda, thus compounding the problem that it is perceived to have a liberal bias. - Discussing women writers because they are women is not the same as discussing them from a feminist perspective. One of the reasons that figures such as Hannah More, Sarah Trimmer and Anna Laetitia Barbauld are just now getting attention is that scholars like Margaret Ezell criticized feminists for only recovering historical women like themselves. There is no way that these women could be classified as "feminist writers," they can only be classified as "women writers."
2. I also had no idea this debate was going on at the time nor would I really have known how to participate in it (I have only been participating here regularly since December), but I would have joined had I known. Two FAs that I have written deserve the category "woman writer," Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld. The works of those two writers are often included in university surveys of women's writing of the eighteenth century, for example.
3. Over 700 instutions around the world (at least) offer degrees in women's studies or gender studies (see http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/programs.html), including, for what it's worth, every Ivy League university. There are professors holding chairs in this field all over the country and teaching courses in it. If all of these universities feel that it is useful to have degrees in this subject, why can't wikipedia have the category?
4. Just a quick glance at almost any university's English department will reveal at least one course on literature by women (Michigan, for example - they may have more, but it's hard to tell from their catalogue).
5. The University Press of Kentucky publishes a series entitled "Eighteenth-century Novels by Women."
6. There is a well-respected academic journal called Women's Writing which "publishes articles to serve as a forum for dialogue, discussion, and debate about the work of women writing from the Elizabethan to the Victorian period." That is just one of the many journals dedicated to women writers.
7. There are 6335 entries in the MLA database (the database for literature articles and books) listed under the category "women writers." Note, they have the category.
8. On the point about it being a huge category, that is a problem, but perhaps someday we will be able to combine categories and search for eighteenth-century writer and woman writer, for example. That is the ideal situation, is it not?
I claim WP:ATT. The reliable sources say, "women writers" is a legitimate category. Awadewit 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you've just proven that "women writers" is a legitimate field of study, which we already knew and which is why we have several articles on the subject. All of that has nothing to do with the existence of a category that contains all authors that happen to be female, which is what the debate here is about. Just because it makes a good article doesn't mean it's a viable categorization scheme. >Radiant< 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order to study in the field, articles, lists, and categories are all useful. Yes, it could potentially be a large category, and all kinds of sub-categories suggest themselves (egs. "19thc African American women writers"; "Early-modern European women writers"). But sub-categories would be sub-sets of the category "women writers," would they not, which in turn is a sub-category of "writers"? And sub-categories would not always answer, anyway. "Women's writing" is a field in itself, broad and unwieldy as it may be. scribblingwoman 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Women writers" is a viable category for the MLA database (the most reputable database for articles and books in literary studies), as I pointed out, and as scribblingwoman pointed out on the talk page about this debate, it is also a category in the classification scheme of the Library of Congress [[59]]. But of course who cares what the MLA (Modern Language Association) or the Library of Congress thinks? They know nothing about either literature or classification (sarcasm). Moreover, I did not argue "this would be a good article," I said this is legitimate field of study, meaning this is a category of writers recognized within academia. If you recognize it as a field of study, you must recognize it as a category. Also, I might mention that just because something "reached consensus" does not mean it reached the right consensus. Majorities can be wrong (might - in this case numbers - does not make right). I would also reiterate the point above that "women writers" have specifically been made a category of interest because of their place in history - they have been discouraged from publishing and reviled for publishing. That is why they are distinguished from men. Many early women had to overcome great obstacles to publish and could not publish works with their names on them or were called whores for publishing (Aphra Behn and Eliza Heywood are good examples). To refuse to recognize this tradition would not make wikipedia "neutral," as some claim, it would make it more conservative than conservapedia [60], because it would be erasing that tradition. Awadewit 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Articles on the history of women in writing in different cultures, countries, and periods is how Wikipedia should "recognize this tradition"—this category accomplishes no such thing. Instead, the category papers over all traditions by dumping those who "had to overcome great obstacles" in with those who didn't. Postdlf 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But I was under the impression that wikipedia categories could not be overly specific such as "eighteenth-century African-American women writers." By the way, I see the biggest problem here to be wikipedia's programming. Currently you cannot combine requests for "women writers," "African-American-writers" and "eighteenth-century writers." That is what would make the categories the most useful. I understand that this is a terribly difficult problem, but eliminating categories that will one day be useful when this can be done is not the solution. Awadewit 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The discussion had gone on for eleven days, more than many CfDs, and clearly had consensus to delete. The category is broad to the point of uselessness. It would have thousands, potentially millions of members. And imagine how big Category:Men writers would be. Doczilla 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/reverse deletion. I find the arguments of the proponents of the category far more substantial than those of the opponents. Isn't the decision supposed to be based on the quality of the arguments advanced, not the quantity of votes? In terms of quality, I think the ties to MLA and other well-established academic structures are far more compelling than Wikipedia's current inability to deal elegantly with large categories. The idea that to reinstate would show some sort of liberal bias I find particularly misguided. --ScottMainwaring 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reverse deletion, for the reasons scribbling woman and dsp13 stated above. This is a distinct field of study and not just a category that includes all female writers. In the meantime, a main article about this topic has been written at Women's writing in English.--DorisH 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion It is just a category that includes all women writers, and there is no reason to have a category for women writers but not for male writers, when barriers to women becoming writers have been low for generations and are now non-existent. The academics who focus on women writers make no pretence of being neutral; the whole field of study is about politically motivated advocacy. But in Wikipedia neutrality is fundamental. Choalbaton 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may (although I strongly disagree about your "non-existent" claim), the history of women writers and their struggles, which is something that will be represented in this category, is certainly noteworthy. There is no field of study for men's writing because a gross majority of what was historically published was written by men; therefore, there should be (and, academically speaking, is) emphasis put on women's writing because of its historical rareness. Surely that should say something. In closing, academics do not only focus on current women writers or contemporary women's literature, and I think people are greatly overlooking the historical impact. María: (habla conmigo) 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that Choalbaton does not get to judge the academics. Wikipedia must reflect the current scholarship. If Choalbaton wants to challenge the academics' supposed non-neutrality, he or she must become one. And, by the way, I already listed one scholar, a feminist herself, who criticized other scholars for the way they were doing feminist scholarship - Margaret Ezell. You are acting as if all scholars who write on women do so from the same perspective. That is ignorant, as I have demonstrated. To go on, wikipedia has articles about women from the past who were discrimated against, so the category is especially relevant to them. Moreover, in many parts of the world today, women writers do not have the same opportunities as men. You might think about places like Saudi-Arabien.
  Some helpful information. "Contemporary critic Elaine Showalter has drawn attention to the conflict, repression, and even decline suffered by many women writers during the early twentieth century. According to Showalter and other scholars, the years following the end of World War I were difficult for female novelists and poets in particular, who were regarded as writers of little substance. Yearning to write about serious issues facing their times but pushed to the periphery, poets such as Teasdale, H. D., Lowell, and Edna St. Vincent Millay were unable to find suitable literary models in past female poets. Additionally, the notion of poetry as an art form that transcends personal and emotional experience, a view expounded by male poets such as Eliot and Pound, led many female poets to feel that their work was being marginalized. Faced with stiff reaction against the type of personal and lyrical poetry many of them wanted to write, Millay and others found it increasingly difficult to continue writing. Some female writers curtailed their creative work and turned their energies to political causes instead, using alternate means such as journalism and reporting to express their opinions." [61]
  You might also think about reading about the recent history of Iran. The struggle for women's rights there, including the right for a woman to publish is very recent - 1970s and forward. Awadewit 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Putting a Iranian poet in the same category as a few thousand American journalists is not an effective way to address that issue. ReeseM 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: The comments immediately below were interwoven in User:Awadewit's comment above. They have been moved here to restore the attribution and chronology of the original comments.
    - I do, and I will continue to do so. It is insufferably arrogant for academics to say that no-one else may criticise them. This is the attitude to politics taken by dictators. It is the way that free speech is oppressed and tired orthodoxies are maintained by self-serving elites. To quote Dr Johnson, ""You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables." Choalbaton 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point, which you seem to have missed, is that wikipedia is not a platform for your personal opinions. Wikipedia's articles and categories must reflect the published scholarship on an issue, such as women writers. Even if you do not agree with the published scholarship, you must adhere to it. That is why I said, since you do not agree, you should become an academic and publish something so that you can dispute the views you disagree with in the proper venue. Wikipedia is not the place to do original research. Furthermore, your efforts to suppress the scholarly consensus, that is remove a legitimate category from wikipedia that is recognized by almost all of the major scholarly institutions and libraries across the world is closer to the definition of censorship than anything I am proposing. Awadewit 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understood you perfectly well, and your renewed attack only confirms that. You seem to think we are debating women's studies, but we are actually debating Wikipedia categorisation. My personal opinions on women's studies aren't relevant, and neither are yours, but my personal opinions on Wikipedia categorisation are relevant. Choalbaton 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reinstate - I don't see a problem with this category, it has a few articles in it and several valid sub-categories. Kc4 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The deletion was conducted with the utmost propriety and there are many reasons why this is an undesirable category, as has already been explained. ReeseM 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "many reasons"? What impeccable logic. And I thought that the reason for the review was to actually, seriously review the decision, meaning have a debate, not say "we already agreed to delete it before, so why have a discussion?" Awadewit 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly a large part of the purpose of this page is procedural, and indeed much of the original argument for reinstatement was based on procedural claims - spurious procedural claims. Secondly, some people are paid to talk, talk, talk, but others have real lives to lead and limited time. When many good points have been made already, there is no need to waste time on saying the same thing in different words. ReeseM 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But we can have no way of knowing which reasons you support. That is why you have to say which ones you agree with, even if it is only to reiterate them in a quick summary. Awadewit 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no need for personal attacks, ReeseM. And it would be nice if you, and some others, would engage with the points being made here. Re. your comment above about putting "a Iranian poet in the same category as a few thousand American journalists," now that is spurious. I would be the last person to deny that there is a Eurocentric bias in literary studies, but surely dumping the whole thing is not the best response? And journalists, while of course writers, are not generally the study of literary scholars so your scenario is hardly likely to materialize. The unanswered point remains: consensus is not immutable; the situation has shifted and so needs to be reassessed. Procedural grounds cannot be the only grounds for reconsidering decisions; that is clear in Wikipedia policy. Whether or not the original discussion was flawed or not, this one does not display the same consensus. So let's move on and address the current debate. scribblingwoman 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would like to reiterate one of scribblingwoman's points. It is not wikipedia's job to fix the problems with the category; wikipedia should merely to reflect the category's existence in institutions, literature and scholarship. Awadewit 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is Wikipedia's job to have categories that are right for Wikipedia. None of the sources referred to above cover the same breadth of material as Wikipedia, so they are not so liable to generate a vast diversity of categories which clutter up the bottom of articles. For that matter, do any of them use categories in a bottom-up way at all? Hawkestone 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The Library of Congress has more information than wikipedia; it has 29 million books and 58 million manuscripts. It has 33,000 newspapers, 500,000 microfilm reels, 6,000 comic books, etc. Wikipedia, I am sorry to say, has only a mere 1.6 million articles. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bottom-up," but the LOC system works by categorizing first broadly and then more narrowly. Check an online catalog to see what I mean. Awadewit 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The arguments about the degree to which women's studies are covered at universities overlook what the category system is for. It is not a systhesis of knowledge, a database tool, a study guide, or a statement about where Wikipedia's priorities lie. It is simply and only a navigational tool. This category is flawed to the point of uselessness as a navigational tool because it is very broad, yet on the other hand subcategorisation is undesirable due to the number of categories it would generate. There are better ways of accessing articles relevant to this field, such as via related articles, and by browsing the detailed writer categories. It is much easier to find say the articles about female French poets in Category:French poets, that it will ever be to find them here. There are thousands of other categories which might exist, which do not exist because other items from Wikipedia's large toolkit of organisational and navigational devices, such as templates, lists, wikilinks, articles, and the "what links here" button, are more useful in those particular cases. Hawkestone 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not believe that wikipedia will one day find a way to search with these categories? When they do, we will have eliminated a very useful category. Please plan for this contigency. Awadewit 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand this argument. Surely the categories need to be consistent. There is a category of female occupations with all sort of subcategories, one of which was women writers. Wikipedia can have "female poker players" and not "women writers"? The argument that a category would be large makes little sense to me; would that not be a sign of its usefulness? Further to the question of consistency, there are categories for women musicians and women artists; how can there not then also be women writers? scribblingwoman 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We only have gender categories for a tiny fraction of occupations, and they are intensely controversial. I believe that a good number of them would be deleted if nominated for discussion, but like so many things that probably should be done in wikipedia, from fixing individual spelling mistakes to making major enhancements to the software, these nominations don't all get done expeditiously. In the categorisation field the fact that it is much easier to create a bad category than to get one deleted, produces an inherent tendency to accumulate unhelpful categories, so it is desirable to take a firm line on marginal categories that are submitted for discussion; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion should err on the side of deletion because the mechanics of the wiki err the other way. There is a general presumption against categorisation by gender that commands a wide consensus - women-by-nationality categories get deleted very quickly. I would vote to delete category:Female poker players, and all categories of female musicians except singers. Women have played a much smaller role in art than in literature, but I wouldn't regret seeing the category deleted. The general issues have doubtlessly been thrashed out at length many times over, but the present debate is about one specific category. Given the general presumption against categorisation by gender, the onus is on those who wish to keep this particular category to show how it improves the category system. All the evidence that has been put forward that women's studies exists is irrelevant; everyone knows that already. Hawkestone 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think there is "a general presumption against categorisation by gender." Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality clearly states that
        Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid.
        "Women writers" is recognized -- by the outside world at least -- as "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" and a head article has been initiated. scribblingwoman 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I don't see that those in favour of overturning the decision have engaged with the question of what categories are for, or how and when they work, and when they don't. This one doesn't work. The statement that, "Journalists, while of course writers, are not generally the study of literary scholars so your scenario is hardly likely to materialize," is misguided. A Wikipedia category should contain all the articles that match its title. This category is just not fit for purpose, so something else should be used to achieve the purpose. It is good to see that a "head article" has been created, but the inference that that a "head article" validates the existence of a category is false: probably less than 1% of articles have a matching category. Haddiscoe 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Well, I happen to disagree with much of your characterization of those of us arguing for keep. This is a category that likely will be large and broad and will have many subcategories; it will be useful for those interested in the the substantial scholarship around fundamental questions about women's writing, including women's writing in different societies and cultures. It will be useful to associate and be able to quickly move around categories involving, for example, Al-Khansa, who fits into a particular tradition and culture, and Isabella Whitney, who fits into a different one. However, scholarship comparing and contrasting their experiences is being done and will continue to be done. The argument that a category is not valid because it is a high-level one category would, of course, make the large categories at the top of the pyramid all candidates for deletion. This category was well on its way toward being developed. Underlying this category is the fundamental and much researched question of whether there is an historical distictiveness to women's literature, a question which many scholars answer in the affirmative.
  As to the presence of a head article, it was designed to specifically meet the stated criteria for categories grouping by gender, which include the idea that it must be possible to draft a head-article for such a category. Please see WP:CATGRS. In fact, the advocates of maintaining a category drafted the head article based on first reviewing and responding to both the criticisms raised and the explicit rules governing categories, demonstrating some consideration for the purposes and goals of a Wikipedia category. A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quote from WP:CATGRS: Categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources.
    Is "women writers" "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"? Yes, we have demonstrated that with evidence of degree programs, syllabi, etc.
    Is it possible to write a head article for "women writers"? Yes. It has already been done. Please note that this is not a requirement for a category to exist according to wikipedia's guidelines.
    Has "women writers" "already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources"? Yes. Again, major universities, academic presses, the Library of Congress and the major organization of literature professors recognizes it as such. Awadewit 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Seems pretty obvious that during the several months that I've been on semi-retirement, we still haven't solved the problem of combination categories. I see no consensus here. That's a real shame, but we should not deny the truth just to make things tidy. --M @r ē ino 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn deletion, otherwise relist. I was one of those who voted in the CfD discussion to delete this category, and I am very disappointed to see the way that this deletion review was called: blatantly partisan canvassing is very bad behaviour, and the criteria listed in the initial claim for review come nowhere near the criteria for a review. On those grounds, my initial reaction was strongly to uphold the deletion. However, having reviewed the discussion above, I have changed my mind, and strongly support reinstatement, for a number of reasons:
1. Procedure is important: in big project, such as Wikipedia, procedure is essential to avoid descending into endless unresolved arguments. There comes a point when we have to make decisions; they will not always be right, but they have to be made, and due process allows us to do that. However, sometimes the right procedures can produce bad outcomes, and one of the purposes of a deletion review is to allow reassessment "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion". In this case, it is clear that that it has.
2. Correct procedure can still produce ill-informed decisions, and this is one of those cases. I often agree with Dr Submillimeter, but in this case I think he is badly mistaken to focus on the fact there were 15 contributors at CFD; many of those contributions (including my own) were terse, and the majority were one-liners. We now have the benefit of a much wider and better-informed set of arguments to keep. Whether or not anyone is persuaded by those arguments, it is perverse not to address them.
3. While it was wrong to describe the CfD as "incomplete", the CfD discussion was clearly rather cursory. This discussion contains a lot of cogent arguments missing from the CfD, and there is more at Category talk:Women writers. It is a pity that these arguments were not presented at CfD, but I think that Scribblingwoman has a good point when she notes that contributors to the category should have been notified: it may not be a requirement, but it is clear that the debate would have been transformed if we had the input from those who have contributed to this review. (To avoid this situation, I suggest that the guidance to notify category creators should be upgraded to a requirement).
4. Clear prima facie case for keeping the category. The new head article at Women's writing in English provides a mountain of reasons for regarding the category as encyclopedically important, and there is more at Category talk:Women writers. It's a real pity that many of the contributors to this review have shied away from addressing the substantive case being made, the overwhelming majority of the votes here to "uphold deletion" focus solely on procedure. (If you are one of those folks, please re-read the purpose section at the top of this page.
5. To my mind, there is one overwhelming persuasive reason to restore this category: scribblingwoman and others have provided mountains of evidence that the category of "women writers" is not just a random intersection, but is a significant and important field of scholarly endeavour, which exists apart from the concept of "feminist writers" (who are already categorised). If wikipedia still aims to be useful as a tool for scholarship, then it should categorise women writers to assist those researching that field.
6. This is category is clearly not a 'feminist' category: it is a tool to assist in research on the gender of writers, and scholars can use the information to draw what conclusions they see fit. I am very troubled by the contribution from User:Honbicot, who claims that "restoration would suggest Wikipedia is biased towards a feminist agenda". That's a very dangerous argument: the effect of it is to say that because a particular field of scholarship is capable of being approached from a feminist perspective, wikipedia should remove the tools which would assist that area of study. This is straightforward POV censorship; it is akin to removing business-related categories because they assist a capitalist analysis, or deleting military-related categories because they can be used for a militarist viewpoint. It's important to note Awadewit's description of how research on women writers has revelaed flaws in some feminist scholarship: those opposed to a feminist analysis should value the fact that this category assists that sort of critique.
The bottom line here is that we have very strong evidence that Category:Women writers meets the requirement of Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality that a category such as this should be created "where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". That is the guideline against which this category should be assessed, and it is alarming to see how few opponents of reinstatement/relisting have engaged with that guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the deletion discussion and no new evidence presented here. I will also admit that my opinion is influenced by the fact that there has been no challenge to the deletion of the companion Category:Men writers. The arguments presented here for special treatment are uncompelling. Rossami (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re. process: Some here have raised concerns about canvassing. I am more than willing to discuss the issue, if anyone so wishes, in another forum. I hope, however, that such concerns will not unduly influence anyone reading this discussion, particularly as there has been active, um, "counter-canvassing" (as is probably apparent from reading the discussion), which should calm any worries that the debate is one-sided. Bracing, yes. Heated, even. But not one-sided. I would hate for any actions by one individual (me) to unfavourabley influence a debate that interests many editors other than myself. scribblingwoman 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible for such a categorization scheme to be valuable, but a single category for all women writers doesn't really accomplish that — it just creates a big, messy, eyeglazing list that doesn't put people into any kind of useful context. Alternate ways of organizing this type of category (sorted by nationality? sorted thematically? sorted by time period? sorted according to political or social movements that they participated in?) might be worth considering, but a single "Women writers" category that directly includes every woman who ever wrote a book just isn't that helpful. Even university-level women's literature programs don't try to cover the entire history of women's writing in one course — they'll have one course devoted to the likes of Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë, and a different course devoted to the likes of Kathy Acker and Mary Meigs; a single course that tried to cover Jane Austen and Kathy Acker wouldn't make any sense, because their literary styles, themes and cultural contexts are just too wildly different to be effectively combined into a single topic. So I guess my position is that while I'm in favour of having a categorization tree for women writers, I'm not in favour of just throwing them all into a single women writers category. I'd like to propose that interested parties work on developing a more effective new categorization scheme to cover this top; favour recreation as long as that's on the table. Bearcat 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bearcat, I think that is a rather strange argument for deletion! :) You are of course quite right that sub-categories are needed for this category to be useful (and I took that as implicit in the arguments to keep); but if the parent category "women writers" is deleted, then that will be used at CfD as a persuasive precedent to delete the subcats too. The effect of this review is to decide whether we uphold a decision not to allow writers to be categorised by gender, and if it is upheld, then the category tree you want (and with which I agree) will may not be created, or if it is created and perversely survives CFD, it will be fragmented to the point of inaccessibility by the absence of a parent category. Would you like to reconsider? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: endorse deletion if it were going to be reconstituted as a single undifferentiated category with no breakdowns, but permit recreation if it's organized in some variation of the way I suggested. I'm not opposed to a women writers classification that's organized in a helpful and comprehensive way. Bearcat 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat. Procedurally, how would one do this? I had assumed that if this review is successful and the category is reinstated, it would naturally develop sub-categories; as A Musing and Dsp13 point out, below, there are some already, now orphaned. Is the assumption that subcategories would naturally develop acceptable as far as you are concerned, or would you like to see something more developed being proposed up front? scribblingwoman 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concerned about the "naturally" part; there are a lot of cases on Wikipedia where valuable things don't happen because people just assume that other people will naturally get to it. I don't think we have to have a comprehensive set of subcategories already in place before we recreate this, but I would like to at least know that a few people are actually prepared to take on a project. Bearcat 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I'm one of the ones who is prepared to work on this project of defining some of the subcategories for this project. --Susiebowers 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there are some subcategories already established by culture that I've tracked down and added to the category during this debate (yes, I know, they may be gone shortly, but I wanted to see what was already out there). I agree that a more comprehensive scheme is sensible, though with this category at the top; ideally, it would parallel the broader "writers" category, with subcategories both by nationality and by genre/format (e.g., poets, novelists, etc.). I know that among the crew commenting here are people with interests in different periods, genres and cultures. But I do think we need the large category at the top to build off of. A Musing (formerly Sam) 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another currently existing subcategory is Category:Modernist women writers. Dsp13 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The closure was procedurally correct, and the category was not useful. This challenge is partial as there has been no such challenge for Category:Men writers. CalJW 03:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that many have already made here, several times, is that "women writers" is not just an arbitrary grouping, like, say, "blue-eyed writers," but a meaningful category for understanding significant aspects of literary history and practice. It is not just the other half of "writers," the mirror-complement of "male writers." "Male writers" does not exist in the same way in literary studies (there are masculinity studies and studies of masculinity in literature, but those are something different); there is no such field; there is no such category recognized by the MLA, &c &c. If someone wants to argue for it more power to them, though I can't imagine what arguments they might make. But that would be a separate issue. Where does it say that in order to argue for a particualr category one has to present a whole system, in effect? I think the claim that the supporters of this category must also support a category for male writers is misguided. A more careful reading of many of the points already made would explain why. scribblingwoman 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CalJW, the relevant guideline (WP:CATGRS is explicit that a category for one one gender does not need to be balanced against a category for the opposite gender, so scribblingwoman is correct that the case for a "male writers" category is a separate issue. Would you like to explain your assertion that "the category was not useful" wrt to the case made above which asserts that it is useful? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scribblingwoman and BrownHairedGirl are correct. Wikipedia doesn't divide categories by gender just for the sake of doing so; we divide categories by gender when that gender subdivision represents a specific and verifiable topic of academic and social study out there in the non-Wikipedia world. In both cases, the validity of the category is not defined by "if that one exists, then this one must, too" or "let's break these down by gender just for the hell of it" — it's defined by whether external sources have already established that the category represents an academically, socially or culturally significant topic. There are entire university programs, for example, devoted to "women's literature"; there aren't, conversely, any such programs devoted to "men's literature". In other words, literature by women has been verifiably established as a specific field of study — but since "men's literature" isn't similarly established as a distinct field of academic study, it would constitute original research on Wikipedia's part to decide that "men writers" was an equally significant grouping. Bearcat 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORE The arguments and evidence presented above and at Category_Talk:Women writers in favor of restoring the category comply with Wikipedia guidelines on Categorization based on gender, race, and sexuality. This is not an arbitrary category; it reflects an existing category in countless other encyclopedias and institutions. See Wikipedia:no original research. --Susiebowers 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I understand the objections raised above. If somehow a category, with a more limiting name, was proposed for women writers that was limited to those writers where their gender made a difference in their writings, then I would be more willing to support that. With the current name, it will simply become a place where every woman writer will be listed and as such, it would not be a defining characteristic. Having poorly defined category names that invite the listing of huge numbers of ordinary people who are only listed for a reason of gender simply will not work. Vegaswikian 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the proposal to reinstate the category includes, it seems to me (as noted by several above), a real interest in developing subcategories for the women writers category. The women writers would thus act as a parent category, and an invaluable navigational tool for researchers of women writers (which is a recognized field of study and category by many, many institutions, literary presses, encyclopaedias, and so on. Also as outlined above). Do you have any thoughts or suggestions in that case? --Susiebowers 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestions since I'm not into this area, I would not know where to begin. My objection at this point is more to the name then the concept for certain classifications of writers unique to women. Leaving the category at the name being discussed here that was deleted would not fix the problem of it being a catch all for every writer who is a woman. Vegaswikian 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a significant number of those who are uncomfortable with the category the issue seems to be its potential monstrous size. Not an unreasonable concern! It is becoming clear to me that those of us who use this category will need to think in terms of subcategories. Indeed, this has already happened in a very limited way, both in terms of national/regional literatures (Category:Caribbean women writers; Category:Indian women writers), and genre/movement (Category:Modernist women writers) (these latter two are nicely populated). I would suggest that we don't impose any sort of schema, but that we instead follow the interests of editors and create, where warranted, categories consistent with various sub-divisions of literary study already in common usage. The three lists of early-modern women writers are an interesting illustration here. One is of dramatists; one is of poets; one is of novelists. A number of writers appear on two or more of these lists. Rather than "early modern women poets," "early modern women dramatists," and "early-modern women novelists" categories, I would suggest "early modern women writers" (further subdivided to reflect the usual periodization in literary studies: "Renaissance women writers"; "Restoration women writers" &c&c.). There are existing categories for poets, dramatists, and novelists. No doubt this seems baggy and ill-fitting to many, but it is a baggy and ill-fitting system that people in the field have been working with, and fine-tuning, and reconsidering, for decades. My suggestion, then, is that those of us who have been using and will continue to use this category commit to further developing and refining the category tree in a manner consistent with accepted scholarly practice. Perhaps this will reassure some of those who have expressed reservations, that it really is a workable category. scribblingwoman 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baseball Channel – request to salt rejected – GRBerry 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was created again after it (and The Baseball Channel) were deleted for crystal ball. I think that both Baseball Channel and The Baseball Channel should be locked from editing until an official announcement for this proposed network. Milchama 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse recreation/Undelete. I fail to see the problem with this - an MLB channel has been discussed ad nauseum in all the major sports publications as well as the mainstream press, as the NYT link shows. This can be moved to the proper name when one is provided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Not even due to start broadcasting for another two years, the title may have changed by then and it may be completely different in form by the time it goes live, if it ever does (in two years the idea of scheduled broadcast channels for segmented markets may be entirely obsolete). Guy (Help!) 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above, I believe both of these article should be locked from editing, as they are bound to be recreated prematurely again. Milchama 15:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:ANI if that happens, and someone will do the needful. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do here. The things weren't nominated to be undeleted, and we don't salt preventatively, only after a problem with chronic recreation is shown. -Amarkov moo! 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Latualatuka_chain_letter – landed at AFD accidentally, letting the AFD run – GRBerry 16:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

article about extremely popular chain letter was vandalized and deleted unfairly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.39.1 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion, article was nonsense about some chain letters on YouTube. May warrant a speedy close. Note: there is a PROD tag on the deleted article, but the article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G1 and not due to the PROD. --Core desat 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Please forward this endorsement to ten friends to help spread the message that Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No signature, no username... this should be a speedy close.--WaltCip 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion a Google News/Google Books search turns up nothing, so this doesn't appear to have the sort of coverage that could lead to it becoming a referenced article. Besides, Wikipedia isn't the place to document chain letters and Myspace/YouTube memes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was also listed under the PROD Undeletion request section above. Reviewing the history, I saw that it had been speedy-deleted under case G1 which did not appear to apply since it was not patent nonsense in the very narrow way we use that term here. Not realizing that this discussion had also been opened, I procedurally restored the page and nominated it to AFD. My apologies for the confusion. I think the page is definitely deletable but couldn't find a speedy-deletion case that clearly applied. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 March 2007

Yo – keep closure endorsed – GRBerry 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...". This article transparently fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be deleted regardless of what the AfD votecount is. I was the only participant recommending deletion here but felt policy is clear in this case, so I asked the closing admin to reverse his close or at least relist the AfD. He refused to do either. BTW would like to acknowledge that this is just one of many recent WP:WINAD AfD's that in my view were closed in favor of votes and against policy. The attitude of many participants in these AfD's, including this one, has seemed to be "it's long, so it can't be a dictionary article" which is wrong as explained in WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Doesn't seem like a dictionary entry to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure of corse. The consensus is obvious for keep, and DRV is for review of process, not a second hearing on the article. Overturing or relisting would be way out of line. There is no policy or anything I can use to relist that or overturn it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse keep The content is much more than a dictionary definition, & the AfD made it obvious.DGG 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. No policy violation can be clear enough to overturn near-unanimity... but it still contains nothing but definition, etymology, and usage. And I don't really think that four people is enough in most cases anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar DRV is to make sure that process was followed and nothing was deleted or something out of process. It's pretty clear in this case. DRV is not a second look at the article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arguments clearly going against established policy counts. -Amarkov moo! 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I'd also like to point out that the user asking for the review User:Pan Dan recently also got into a dispute with admin User:Coredesat over the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You. Same idea there. I have used the same rational as User:Coredesat in my closing, and he eventually got fed up and told him to go here too. Just a little background/pattern by User:Pan Dan. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me help you out with that detective work. I also had discussions with User:Deskana concerning You, User:Bucketsofg concerning List of Chinese surnames, and User:Seraphimblade concerning List of most popular given names (though I demurred from having one with User:Bobet over List of Internet slang phrases). So what does this show? It shows I've been involved in lots of WP:WINAD AfD's recently (to which I refer in my nom above) and am bewildered at how little some editors, including some admins, seem to understand WP:WINAD. I didn't want to bring the other AfD's to DRV, because the others had at least some minimally convincing reason to keep (it's a list so it helps in navigation, You could be potentially be used as the site to build an encyclopedia article about Time's 2006 Person of the Year, etc.). But in the case of Yo, there is no reason whatsoever to keep in the face of basic policy. The process that was not followed, in answer to your other point, is Wikipedia:Deletion policy which I quoted in the first sentence of my nom. Consensus at a single AfD discussion should not trump the general, long-time consensus behind a basic policy such as WP:NOT. Pan Dan 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So your claim is that there's no other way to expand this beyond a dictionary definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A dictionary article is more than a dictionary definition. See WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, all articles are subject to high scrutiny (well, we would hope all). If they are not, they are nominated for AFD, and in the AFD discussion on whether or not it meets all criteria is discussed. In this case, it was decided that it met policies (3:1 to be exact). Asking me to override consensus would be a gross misuse of everything this wiki stands for. And this is not the first time either. How many admins will it take for you to listen that we will not override consensus that is 3:1 for something? We cannot decide here whether we followed that line (All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...) you cited because that is what AFD is exactly for! AFD decides whether it meets rules. Not here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you determined the result of the AfD by counting the votes, even though the voters' rationales contradict policy? You're not a bot. Pan Dan 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You obviously have no idea all the work sysops do. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, thank you. Now, again: Do you believe that there's no other way to expand this beyond a dictionary definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The current version of the article is already more than a dictionary definition. It is entirely composed of dictionary content. Please read WP:WINAD--just one more time. Pan Dan 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then we disagree on the interpretation. This clearly doesn't fail the clause you're claiming it does, to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge to one of the lists shown on Slang to fix the problem? >Radiant< 10:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention Much more than a dictionary definition. Honbicot 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep It has the history behind the word. It isn't just a definition. Wikihermit 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. While I agree that this page is currently a mere dictionary definition, there were no process problems with the AFD discussion. Give the "keep" voters the benefit of doubt for now. If it remains unimproved, the page can be renominated after a reasonable time. Rossami (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retarded Animal Babies – ENDORSE CLOSE (keep deleted). Neither AfD nor DRv are votes, so basing strictly on strength of argument, the close was proper as no credible proof of sufficient notability was offered, nor did this DRv offer substantive new data or indication that the original close was improper. – Herostratus 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted per WP:WEB in december 2006 after an AFD that barely had discussion or consensus, and protected from recreation on the first nomination. Retarded Animal Babies has since gained notability since being prominently featured in a Weird Al Yankovic video. Propose to undelete, as it was a well written article, or at least allow recreation. --Edokter (Talk) 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is now notable please present multiple non-trivial reliable sources to verify that. Appearing in a music video isn't enough, although it may indeed have spawned the sources we need. --kingboyk 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30010

http://www.antimusic.com/news/06/sep/1208.shtml

http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=cat&category1=Commercials&newsitem_no=17943

To name a few. --Edokter (Talk) 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- All of those sources are copies of the same press release, and are not about the subject of this article. - Bobet 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - The sources are all the exact same thing (essentially a press release) and they barely mention the "Retarded Animal Babies". Wickethewok 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist "barely had discussion" there were 18 comments to the review, which I would think adequate--but they were evenly divided, and the was no consensus about the criteria to be used. The closer used based the decision on personal opinion with respect to this.DGG 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, all three of those are the same thing and do not mention the subject of the article at all. The article was deleted because the keep arguments did not address the concern of the nominator. Also, the AFD was plagued with single-purpose accounts, so some of the keep votes have no merit. --Core desat 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, above sources do noting to challenge the legitimacy of the original deletion as Coredesat notes. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Wickethewok. --kingboyk 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. No specific prejudice against the original closure, but 57,000 Google hits suggests there may be something here. RFerreira 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Institute of Design IIT – Restored non copyvio edits – Garion96 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyvio sections had been removed from the article after concerns were raised. The user who made the request may have forgotten to remove it from the copyvio list. Dual Freq 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steve_Pavlina – ENDORSE CLOSURE (keep deleted). Both the AfD and this DRv were basically unanimous. No sufficient proof of notability was offered in the AfD, so the closure was proper. And no convincing new data has been offered here. – Herostratus 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notoriety has been established, see statistics in talk page Natebailey 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse, nominator is using Alexa ratings alone to account for notability. Alexa ratings are not part of WP:BIO or WP:WEB, and inclusion is not an indicator of notability. --Core desat 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Only argument for recreation are Alexa rating which are not part of any of our notability criteria. Needs independent non trivial mentions in reliable sources. No sign that these exist here. WjBscribe 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - The delete close was proper since the consensus agreed that there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Comment: There is not sufficient source material even in these articles that mention Steve Pavlina: (i) della Cava, Marco R. (February 27, 2006) USA Today When sleep is just a dream. Page 1A.; (ii) Bangkok Post (August 2, 2006) Internet site of the week: stevepavlina.com. (iii) Correa, Barbara. (October 29, 2006) Los Angeles Daily News Blogging for dollars: Some make enough money off sites to quit day job. Section: Business; Page B1; (iv) Sterling, Liz. (November 4, 2006) Sun-Sentinel Intution often clear, wise. Section:Lifestyle; Page 7F.; (v) Torquay Herald Express. (December 2, 2006) Us Brits are embarrassed by idea of 'self-help'. Page 18. -- Jreferee 06:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, no credible reason given for overturning. Some of the articles linked from it are also in pressing need of cleanup, especially polyphasic sleep. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Ratings alone do not count for notability and the only arguement I can find for restoring it is a list of statistics. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Opinion was almost unanimous in the AfD.DGG 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of fonts by Ray Larabie – Speedy close, no deletion to review – Core desat 08:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was an incomplete list of fonts. I completed the list and it vanished with no explanation. Did I do something wrong?

Ray Larabie - www.typodermic.com 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has not been deleted but rather redirected to the main Ray Larabie article. The old content can still be acessed through the history page [62]. Since the deletion discussion was closed "merge and redirect" you can add the list to the main article but probably shouldn't recreate it as its own page without discussion. Eluchil404 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The content was removed from the visible page per this discussion. Requestors remaining query was answers and request is outside the scope of deletion review. -- Jreferee 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 March 2007

Legend Brewing Company – Speedy restore as contested PROD, AFD optional – Core desat 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason for deletion...page was deleted back in feburary, but now it's there but blank...would like original page restored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diegelmannsj (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Expired PROD, unreferenced, valid dleetion under WP:CSD#A7 and probably WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy undelete prodded version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iviewit – deletion endorsed – Picaroon 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

editor did not notify author or post for discussion and fails to confirm or deny conflicts with the artice. I would request a discussion on this similar to the one now on Eliot Bernstein and whereby due to the nature of the issues, all editors discussing such article or commenting have been requested in wikipoliteness to affirm that they have no conflict with these matters Iviewit 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion under speedy deletion criterion G11, spam. Conflict of interest also applies. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion As JzG said, you yourself have a conflict, given the username. And blatant advertising requires neither notification of the article creator (though it is recommended) or a full-blown Articles for Deletion listing. And I do not believe that, if I fail to state I have a conflict of interest, it should be taken as implying that I do. I haven't ever explicitly stated that if a homosexual ran for president, I would vote for them. Does that mean I wouldn't? Of course not. But let's not get into that now. My point is, the deletion was entirely within the rules. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no advertising, there are factual statements about a company, please see the notes at Eliot Bernstein in that discussion about similar. It appears in Veinor's statement that he will not confirm or deny conflict with the matters and so it must be presumed that he is despite his claims about gay people voting. If you were asked if you were homosexual and you did not state your preference, most would consider you queer. Here though I have asked for statements of no conflict by editors for valid reasons before they contribute and so far not one has, if you have nothing to hide, why bring in gay bashing to cover it. I would suggest that until the article is removed or edited by non-conflicted editors (don't care if they are gay or not and did not ask that question) that we should put the article back and remove all conflicted statements. If not, I think we should elevate this to the next wikilevel for review by affirmed non conflicted parties, that hopefully do not care about someone's sexuality while voting. How weird. There are third party news articles relating to the inventions, the inventors and the companies, I am more than happy to make viable edits.--Iviewit 06:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those not familiar with conflict issue, the reason we do not have someone else writing is that due to the recent car bombing of my family's minivan and threats on my life, I would not ask anyone to risk their life for me doing so. In fact Sashin Garg published an article on the Iviewit companies and was instantly threatened, so much so, he removed his article in fear and I respect that. Others faced similar threats. I think after seeing the car bomb that blew up three cars alongside it in boynton beach fl. many editors are timid, maybe Colbert would have the guts.
The companies are very important as they hold patent pending/suspending technologies (suspended while ongoing federal, state and international investigations continue). Yet that does not change the significance of the inventions and the companies, as they have changed the digital imaging and video worlds. This is very significant information. This is verified by several leading papers who had journalists write about the company and the inventions which were cited.--Iviewit 06:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this discussion. (I deleted Iviewit.) The Eliot Bernstein article covers the same ground and should really have been entitled Iviewit. It is receiving lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Bernstein. A separate dicussion here merely confuses matters. -- RHaworth 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to recover some of that data to comment on. Eliot Bernstein is an inventor, Iviewit is a company. I am sure there is an entry for the founder of Wikipedia and one for Wikipedia as with Bill Gates and Microsoft.--Iviewit 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Apples and oranges. I don't think you can equate Iviewit to Microsoft. And besides, inclusion of other pages is not a valid reason to include another one. And I strongly resent your comment that I engaged in 'gay bashing'; I can't see any way to interpret my comment above as such. I was using that as an example, and I wonder why you seem to be so quick to assume that I am homophobic. And I declare that I have no conflict of interest in Iviewit; I'd never even heard of it before I saw this discussion. Are you happy? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes that is my point, Iviewit is an apple and Eliot Bernstein is an orange, they are separate items, as Bill Gates is to Microsoft. Some, including leading engineers from Real 3D have opinied that the technologies were worth hundreds of millions to trillions and as we can see, the OS takes a back seat to multimedia applications. In fact, without Iviewit technologies invented by Bernstein and others, in Media Player, there would be no Media Player that could compete with other OS's. May come to fruition and then I debate if Gates has a saleable product, just an example. Same goes for removing the scaling from chips such as Intel who was the first strategic partner with Iviewit through Real 3d, Inc. (composed 70% Lockheed, 20% Silicon Graphics and Intel 10%). Intel later acquired 100% of Real 3d along with the Iviewit technologies, which soon was proliferated among every product they had. You put up comments that were slighted with gay voting comments in example, in a world of gay bashing it appears you could have choosen thousands of other examples to not be mistook as gay bashing to make the point, I thought it biased your comments and biased the discussion. Sorry if I mistook your comments, I did not reply in mean spirit, I just made light of your comments and retorted with a similar example to your comment. I also found it ridiculous that instead of affirming or denying conflict, which is just polite and maintains integrity of these edits and Wikipedia, that you instead tried to justify it with that gay diatribe. I thank you for your conflict statement, albeit late and now welcome further comments from you, good bad or ugly.
    Finally the reason Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein should stand apart is they are two very separate issues. One is a company with many shareholders and investors who have interests in patent pending/suspending technology and Eliot Bernstein is a shareholder of that company. That company has interests separate and apart from Eliot Bernstein. Eliot Bernstein on the other hand is a notable inventor with documented evidence of the inventions and patent pendings in technologies that have changed your world in countless ways. I am not to hung up on that at the moment and I certainly wait for all participants in these discussions, including those that deleted the article in the first place, to follow similar conflict disclosure to move on to a fair and unbiased review. If you do not understand the concern for conflict checks, please visit the Iviewit Senate Bill sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein which asks for the President, George W. Bush, to sign conflict waiver prior to signing such proposed legislation or read the information forwarded to John Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to the House Judiciary Committee whereby you will see that without conflict checks, these matters have already turned into a cluster*&**% due to high level officials caught violating offices in conflict. There is no difference here at Wikipedia, as those trying to prevent the truth of the inventions and Iviewit could easily be in this forum trying to block, without revealing conflict. Sorry for any offence you may feel but again my family's lives are on the line and this is critical. I again am more than happy to work with editors, like yourself who have disclosed and put forth positive suggestions to change the article to meet wikicriteria.--67.126.202.125 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You claim that you are 'more than happy to work with editors', yet you continue to fail to assume bad faith both with the conflicts of interest and by calling me homophobic when I made claims that were nothing of the sort. Here on Wikipedia, we tend to assume that people do not have a conflict of interest unless there is evidence otherwise. And you misunderstand my 'apples and oranges' comment above: I was referring to the fact that Iviewit is an apple, and Microsoft is an orange. One has a revenue that is measured in the tens of billions of dollars, the other... I doubt it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. If your company meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria at WP:CORP (claims which I have been unable to substantiate either from the deleted versions or from the comments above), you and your company are best served if you let someone else write the article. Autobiographies (even when they are about companies) are problematic for many reasons. Rossami (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained it could be a deadly undertaking Rossami. Are you willing to undertake the writing yourself? Since COI is not a reason for deletion in whole, especially in circumstances as these, yet I agree wholeheartedly with COI problems were circumstances do not permit, and if circumstances that could cause harm to your children for your part did not exist perhaps someone else would write it. In fact, editors initially worked to make Eliot Bernstein an autobio from the initial Iviewit article, even here there seemed to be some efforts to edit the article but some of the edits caused concerned. Not that they could not have been overcome, such as reinserting valid source documents from reliable sources that mistankingly were removed as press releases.

Veinor I left word that once you revealed no conflict your comments should stand. I did not accuse you of homophobic or any other such, as I do not know you. I did retort to your gay voting comments as example to be flawed and this was in the spirit of debating the statement, not your personal sexual preference. In response to the value of the inventions, I suggest you turn to the Wachovia Private Placement Memo which should give you a starting point although it left off many other markets but it would have been ridiculous. Imagine in fact, an internet that could not scale video, you would see all video like you did until these inventions, in small grainy post stamp boxes, abhorrable upon full screen viewing and worthless at less than 7 frames per second with audio mono and compressed beyond viewable. As I stated before, Gates gave away Media to Glazer initially because it sucked using MPEG technology and was in Gates words a non commodity. Glazer formed Real as he believed that while although the video sucked it had applications. Bill handed it to him, until along came Eliot Bernstein and a group of techies who dreamed a new way that allowed the previous impossible streaming of video that you suck up daily in bandwidth at full screen full frame rate. Bill did an about face, much after everyone and simply copied the iviewit process into his encoder, as Real had done. In fact, Hassan Miah (Intel / CAA Multimedia Lab)/XING/Real being the first to call the inventions the "Holy Grail". Take that wonderful zoom off your digital camera and remove it from Hubble and remove it from G Maps etc. for without the scaling images you would still pixelate. Solving for pixel distortion was yet another invention. Do some homework on this and review the site material at http://www.iviewit.tv , read some of the other financial institutions estimates etc. I think at this time by the last CEO of Iviewit, outstanding royalties on only a few markets due currently since 1999 is well over 50 billion in royalties due the true inventors and shareholders. Many inventors have to wait years to collect on their inventions (7-10) and so I would not doubt that those shares of Iviewit are as valuable as ground floor shares in Microsoft and so do many of the people who invested in Iviewit. Hey where is the guy on Wikipedia who solved for streaming low bandwidth video at full screen full frame rate and the one on the inventor of zoom and pan on a digital camera using scaled low res images free of pixel distortion on zoom? Ok I agree with most sound mind here to drop the rhetoric and get to an edit that works by fair and impartial people. So if you want to take a stab at writing the article, putting the reliable sources in and risking your neck, please take a stab and see what others think, in fact, we were on that course when you mistakingly I presume removed the newspaper articles that were articles written by credible papers. We were in the middle of working together to get this done and some were editing, I had no problems other than the removal of the sources. I think hurrying this process to close over personal issues makes this process less reliable.--Iviewit 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Your comments near the end are about Eliot Bernstein, which is an entirely different page. And you seem to assume that nobody else would have created the zoom, or that nobody else has. And you definitely did call me homophobic: "if you have nothing to hide, why bring in gay bashing to cover it." As it stands, the article was deleted for being spam:

Working with a group of technologists, in the face of insurmountable odds of failure, Bernstein and his team did what thousands of engineers worldwide had given up on, claiming that it was mathematically impossible

The technologies were validated by Real 3D, Inc. a company composed of Intel, Lockheed Martin and Silicon Graphics (immediately after learning of the Iviewit inventions, Intel bought Real 3D, Inc. and heralded by leading experts worldwide as the "Holy Grail" inventions of the digital imaging and video world.

Without the video inventions, not only would Internet full screen full frame rate video be impossible but other forms of low bandwidth video such as video cell phones, low bandwidth full screen video conferencing, video i-pods and pda’s, would also have all not been feasible.

This reads more like a brochure than a neutral article. There are no sources for any of these, and the last one seems extremely unlikely. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Large pathetic galaxy – Speedily closed, closing admin agrees with relisting – trialsanderrors 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Afd was closed as no consensus by Seraphimblade. No keep opinions had been made and there was difference of opinion as to whether the article should be deleted outright or converted into a redirect. Seraphimblade suggested the discussion should continue on the talkpage [63], but this is clearly unsatisfactory as (a) few people visit the article and (b) a deletion concensus on a talkpage is of no effect. Given that this is the second no consensus AfD result for this article, it seems better than we ensure an actual decision is made at AfD. I propose that the AfD be reopened and relisted among today's nominations, so consensus can be reached. WjBscribe 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is at DRV. The closing admin gave permission to relist. Speedy close and relist. And by all means explain in the AfD nom that the closing admin gave permission for the odd relisting. Pan Dan 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I read "If you disagree, though, please go ahead and relist-hopefully you're right, and a second one will achieve consensus," as refering to a further AfD, not a relisting of the present one (as further discussion with the closing admin seemed to indicate). However if there is no objection to the relist, I am obviously happy with the relist :-). WjBscribe 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean as to the ambiguity. Well, we can just ask Seraphimblade what he meant. But does it matter? If he did mean a 2nd (actually 3rd) AfD (as opposed to a relisting) I don't suppose you would object to that? Either a relisting of the 2nd AfD or a 3rd AfD would be procedurally OK given the permission of the closing admin. Pan Dan 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd prefer the relist because it's been hard to get comments in the AfD, and I would rather keep the present opinions as part of the eventual concensus than try to build one from scratch. I'd hope the relist is fairly uncontroversial given the lack of 'keep' opinions. WjBscribe 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close so it can be relisted per above. Arkyan 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I read the comment WjBscribe posted as the closing admin sayign that a relist would be all right, not as a request for a DRV. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn no consensus close and delete - there is a clear consensus in that debate that this is not a valid topic. At best, a redirect. There are no references in reliable sources for this term, which appears to have been made up in an observatory one day. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sports trainer – Nominee has since been indefinely blocked, redirect left untouched, see longer note within – GRBerry 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note by closer: Nominee is the originally blocked user. Has been blocked again, and I doubt anyone will be releasing the block. So he can be counted as a banned user for now.block log This significantly impacts some of the earlier comments. I'm leaving the page redirected to Athletic trainer, which title is better can be at that talk page better than it can be here. Editors in good standing can also merge anything they consider suitable. GRBerry 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for this page (User:Bradles_01/Sports trainer) to be created as Sports trainer, the information is relevant and is meets wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Please Note: Sports Trainer has been deleted and has been blocked for creating a page in that name, if the deletion of this page was to be undone the content in User:Bradles_01/Sports trainer would need to be re-created as Sports Trainer. The reason for the deletion in the first place was because of an incorrectly placed picture which i have removed in the current reversion. (Bradleigh 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note by closer: Nominee is the originally blocked user. Has been blocked again, and I doubt anyone will be releasing the block. So he can be counted as a banned user for now.block log GRBerry 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy unsalt, it was only protected to prevent a banned user from recreating it. I've changed the nomination to be for the page that needs to be unsalted, instead of the page you want moved there. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Bradleigh was the one who created it. At least we no longer have the words "Sports Trainer" photoshopped onto the figures in the pictures, but this seems to me to be redundant with athletic trainer. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletic trainer, protect the redirect if it's a problem article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I oppose that. Wikipedia usage is that "sport(s)" is used as the general term, and athletics is only used to mean sports in purely U.S. contexts. Non-Americans are liable to take "athletic trainer" to refer solely to what Americans call track and field, but no-one can misunderstand "sports trainer". Honbicot 11:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with athletic trainer at sports trainer. Honbicot 11:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect redirect. The freezing of the page is improper, in any regard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers – deletion unanimously overturned – GRBerry 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emo Rangers meets notability guidelines. The article was deleted in 2005. Since then the television show has become apart of the MTV UK broadcast, and it is also showing on the MTV US website. http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/28092006/mighty_moshin_emo_rangers

It has also been mentioned in various media sources, such as Chart (magazine) magazines's online website, http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/05/2603.cfm

I request the article be undeleted. Teram10 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone can help me on this one, I'm almost positive this had a second AfD or a DRV that I can't find, I may have specifically been the person behind it. It absolutely meets our standards, so overturn, but sure we're missing something here between the 2005 AfD and the recent speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn now that I've found the second AfD, which closed as a unanimous keep in July 2006. A7 doesn't qualify for articles that survived an AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah it does. It's proposed deletion which shouldn't be used after an AfD. Picaroon 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, per A7, "If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Jeff. Anything that's gone through a unanimous keep AfD relatively recently isn't a valid speedy target. However, I suggest relist at AfD to clarify whether this still stands up to our guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but relist. The unanimous decision to keep it during the last AfD did not have substantial discussion, and the fact that someone nominated this for speedy deletion would indicate that there needs to be more consensus on the topic than was generated either way. Arkyan 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn definitely. Neutral on the relist—the provided sources seem like a good enough start that I'm not sure one is required, but not so good that one is clearly unnecessary. Xtifr _tälk 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This shouldn't have been speedied. --Oakshade 01:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - As per BDJ. FCYTravis 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Renetto – Relisted at AfD – trialsanderrors 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Youtube celebrity's stub was created with full assertation of notability stating "His videos have attracted 1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 subscribers." This article was fully referenced by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Within one minute of the stub's creation, user:ScorpO speedy deleted it. The user stated on my talk page: "As much attention as renetto may gain on youtube I do not feel he is notable enough to have an article about him." [64] This article was in no way proper criteria for speedy deletion and the reason the user gave for the deletion was ~~purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT~~. --Oakshade 02:29, 16 March 2007 (Comment partially struck due to user's reponse. --Oakshade 06:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I have subscribed to renetto's videos on youtube. As great a youtuber as he is he just isn't notable. ScorpO 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, can you post the relevant articles here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The stub content was supported by these two references:
  Tedeschi, Bob (February 26, 2007). "E-Commerce Report; New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities". The New York Times.
  Carney, Brian M. (September 8, 2006). "Fact or Fiction?". The Wall Street Journal.
  The following was added under "Further reading"
  Williams, Felicia (November 9, 2006). "Renetto Expresses His Thoughts on Commercialization". The Daily Reel. --Oakshade 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Overturn, notability established. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4 (via AfD)and A7 keep deleted Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS there were 2 valid AfD's both for delete the community has spoken Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last deletion was almost 3 months ago and I think that was closed under dubious circumstances. The New York Times reference was from after that last AfD. The first AfD from July 2006 was before any of the refernces. --Oakshade 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This could have been a speedy per CSD G4, but it has been a while since the last creation, so undelete and relist on AFD (for the 3rd time).—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, AFD looks valid to me. Appears to be just the Intarwebz Hype of the Moment; 15 minutes of fame is not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 08:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD specifically cited that there was no convincing argument that he met standards. That's certainly not the case anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closer gave good reasoning, and nothing above challenges that. Articles listing YouTube "celebrities" are evidence for an article on a list of YouTube celebrities - which we appear to have! So that's alright then. Wikipedia is not and should never be a directory of YouTube cruft. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an explanation that the article should have been speedy deleted. An article that asserts notability and being fully refernced by very reliable sources should have gone to AfD, not speedied. The "cruft" term is a specific example in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT clause. --Oakshade 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per A7. Wikipedia is not the user directory for YouTube (or any other website, popular or unpopular). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 clearly states an article is a candidate for speedy deletion if it doesn't assert notablity. This article clearly did. An editors' opinion of YouTube celebrities is not criteria either. A7 states "If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --Oakshade 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per CSD G4. Regarding A7, Oakshade believes that adding routine press references to a "youtube celebrity" will demonstrate or imply their significance or importance. I don't agree, and neither does the wording of CSD A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording of CSD A7 actually states "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. The article stating that the subject attraced "1.19 million views, plus over 23,000 subscribers." is clearly an assertation of notability. --Oakshade 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is? It's about half as many viewers as the average weekly episode of Les 100 plus grands fous rires, and marginally more than watch a typical episode of Witse (in Belgium; probably half as many if we count the rebroadcast to the Noordburen). Two million views is not a lot, and This Number is Big is not obviously a claim of notability or importance Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if your POV on what defines as asserting notability is in contention, per CSD A7 states it's not criteria for speedy and should go to AfD. Quote from CSD A7: "If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --Oakshade 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would possibly be true, except that this case was covered by G4 and AFD isn't needed: "A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted...provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted." Either you ignore the AFD, as you did in recreating this, in which case A7 is reasonable, or you don't, in which case G4 is reasonable. There's no logical way to rule out both G4 and A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        G4 doesn't apply either. First of all, as Eagle101 said above, the last AfD was almost 3 months ago and the content is entirely different (not "substantially identical" per G4) and the New York Times reference in the recreated article is new. --Oakshade 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, how many times do we have to delete this d00d? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering we shouldn't have in the first place? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we got the right result, but perhaps without correct process. Given the continued disagreement I can't oppose this going to AFD again, as new sources have apparently appeared since the last one. Send to AFD. --kingboyk 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on AFD. Article did not satisfy G4 or A7. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. A7 is not supposed to be a personal judgment over whether an article asserts sufficient notability, but a narrow criterion for articles that assert no notability. In fact, many people feel he is notable enough not just to pass CSD but to have an article, which shows A7 was applied too broadly here. As for G4, I'll take Oakshade's word that the new entry is different from the old. That leaves the argument that he's already flunked two AfDs. But the second AfD was not an overwhelming rejection. One delete !voter, for example, noted that he "barely fails WP:BIO;" with the august New York Times added as a source, could he not think he now "barely passes" WP:BIO? It only closed as a delete through the closer coming up with rationales to discount almost all the keeps while counting almost all deletes. (Frankly, I think those who are endorsing the deletion know that if the article is not kept bottled up in DRV, the only way another AfD is going to close as a delete is with similarly "bold" counting, meaning that it would end up back here on DRV.) A new AfD with a new closer might well go the other way. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I was only part of the 2nd AfD discussion. The first one was last July before I registered and before there was any non-YouTube media coverage on this subject. --Oakshade 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, multiple major media sources clearly constitute notability. If being written about in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal isn't enough, what is? Do we need a book before we can have an article about an internet celebrity? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closures and the re-deletions. The last AFD decision was within reasonable admin discretion. The closer clearly explained which opinions were discounted and why. The evidence presented since the last close confirm the existence but not the importance of this topic. None of the articles listed above are primarily about this person - they merely use him as an example and one of several interviewees. They are insufficient to convince me that there is a reasonable chance that the decision would be different if we send it to AFD yet again. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the importance is asserted in the recreated article that was speedy deleted, along with the new New York Times reference supporting the assertation, not simply "confirming the existence" of this topic. These arguments are really AfD arguments, not evidence that this should have been speedy deleted. --Oakshade 08:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're confusing the discussion. The controlling speedy-deletion criterion is not A7 (lack of assertion of notability) but G4 (repost of material which was deleted subsequent to a full deletion discussion). Assertion of notability has no bearing on G4 or on the AFD decision on which it was based. New evidence would have bearing - but as I said above, I don't see enough to reopen the debate. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was new evidence -- The new article had references to the new york times and wall street journal that weren't in the last one. it was an invalid g4. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The original closure was correctly done, and the new sources are not enough to save the article in its present form. Neither reference is about the subject, but about the phenomena of YouTube celebrities and they happen to reference Renetto, one with some brief quotes from his creator. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist In the deletion review for AFD2, I said that we should not overturn that AFD, as the article then had no sources, and instead wait until there was a sourced article that would stand a chance at AFD. The new stub was fully sourced to reliable, independent sources. I stand by my former opinion, a sourced article is substantially different from the one deleted via AFD2, and thus I believe that G4 does not apply to this one, and it should be given another run at AFD. GRBerry 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trapped in the Drive-Thru – Withdrawn - being rewritten – pgk 12:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article on this song was speedy-deleted by an admin with the comment "article that makes no claim to significance of its (not yet existent) subject)". This song was listed by Rolling Stone magazine in the 100 best songs of 2006; additionally the subject of this article does exist, so the deleting admin was in error as to that. Ryanjunk 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, yet another invalid speedy. Songs aren't speedyable via A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment, so wait, if a band is speedied by A7, and they have say 10 song articles, do they have to go through AFD? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep deleted, and or list on AFD - It almost looks like an advertisement for the single... check out this unsourced tidbit. I'm excited to announce that on March 19, MySpace will world premiere an animated music video for "Trapped In The Drive-Thru." It's being done by Doug Bresler (of Doogtoons fame), and everything I've seen of it so far looks great… hope you guys like it! (italics in the article, no source). At the most, undelete and relist, but this is a borderline advertisement to me. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Overturn. Should not have been speedied. Here is the reference to the Rolling Stone "one of the 100 best songs of 2006" assertation --> [65] --Oakshade 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of this "article", which was 100% speculation and 100% unreferenced, as well as 100% free of any claim to notability. If you can't write a better article than this was in the time it takes you to read this !vote, I'd be very surprised indeed. There is, I think, pretty much nothing in there which would survive the rewrite into an encyclopaedic article. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a non-admin I nominated this for DRV without seeing the deleted article; since it was speedied I didn't have much to go on, so I assumed based on the delete summary that it might at least be salvageable. It sounds like the article which existed was in fact crap, so rather than overturn the deletion the thing to do is just rewrite properly if it's a notable subject, which it appears it might be. Ryanjunk 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in case anyone's unaware at this stage, this is a song by "Weird Al" Yankovic, not by some random guy without an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Notable single by a massively notable (Grammy-winning, multiple-platinum-selling) artist on a notable album. What's the problem here, exactly? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the version of the article that was deleted was apparently horrible. I have re-written this article with references and cited its notability, so I Withdraw my request for undeletion due to having a much better rewrite. Ryanjunk 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crunkfests – endorse – Picaroon 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason that this particular page should not be deleted is fairly simple. A proper definition was used, but the citation was forgotten. Also by having this undeleted you are letting the people involved remeber the memories that were made. It may seem like a childish thing but this where I and many others have made life long friends. Most of the people involved had this special sort of bond that can never be recreated. It was something that does seem adolecent but is far from it. The deeper bonds that were established is the true purpose of having a proper online documentation of it. I hope that you reconsider. If the page is not to be undeleted some reasons and possible suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
(Greenough 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

~~Which articles? I'm not seeing anything in the logs. --Core desat 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Endorse deletion now that I've seen the deleted article. Looks to be a gathering of a few high school friends, which would make this a valid A7 (group). The article itself is almost a journal of the things that happened in these gatherings, such as things that "seemed like season 1 of the OC" and someone losing his pants. --Core desat 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, endorse a valid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are they? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I'm sorry, but if we allowed an article on everything important to someone, we'd have far too many articles on random subjects. And they'd be entirely unsourceable, so they'd have to be deleted anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, which is precisely what this subject is. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion WP:NFT case, just a list of parties attended by some kid, with semi-nonsensical descriptions of each (sample: "This was New Years baby. It would have been pretty good until our friends dad kicked us out at 11:55. So we celebrated on the front lawn.") I think I lost a few IQ points just by looking at it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rickey Smith – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable contestant on American Idol who made it to the Top 8. [66] [67] BlueLotas 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion per valid AFD. The sources provided here don't really work, as all the USA Today article says is that he was voted off the show, and the second one just says he gained a few fans for celebrating making it to the top 8. Neither shows notability outside the show, which was the concern in the AFD. --Core desat 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The debate was conducted in full knowledge that he made it to the top 8, and that he has some fans. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Top 8 on a hugely popular show is notable. Smith hasn't done anything since, but he should at least have a stub. BlueLotas 04:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar "All of the season 5 finalists have pages. All of the season 3 finalists have pages. And I believe all of the season 4 finalists have pages. According to the guidelines set forth by the WikiProject on the subject, finalists get pages. And yes, the pages stay even after elimination. The proof is here, here, here and here and here. Those are links to the "What links here" section of the templates for each season of Idol. This is the #1 show in the United States and it's highly rated elsewhere. Almost all of the contestants have had careers beyond Idol be it Broadway, CDs, fansites, etc. They are all notable if they've made the finals. I know that many people don't care for the show and many don't like that we have this many articles on the show, but I think it's necessary. And if we delete this one, then we need to delete 12 participant articles or make them all redirects...and then decided on a one-by-one basis who gets recreated after the show is on for awhile. At some point, it's easiest to keep things as they are. And the thing is, we don't know who will be successful and who won't be at this point. I mean the arguably 2 most successful acts from season 5 finished 6th (Kellie Pickler) and 4th (Chris Daughtry). I think it's just too early to ditch these. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)" BlueLotas 04:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's essentially a restatement of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This contestant has no attributed notability outside the show. --Core desat 05:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Easily verifiable, obviously notable. Notability is permanent, etc etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of all losing rteality show contestants unless they achieve notability independent of being on the show, which this one did not. We can have a list of contestants, that is enough. We really do not need hundreds of articles on "Joe Schmoe was a contestant in the hundred and forty-sixth series of American Nonentity, he was voted off after one week, nobody knows where he is now". WP:NOT a directory of reality show contestants or anything else. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid stubs of notable people are not directory entries. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with this one is that it has a valid AFD behind it, where all participants (except the one that argued to keep solely because "deletionism is ruining Wikipedia") were well aware of Smith's Top 8 status. --Core desat 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If there is a question as to the notability of Idol finalists, it should be taken up at the WikiProject. Since consensus seems to be that all finalists are notable enough for articles, this article should stay. Ryanjunk 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, leave it to fans of the show to decide whether contestants are notable, why didn't I think of that. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, at least for now. Let's wait and see if a post-Idol career materialises. If coming in 8th on a game show is all there is to be said, that's not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the closing seems to have been perfectly reasonable. Deletion Review is not AfD round two. And no significant new information has been provided. No valid reason for undeletion has been provided. Wikiproject guidelines do not trump Wikipedia policies or guidelines; at best, they might carry a little more weight than essays. Xtifr _tälk 09:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Otherstuff exists does not mean that there should be no stable criteria. If the other stuff is the consensus practice there should be a reason for not deciding likewise. (But I am not sure that this is the case here, so this is not a !vote.)DGG 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Coming in 8th on American Idol, one of the most popular shows in history, demonstrates "notability." This isn't like coming in 8th in a local county fair. --Oakshade 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was a valid AfD and no new information has been provided. --RaiderAspect 11:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I find no process problems with this discussion and no new evidence to justify revisiting the debate. Being on TV is not an automatic ticket into the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Tygodnik-1] Operation "Disinformation" - The Russian Foreign Office vs "Tygodnik Powszechny", Tygodnik Powszechny, 13/2005

[Polyanskaya-2] Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer. by Anna Polyanskaya, Andrei Krivov, and Ivan Lomko, Vestkik online, April 30, 2003 (English translation)

[Bagryansky-3] Eye for an eye (Russian) by Grigory Svirsky and Vladimur Bagryansky, publication of Russian Center for Extreme Journalism [1]

[4] Conspiracy theory by Alexander Usupovsky, Russian Journal, 25 April, 2003

[China-5] China's secret internet police target critics with web of propaganda, by Jonathan Watts in Beijing, June 14, 2005, Guardian Unlimited

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]