Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 2008 Deletion review archives June 2008 >


30 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The detour (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a community, non-profit radio station that has been in existence for over a year in Johnson City, TN. We are also an affiliate of the Pacifica Radio Network. We have several volunteers that dedicate countless hours to giving the local community and region an independent voice. Thedetour (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have been featured in our local newspaper in this news article, are supported by the local group Democracy Now Tri-Cities. We are also featured in Pacifica Network's directory. What is notable is that a group of people in the community have taken the time to build a radio station. This article was deleted about 3 seconds after it was created. I do not think enough time was taken to review it. Other community radio stations have been featured in Wikipedia. Did we provide to much information for it to be considered "advertising"? Thedetour (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I'm afraid that you probably do not meet our inclusion criteria. The first source reads like a rewritten press release and the other two do not appear to have come from sources that meet our sourcing standards. I'm not personally moved to agree to recreation by these. Endorse Deletion Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first source was written by the local newspaper (for a town of 60,000...everything they write sounds like a press release). It was featured on the front page. The person that wrote the article has no affiliation with the station. What kind of sources are required for inclusion? We have an established web site, several other sites that link to us. Must we have had several articles written about us, etc. to be included? As I have stated before, other community radio stations have been included in Wikipedia with little to no other "sources". Thedetour (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional source: East Tennessean article (official student newspaper for East Tennessee State University Thedetour (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some questions: Were these sources in the article? Was the article talking -about- the station, or did it promote it? Did the article explain why the station was notable? If not, then of course it would be deleted. What I would suggest you do is to re-write the article in your user-space and address the concerns of the speedy deletion (it was blatant advertising for the station, and it didn't indicate notability), then we can help you with it. Bringing a draft article to DRV helps your chances. If you want the old info to work with, any admin can help you out. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would appreciate it if I could get the old content for the original page I wrote and revise it with the new sources included. I would also like to withdraw this review request. How can I go about doing this? Thedetour (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, don't withdraw the request yet. Second, just ask for the content. You can try leaving a message on the deleting admin's talk page (Cobaltbluetony, or just wait here for an admin to do it. When you're done, let people know here, and we can help you out more (or use my talk page). --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your help. I will ask the admin that originally deleted my article for the content back. Thanks again Thedetour (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is the beginnings of a fully sourced article about an institution that has received a lot of media interest and is thus clearly notable. What is the exact (detailed) problem here? Put another way, if this is not in full conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what changes can be made to make it so. I think this is an important and notable topic and needs to be made in a format that it acceptable to all and of encyclopaedic value. This should, in my view, be achieved through editing and discussion, not deletion. Happy to discuss further in detail. SCISInfo (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as the admin who closed the CSD nomination by deleting it. It's a poorly sourced BLP (a blog is the source confirming an arrest?), and seems to be created as a WP:Coatrack. It was deleted as an attack page (as nominated) and questions of notability were not factors. Would support a rewrite with reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment doing a little searching on this, it seems that it is in fact a notable rip-off at the least, and there are newspaper sources to be found, such as the Evening Standard. But we cannot allow re-creation without them. Rewrite first, and place it in user space & let us know. But it will be deleted even from there if not fully sourced to good published sources suitable for the burden of the charges made against the principals of the company, according to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. DGG (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the word to a term the paper thinks safe to use. DGG (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not understand why it was closed as No-consensus. The AFD discussion had a lot of comments, and delete opinions showing the subject's non-notability. The "keep" opinions could not refute the main non-notability issues. The new "references" added during the AFDs were either trivial mentions, or non-reliable sources. This had been put as comments in the AFD page, but someone moved the entire [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association|discussion debunking these references to the talk page]]. AFD is not a number-game, and just counting debunked "keep" opinions to be equal to solid "delete" votes do not count. The article was, and still is about a Non-notable organization. I request a review of this close decision. Reviewers are requested to look into the article, the sources added during AFD, and also the discussion in the AFD talk page debunking the validity of these sources. --Ragib (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, my reasons for listing it for review are as follows:

  • The article's notability has not been established before, during, or after the AFD by addition of reliable sources.
  • Several references added during the AFD are not reliable sources, and have been debunked in the AFD talk page. Such discussion has probably been overlooked by the closing admin
  • AFD is not decided by number of keep/delete votes, rather the opinions supported by valid arguments are to be considered by the closing admin. Considering the non-notability of the subject, I believe this is in no way a no-consensus AFD.

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - I was actually reading through the comments and coming to the same conclusions above earlier today, but when I clicked "edit" to close the discussion as delete, I saw that it had already been closed as no consensus. While this is not the conclusion that I had come to, I think the case was close enough that the difference in opinion is merely a product of personal interpretation rather than a misreading of consensus, hence my endorsing of a close that I would not have made. Although I agree that the specific arguments presented by User:Pahari Sahib seemed to lean a little heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think User:Bearian's comments provide a strong enough argument in favor of keeping that Pigman's close is justified. --jonny-mt 07:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse certainly the sourcing is less than it should be, but policy-based keep arguments were made. No point appealing this, make another try for sources & if you do not find them, nominate again for AfD in another month or two. DGG (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I was the closing admin on this one, perhaps I should give my rationale. First, I dislike reaching a "no consensus" close decision. I prefer to read the opinions voiced, apply policy, and reach a firm decision one way or the other: keep or delete. I try not to force an AfD decision into those absolute results but that's my preference and bias. In this case, I thought the argument that there might not be enough English sources but there were likely foreign language sources to be persuasive enough to give doubt. The sources in the article seemed diverse enough to indicate actual notability. I considered a "delete" close but thought arguments were split enough to give doubt to consensus. I applied my best judgment to the AfD discussion but I'm human and admit it could have easily come up delete with a different closer (jonny above for example.) Funnily, I'm generally more of a deletionist in borderline cases. The preceding is hardly a spirited and definitive defence of my closing decision but that's the breaks. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure was within reasonable administrative discretion. GRBerry 18:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Isn't the way we run wikipedia frustrating? I personally would have closed it as delete but the close falls within a reasonable interpretation of admin discretion so there are no procedural grounds to overturn the close. I'd suggest you simply waited a couple of months and if the article hasn't developed renominate it. Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Three !voters stating "fails WP:N" with little or no explanation, does not a consensus make in the face of four keeps, and this is not AfD round two. MrPrada (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this relisted for deletion? The vote was 5 keep and 3 delete (If you remove Ragib's vote who is putting this up for deletion) and each supported with valid reasoning. Particularly, the Deletion vote by User:Cirt states if the article is expanded, it should be kept and in my opinion the article has expanded and is more informative than other similar articles. The deletion vote by User:Nsk92 is also questionable. He votes for deletion because there were only two references but that has been addressed and article now has eight sources. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still misleading to claim that the article has 8 "sources". The army.mil ref has nothing to do with the subject, rather is entirely on a tangential topic (that Pakistan/Afghanistan are neighbors with turbulent relationship). Except for the two references from the newspaper Dawn's trivial coverage of the topic, there are no reliable sources. One is from Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, The rest of the refs are self-published or NN sites themselves ... AfghanAct.org, smc.org.ph etc. One is actually from a talk flyer from a Canadian club. Such links/urls are not reliable sources, and claiming their use has made the article well-referenced will be a misstatement. --Ragib (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't overturn looking at the AfD I don't see much merit in the the keep opinions which seem to be largely be based on arguments that have been widely rejected by the community. Having said that the article has been developed since the close of the AfD so I don't think the delete opinions are necessarily relevent to the "new" article. Take back to AfD if necessary. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Final Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability: My approval of the G5 tag was mistaken (user was blocked, not banned) but I also thought at the time it was an A7 and still do. However, my deletion of the article has been disputed and I believe the notability of this topic can be helpfully talked about here. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I requested this DRV on procedural grounds because User:Finaldrive, the author of the article, was requesting an unblock based on the notability of the article, which seemed odd. I can't see what was there. He needs to support his claims of notability with reliable sources, which he has yet to do. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - article shows no notability whatsoever. Yes, they may have released albums, but there's no indication that they've released them on any major or independent record label. Yes, they were involved in a music competition, but there's no indication that they won the competition, nor that it was a notable competition. GBT/C 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Although the original {{db-band}} was declined by an uninvolved editor, I think an A7 speedy deletion would be appropriate here. Participating in a reality show is not a claim to notability--winning one is. --jonny-mt 07:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Gb. Hut 8.5 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The claim to notability (participation in a TV show) was unsourced, and in any event would not make the band notable enough. If it did we would have to include all the hundreds who were shown during auditions of the various "Idol" programmes. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 'cuz it makes A7, and I'd like to note that I'm the uninvolved editor mentioned above who declined the A7 speedy. Turns out I was wrong about that. The claim that the band appeared in MTV's Battle for Ozzfest is false, only a single former member of the band actually appeared on the show; this makes a better claim for her notability than the band's itself (perhaps someone can create an article on her; I can't find her full name though). As a side note, Gwen sent me the content through email after the deletion because I thought I could find something to save it, but after some searching I couldn't find a thing to establish the band's notability. Anyway, cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the current trend is clear, should it change the closing admin needs to be aware that the 2007 versions of the article were deleted for a copyright violation problem. This issue hasn't been asserted of the 2008 versions. GRBerry 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - fails the tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually this didn't meet any speedy criteria as the assertion of notability was sufficient to require an discussion. Gwen, if you need help getting the hang of the CSD criteria you might like to consider joining #wikipedia-en-admins for sanity checks on stuff like this. This clearly isn't going to survive an AFD and we have a pretty clear consensus here that this doesn't pass our basic inclusion threshold. Endorse Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spartaz, if you mean Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, the article's reference to the MTV appearance does not assert this, although I understand how the wording could lead some editors to think otherwise but, thank you very much for reminding me about w-e-a! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was referring to most notably recognized for their involvement on the MTV show. Believe or not but that's enough of an assertion to justify an AFD in some eyes. I don't like getting reversed at DRV so I tend to go with the flow. Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how some would let it go through. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That, as written, would, yes. But it's not actually a true statement. See my comment above for that. Gwen, the CSD are meant to be interpreted pretty tightly. That sorta' thing should tip people off that at least a search should be done, so a slower process is usually better. The end result here would've been the same either way, so it's no biggie, but it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
one advantage of a slower process that I like, is that considering the effort involved in these appeals, and the general dissatisfaction that it entails, I find it simpler to say to anyone who objects in good faith to my deletion: Ok, undelete, and will take to Afd and let the community decide. Less trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I most often do this (or try to help editors who ask get by CSD with rewrites), but there is some history here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm frankly astounded that the AFD was closed as a keep, especially given that:

  1. The creator of the article knew he was forking the content.
  2. The creator of the article knew the content was disputed for NPOV violations and UNDUE violations.
  3. The closing admin agreed there was a supermajority to delete the article.

I also think the "summary style" argument holds no water, given that the size of the article is approximately the same as the sections "Japan's leaders refused to surrender" and "Inherently immoral" in the article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the creator of the article refused to do it for them. I think this is showing preferential treatment to one viewpoint, thus breaking WP:NPOV. Sceptre (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse the "keep - no consensus" decision we do not vote, and the closing admin's thorough analysis shows that those who !voted delete did not provide policy backed reasoning that overrode the reasoning of the !votes for keep.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sandstein's usually got a pretty good eye for these things, and he was completely right here. There isn't any reason that the article needs to be deleted. Personally, I'd say consensus is that we don't want the information at that title or at that article, so a move or merge is in order. But a merge means we don't delete, and a move (and possibly rewriting the article to avoid POV) also isn't delete, and my own opinion isn't worth an overturn. I'd suggest working on the article talk page to figure out what to do with it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or merge - Last time I checked, "The article is a POV fork" is a reason for deletion. We need to remember that policy is descriptive not proscriptive - if that many people say that the article is a POV fork, then consensus says it probably is. Actual consensus always overrides the word of policy. Its not up to one person to discount all their opinions because they aren't exactly inline with the wording of the policy. If that many people see it as a POV fork but the policy, as written says it isn't, perhaps the policy wording needs to be changed to reflect real consensus. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? It's a bit of a wikiality issue to want to change the longstanding WP:CFORK and WP:SS guidelines just in order to delete this one article, and all the more so to say that these votes somehow make those guidelines say the opposite of what they currently do. But, be that as it may, at least get the guidelines changed first and then resubmit for deletion. Don't vote "overturn and delete" based on some future version of the guidelines which don't even exist yet. -- Kendrick7talk 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The guideline may not be rewritten, but it isn't a suicide pact either. If a consensus of editors doesn't think policy needs to be followed strictly to the letter in this case, we don't. That's how consensus works on Wikipedia and the reason we have WP:IAR. Mr.Z-man 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just where we part ways; WP:IAR says it's ok to ignore rules to improve the encyclopedia, and as an inclusionist (though perhaps I will start calling myself a WP:PRESERVE-ationist) deleting encyclopedic content could never fall under WP:IAR in my view. -- Kendrick7talk 08:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • quite apart from personal views, IAR is only applicable when the decision is obviously strongly supported by the community and there is no exact way to do it under the existing rules. The discussion here & at the AfD shows that deletion was not clearly strongly supported by the community. IAR is not a way to support a disputed position--it does not mean "Ignore all rules so it comes out the way some of us want." DGG (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, IAR can apply in any situation. If it only applied when the rules didn't exaclty apply, it would be completely useless. And I don't care how this comes out, I have no vested interest, I've never seen the article before this DRV, so I don't know what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse obviously. That this article was nominated for deletion all of 30 minutes after it's creation took me by surprise; as the content pertained to and was duplicated in two disparate articles, and exactly because there had been complaints of WP:UNDUE, I thought I'd made a reasonable application of WP:SS. I have no objection to a new title, although I thought at the time that my use of the metaphorical construct "as" in the title would have been enough to assuage POV concerns. As for merging it back into one of the two articles it came from, there's no current consensus as to which one in the merge discussion. The merge process and AfD processes should be separate ones, in my opinion. So, until that consensus forms I'm happy with the status quo, and agree that there's no pressing need to delete. -- Kendrick7talk 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I personally don't think we should have an article with that title. But I read Sandstein's closure of the AFD, and it's a textbook example of how to handle a difficult case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The call was correct, thoughtful, and sound. Its the power of the argument, not the power of the votes that are supposed to count. But even if we care just counting votes, there was obviously no consensus so the default is KEEP. However, when we look at the merits of the arguments to keep vs. delete, there was no contest. Those claiming POV fork, etc. failed to show that was the case. Simply proclaiming this does not make it so. On the other hand, the facts about this article, which is growing larger now as it has its own article, stands unrefuted. Any problems can be fixed via editing it. The title can be improved. Currently there is a discussion about this and related terrorism articles going on, anyway. This well-source information has its place and home on wikipedia no matter how much those with a contrary POV want it deleted. It won't happen. The Terrorism articles are here to stay, per Wikipedia policies. The fact is that minority view points such as this can not be placed in the main articles (debate article) due to WP:UNDUE, but having it link to its own article is perfectly appropriate and consistent with other main/ancillary articles provided NPOV treatment of this discourse.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – of the three reasons given for this review, I find the first inaccurate and the other two irrelevant to the call. To the extent I'm familiar with the procedures for closing an AFD, they were followed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the no-consensus closure as appropriate. I personally would have argued to delete this article, as well, but from a procedural standpoint there is nothing incorrect with the way that the discussion was closed. Considering the article itself is very new, perhaps it is better to let the dust settle, anyway, before launching it straightway into AfD. In any case, the no-consensus keep means that it can always be renominated without prejudice. Arkyan 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and kudos to Sandstein for an exceptionally well-explained closure. Note that this closure does not prevent the article from being redirected back to the page from which it was forked. That's an ordinary-editor action which anyone can boldly make and for which consensus should be worked out on the respective article Talk pages (not in AFD). Nor does this closure prevent renomination if attempts to improve the article prove unsuccessful. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD was not closed as "Keep", it was closed as "No consensus", which defaults to Keep, and that's not the same thing at all. The closer notes that the consensus to delete was not persuasive enough. The closer also notes that there were no core policy based violations that required deletion. The problems, if any, with the articles can and should be dealt with consensus based editing, per WP:DEL. I find that the closing rationale was carefully thought out, well articulated, and did not favor one side over the other. It was, as Shalom said, a classic example of how to close a difficult case. Sandstein did this one very well, as he has done others. Summary style sections refer to the sections that are left when this content was forked, and those are appropriate per WP:SS. The article has references from both sides, and it was not clear what POV the article was pushing which is an excellent validation of NPOV, textbook classic even. In other words, it's very clear that this was not a WP:POVFORK. I don't see a supermajority of at least 24 votes to delete (based on the closer's counts), so that rationale also fails. Since this is not AfD round 2, and I don't see any process violations, the close was correct. — Becksguy (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Sandstein gave cogent reasons based on policy. And I was one of the "delete" editors. We need to stick to deletion policy, such as it is, because AfD shouldn't be a popularity contest. The WP:FORK argument clearly didn't apply here, as was pointed out in the discussion. My own reasons for wanting to delete are really arguments for the current merge discussion, which is a better vehicle for this effort. I wish that whenever a closing admin decides against a majority, a detailed closing statement is written up. This was a model. Noroton (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no consensus, even to merge and redirect. I could not decide either way, I commented and hoped one side would persuade me. I couldn't agree with any of them, hence, the "no consensus" call definitely applies. MrPrada (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or merge content if necessary. Both sides make valid policy based arguments but the fact that (by my count) the users who interpreted policy in a way that meant the article should be deleted outnumbered those who interpreted it in a way that thought it should be kept by slightly more than two to one shows clear preference for one interpretation among the community as a whole. Consensus on Wikipedia is not always finding a result that everyone will be happy with but finding the result that the most people are willing to accept; looking at the discussion with that in mind I think the article should be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to endorse, rereading the discussion the reasons given for deletion are not as strong as I previously thought and the closing is adequately persuasive as to why there is no consensus on the issue. Guest9999 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the outcome of the article being kept as is. In my view, the argument that the bombings were state terrorism are an opposition viewpoint like any other, and not one so greatly held that it a separate article for that viewpoint only is needed. Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should cover this. The term "terrorism" is also loaded, and furthers my concerns over this article. However, I can no fault in Sandstein's close and rationale, and share the viewpoint of the ever wise Rossami that this "no consensus" close is not the final word in the matter. It is not the job of the closer to enforce his view, or my view. The job is to gauge consensus and if necessary, balance it against core policy requirements, and in that respect, the job was done correctly. Hence I will endorse closure. My disagreement is with the people who wanted the article kept (and even these people were reasonable and rational in their arguments), not the one who evaluated the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The closing administrator's rationale was exceptionally well-written. Also, the absence of consensus is clear. However, that doesn't mean the article cannot be relisted. By the way, whether one sees the article itself as a POV fork or a legitimate spin-out seems to depend on whether you compare it with Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or with Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. It clearly has a different point of view than that of the former article, but I was not able to discern whether it is a POV fork of the second article or not. In conclusion, I think that it should be merged into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The "no consensus" close leaves this possibility still open. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This album has now been released officially and is listed at All Music Guide link, referenced in a news article here link, and has a third party review here link RobDMB (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn The sources provided are substantial enough for me to believe that this page should be undeleted, especially now that the album has been released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happier with a userfy (if you want) to fix any of the problems that'd be caused by tone changes now that it's released then a move back into mainspace whenever RobDMB wants. But really, you don't need a DRV to recreate the page. Just do it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I recreated the page once before with what I thought were credible sources, but I was still referencing non-credible sources. I'm really new at this so I want to be sure that if I recreate the page that I'm doing it with good sources. I don't want it to be taken down a third time. I also am not sure what you mean by userfy, I'm a total nOOb here. RobDMB (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that an admin will restore the article in full, with history, at a subpage of your userpage. Say, at User:RobDRMB/Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album) or something similar. From there you can continue to work on it and have other editors make sure that it's kosher before moving it back into the mainspace. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charlotte Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

What was the reason for a A7 deletion as 46,000 ghits, taking in the "model" tag within the search and a few magazine covers otherwise prove notability. Looking at this link of the deleted article, all it needs is some source Jay Pegg (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I can't see the original article, but I can't find any reliable sources for her. Corvus cornixtalk 20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I can see the deleted article and its a valid A7 deletion. There were no sources listed and the description of this individual contained no assertions of notability. If you want this back we need to see some sources please. Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The first hit on Google is a forum, which isn't a good sign. No reliable sources seem to be amid the hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse Looking at the article, the link above is indeed a copy of the WP article. While on the one hand "Charlotte is also a "Page 3" girl of the The Sun newspaper" could be regarded as a claim to importance, the total lack of sourcing after 2 years here and a very dubious quote that her former headmaster thought her nude modeling career was "a perfect demonstration of the school ethos:" makes it unlikely that the article could possibly stand. First find some real sources. DGG (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - A valid A7 deletion. The verdict could change if better sources were provided. Someone would need to go through all the Google hits and find something we can use. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GKOS_keyboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page describing the GKOS keyboard was deleted due to missing references even if it is a proposed standard that is documented in the global ITU-R contributions that ARE referenced on the page. ITU-R is an international telecommunications organisation under United Nations. Please consider undeleting the page. Description of the GKOS concept, intended for future mobile telecommunications devices, in the widely agreed technology trends documentation of ITU-R makes it notable. Tiptyper (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralRelist. I think the administrator's judgement towards notability was likely correct, and the AfD was left open for nine days, so there was no reason to keep it any longer...but the discussion was never relisted. I'm not much for two-person consensus with one dissenter, thats more to the realm of XfD, so I was suprised to see it wasn't relisted. If and when the closing admin comes here to comment, I may change my opinion. MrPrada (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist without to get some more views on this article. DGG (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own deletion as AfD closer. I've restored the article at User:EdJohnston/GKOS keyboard for reference during this discussion. The claim that the GKOS keyboard is an ITU standard can't be easily confirmed anywhere. GKOS is mentioned in an ITU technology trends report that appears a bit vague on the subject. You're all invited to try to interpret this language:

    Annex 13, as an example, describes a proposed method for combining text entry and a large display on a single compact mobile terminal. The annexed presentation of the GKOS back panel keyboard (Global keyboard optimized for small wireless devices) demonstrates that completely new types of physical user interfaces can still be found, and hopefully encourages manufacturers to study this issue more and maybe further refine the proposed concept to obtain a common standard for this kind of solution. The concept is an open standard and was first published on 5 October 2000. For more detailed information on GKOS, check also http://gkos.com.

    So GKOS has been referred to as an example by the author of a draft ITU report.'The 'concept is an open standard' probably means that anyone can implement it free of patent or licensing fees. I don't see this as making it an ITU standard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, notability not asserted, and no reliable sources except for one passing mention, create a new page with no history as a redirect to Chorded_keyboard#Commercial_devices. If merge of information is necessary, then restore history under the redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, while low on participation, AfD outcome seems to be right. The requester has picked up above suggestion of redirecting and adding a sentence to Chorded_keyboard#Commercial_devices and I've added above mentioned reference. If it gets expanded later with more sources, it can still be relisted if necessary.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zemax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article on the optical design software Zemax was deleted in 2005 by AFD, referring to it as an advertisement and also citing WP:CORP. The editors who contributed to the discussion appear not to have been aware that Zemax is an extremely widely-used piece of optical design software. Books have been written about it specifically, and very many optical engineering texts refer to it (Search for Zemax in any of these for examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6].) Professional magazines write reviews of it, and a Google search will turn up many references to the software online, which are not from the company that sells it. It is frequently mentioned in the scientific literature. Category:Optical software is incomplete without this article, and Zemax is at least as notable as the other entries in that category. If the earlier versions of the article read too much like advertisements, that can be fixed by editing. The article has been deleted three times. If the text of the three versions can be made available to me I volunteer to merge them and put the article into neutral point of view. Srleffler (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Email content to user. I believe the request is prefectly resonable. If necessary history of previous can be restored under new content. Or each can be userfied for you, but that'd make a history merge a little more complicated. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted quite a while ago, and Srleffler certainly makes a good case for us being able to have a proper article on this topic. I have undeleted it, since I think this is the easiest way to let people work on it again. I'll leave a note on the talk page explaining, so hopefully nobody decides to speedy it again in a hurry. Friday (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Allow the restore. I'm endorsing Friday's undeletion (see above). As improved by Srleffler in the last 24 hours, the article now has enough reliable sources to justify its existence. I don't believe a new AfD is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current state of the article absolutely establishes notability and is of a quality encyclopedic tone, not an advertisment at all. No problems here anymore. --Stormie (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
[[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper use of WP:G5. Uploader was not banned, merely blocked; and image was not uploaded "in violation" of any community sanction, but as a good faith contribution unrelated to blocking. Pete (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of old so my memory may be foggy, but IIRC, Blueberrypie12 (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppeter of numerous accounts and was blocked indefinitely as a result. If I am not mistaken, Blueberrypie12 was a recreation of a banned user, and the contributions by Blueberrypie12 were deleted with the G5 criteria. I think there is more to this than what's seen at face value, and I am pretty sure I noted this at ANI. I'll see if I can dig this up later tonight or tomorrow, or ask other administrators who were involved on their opinion of this case. seicer | talk | contribs 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you remember correctly that BlueberryPie was an extensive sockpuppeteer. And a very frustrating one at that. But many of his/her edits were not problematic. This one was an apparently good faith upload from Portland Indymedia. I emailed Indymedia at the time, and was assured by two volunteers that all images posted to that site are copyleft; I could forward the emails to WP:OTRS, and can ask for further clarification if necessary. But I don't think the original grounds for deletion were correct. The user was not banned, and the uploading was unrelated to the blocking. -Pete (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted/deleted many of this user's contributions. Normally I would have assumes good faith, but given the problematic history and the constant POV-pushing edits, I figured it would be unproductive to examine each image/edit individually. If the image is used and attributed properly, I have no problems with it being restored. It's just hard to judge dozens of images and edits when so many of them are probably malicious.-Wafulz (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I appear to be criticizing any administrative action. That's not my intent, I remember clearly how frustrating BlueberryPie's string of edits were. Just looking to get this image restored, Arrow is a significant figure in the politics of the Pacific Northwest, and a free photo should not be allowed to go the way of the dodo... -Pete (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming nobody else objects, you can go ahead and restore it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues either. seicer | talk | contribs 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for discussing. Not sure what protocol is here -- I thought a DRV was supposed to stay up at least 5 days, and closed by someone other than the nominator? I'd love to just move on, but don't want to break the rules. -Pete (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gabriel_Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is an article with a number of sources that help asset its notability and it should be a stand-alone article rather than merged into the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net 69.76.132.152 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)

This entry is notable. The association has been around since 1884 and serves several thousand members across North America. All information provided was neutral/factual. Please consider restoring the entry. (Multiple submission is the result of my inexperience with WP.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1801270P (talk • contribs) 16:27, May 28, 2008

  • Comment - Usually the quickest way to get protected pages back up is to create a draft version in your userspace. At, say, User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America or something similar. Then you can work on the content and bring it back here when it passes all the necessary content policies and guidelines. If you'd like, we can userfy if for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Page created,User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Thank you for the suggestion LB. —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It needs third party reliable sources that help assert its notability: non-trivial mentions on newspapers an other stuff. Notice that press releases usually count as WP:SELF self published and don't assert notability. The facts described on the press releases can count for notability, but they will usually need verification from reliable sources, specially for big claims. You want third-party mentions of notable stuff, like being the greatest association, the oldest one, influencing legislation on painting, reviews of the association on notable magazine, as well as stuff that shows its importance inside its own field like being an association where most paint manufacturers are, etc (again, you need third party independient confirmation of most stuff). You want to fill the article with notable stuff, and drop those long lists of places that add nothing to the article. Instead, just say "PDCA has xx Councils all over the US" and place there an inline reference to the list --Enric Naval (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy if the draft gets improved and list at AfD as a stub, since it looks like notable, it probably just needs to be more sourced. I see, for example, that the Californian Contractors State license Board uses a *lot* of PDCA resources on the study guide for the Painting and Decorating exam [7]. I assume that the association is important on the painting field. I say a stub could be fine. I see that on 2000 they were already planning lobbying activities [8] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Appears to have a claim to notability, so the original speedy is invalid. The appropriate place would have been prod followed by AfD. MrPrada (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the feedback, comments and edits. What are my next steps? Post the article again and list in AfD for further review? --1801270P (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kari Havsland Jørgensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject is notable for several reason. First because she is one of the few (or only?) known Danes to have committed a serious crime in direct support to the actions of a terrorist group without being charged with this. Secondly, her person is a matter of widespread public debate in Denmark because she is still a practising medical doctor. Her crimes are not a matter of discussion in Denmark (nor denied by her), merely the lack of penal consequence. Law Lord (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse for now. I'm affraid that without sources, we can't do anything here for you. The deletion, though attributed to an AfD, appears to have been a WP:BLP admin-discretion deletion. This doesn't preclude the existance of another, well sourced and not defamatory article on her and you are welcome to create it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had a source/reference. Here are several more:
    1. Ring til terrorlægen!, Avisen.dk 18 March 2008, 131 words
    2. Læge: Skandale at Blekingegade-læge slap, Avisen.dk, 17 March 2008, 398 words
    3. Bande Fogh afviser Blekingegade-undersøgelse, Nyhedsavisen 1 February 2008, 2nd section, page 20, 235 words
    4. En undersøgelse af Blekingegadesagen kan være på vej, Nyhedsavisen 22 January 2008, 2nd section, page 16, 339 words
    5. Sig navnet!, Berlingske.dk, 22 January 2008, 926 words
    --Law Lord (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the content or relative importance of those are, they not being online and I not knowing the language. However I'm pretty sure that the fastest way to clear this up is to simply create the article again so that it doesn't meet the concerns that caused it to be deleted. It's not protected, so there's no reason you can't do it right now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referencing was never one of my reasons for nominating the article for deletion because I do not see how adding more references to the article could prevent it from being a BLP-violation. Reliable sources only cover her in the context of this crime so writing a well-rounded biography is impossible. Actually, the ones I've read of those articles of yours only give trivial coverage about her (I admit to not having read them all). They primarily cover the crime and the debate about the crime, so in my humble opinion while the crime is notable, the person isn't. And as I read WP:BLP#Privacy of names, we should not even be publishing her name: while some news sources have published her name, others (such as Politiken, example: [9]) choose deliberately not to and the work which is the greatest authority on the topic (Peter Øvig Knudsen: Blekingegadebanden volumes 1 and 2) also chooses not to publish her name. Hemmingsen 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion as she has not been convicted of any crime. The article on the crime protects her identity. I suggest a courtesy deletion of the Afd and of this discussion. DGG (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article did not say that she had committed a crime. Merely that is is an established fact that she committed actions, which would normally result in criminal charges. This by her own admission also. Please point to which policy you base your opinions on. --Law Lord (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse', this is not AfD round 2, administrator made the correct call in closing per consensus. MrPrada (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/speedy-deletion. Even without the WP:BLP issues, I am skeptical that this person would have met Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies as a stand-alone article. As is, the decision here appears to be completely consistent with the requirements of WP:BLP. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cricketainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Cricketainment is a valid word and is newly coined word in 2008. Cricketainment is very much a part of reality and this word is already popular with a huge section of people in India and elsewhere. It should be noted that "cricketainment" is not merely a word but a new concept of entertainment that is revolutionizing the sports and entertainment sector in India. Also it should not be redirected to IPL since IPL is one of the clubs which is merely implementing the concept. Even ICL is implementing cricketainment, and in future more clubs or organizations may participate. So i strongly feel that such an article should exist as it defines a new concept and merits it existence in Wikipedia with more contributions from people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 06:56, May 28, 2008

  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to explain how the deletion policy was not correctly followed, not to advance new (or the same) arguments for changing the result of an AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the consensus in the AfD was unambiguous. Arkyan 13:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Though I argued for a merge/redirect it didn't command a consensus and the close was correct. There is certainly not enough sourced content for a standalone page. A sourced paragraph can still be added to the IPL page as a normal editorial action, with a new redirect, and that seems the way to go though it obviously will not satisfy the nominator. Smile a While (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The outcome was crystal clear. MrPrada (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn since article can be rightly categorized in sports entertainment section. it cannot be redirected to IPL, since cricketainment is a concept and IPL, ICL are the clubs merely implementing it.--Gururaj 007 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I can find no process problems in the deletion discussion. Note: I would have no objections to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwikiing this definition over to Wiktionary. But the consensus is that it is a neologism was clear (and, in fact, is reinforced by the wording of the request for review here). Rossami (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure keep arguments were weak or unsupported by reliable sources, so the closure as delete was justified --Enric Naval (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn article looks pretty valid. cricketainment is a popular concept and gainaing popularity. This article will be a valuable addition to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Q without u (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

whilst this article was in its infancy i can see no reason for deletion as it cited several repuatable sources Qwithoutu (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly should not have been speedied; was sourced with third-party references; was not advertising jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but we still can't cite them and I don't think we need to. I did read through the article and saw no assertions which struck me as having encyclopedic notability. Rather, the text reads like a public relations/alumni mag hand out for any expensively funded org at a uni. It would have helped if the article had been written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, with topic notability clearly set forth. However, I see no reason why we can't give this article some more time to grow. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doctor Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

21:16, March 10, 2008 Seicer deleted "Doctor Steel" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)".

I had listed two national television appearances, including an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and two released CD albums. Google results in 23,200 for "Doctor Steel" and 49,000 for "Dr. Steel".

I was in the middle of listing clubs and areas he plays in regularly, more details regarding the band, and other notable facts when the article was deleted. Coolgamer (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this has been speedied and reconstructed 8 times already-- it really should go to afd for a community opinion. After that, depending on the result, it could be salted. DGG (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the recreated versions has been to AfD. Coolgamer's version, at the time it was deleted, was substantially shorter. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the deletion reason given there was "major fair use violation" -- which does not seem to have been proven--the fair use violation was the illustrations in the article not the text. The deletion review was apparently based on its unsuitability on other grounds. I have no opinion on this overall. DGG (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put this in caps, because it's important and not directly obvious. THE ARTICLE THAT WENT TO AFD AND WAS VOTED ON WAS NOT MINE. My article had no fair use violation, and I do not have a backup of the text, but I was about to cite sources, including the television appearances, which automatically mean A7 is passed. This is a notable band, and yes, there have been problems with nonsense bios regarding it in the past. All of my article, however, was factual. At the very least I request a copy of my original work. Coolgamer (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to Coolgamer's user space, let them add the sources and work on it. Then after it's moved back to mainspace it can be sent to AfD if doubts about notability remain. RMHED (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most recent DRV on this was in November 2007. The version deleted on March 30 of this year was far more detailed and had a number of sources than Coolgamer's version; I forget exactly where the discussion took place, but I know there was some conversation about it, and it was deleted yet again (it might have been on User:JzG's talk page, actually). Fact is that Doctor Steel doesn't have the mainstream sources to make it notable as yet; the TV apperance has been discussed and rejected as an indicator of ntoability numerous times. Keep deleted. Coolgamer, if you still want a copy of your particular version, I'll restore to your userspace, let me know on my talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions unless someone shows here the sources asserting enough notability, which is the root cause for this being deleted --Enric Naval (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jack Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Jack Blood is a notable radio show host based in Austin, Texas. His show, Deadline Live is heard in 60 countries and has a large following on the internet. He has interviewed on his show Tim Russert (host of Meet the Press), Congressman Ron Paul, Michael Moriarty, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and many others. He is in his 7th year of broadcasting and 4th year of syndication. Here is his Program Page on GCNLive. Alex Jones and Jeff Rense is on the same network and there are Wiki pages for them. Here is a news article mentioning Jack Blood. Here is Jack Blood interviewing Tim RussertRebel lonedog (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Article failed to demonstrate the notability of the radio host with sufficient reliable sources. Accordingly, there was insufficient improvement over prior versions, and the speedy deletion (G4) was correct. (N.b.: of the links mentioned above, only one—the Austin Chronicle article—is from a reliable source, and that only makes a passing reference to Blood.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted under G4, now without being able to see that old version of Sept '06 it's impossible for me to say whether the recently deleted cached version was substantially the same or not. RMHED (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - likewise I cannot assess the G4 since I have no access to the earlier version. However, there is nothing particularly notable in the version in the cache and the news item is simply a passing mention. The way forward is to write a new, better sourced article in user space and then come back here with a request for agreement to recreate. Smile a While (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a place to present new (or repeat old) arguments as to why the decision should be changed. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the original AfD was certainly closed correctly, this involves the G4 speedy. I think an administrator should verify their similarity before we decide. MrPrada (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked at the article versions. The new one adds 2 more public figures who were interviewed there. But the new one does not have the part about a controversial interview with Tim Russert, nor does it put as much emphasis on Blood's involvement in 9/11 conspiracy circles. Overall, Blood's most notable accomplishment seems to have been filling in once for Alex Jones--I dont think the article would possibly stand at AfD.DGG (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as substantial recreation of deleted material. Should we find it here again, salt. MrPrada (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as recreated content. While the versions were clearly created independently, the newly deleted versions did not address the concerns that led to the deletion decision. If new evidence can be found which would justify a reconsideration of the original AfD, please present it here (at which point the article could be temporarily undeleted and relisted to AfD). Rossami (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cristina Cruz Mínguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I find it odd that the closer would close as delete with one keep vote and three comments. I am not an expert in the field of spanish film and TV and,yes, would have been good if there were more involvement but feel this is not the best way to improve articles. The main character in a (short) TV series? hmmm... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but allow new version. Looking at the article as it existed, and the comments, I think the closing admin was justified to delete the article for failing to meet the verifiability guidelines. While I endorse the deletion of the article, I also have no objections with allowing a superior article, including multiple references (even if they are in Spanish), to be created. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close of the AfD. Ideally, an AfD debate will provide some hints about possible future sources even when those already in the article are not quite enough. Opinions may differ as to what is 'enough.' If her role in El Abuelo received any published critical approval, that might be enough for me. My own Googling did not bear fruit. WP:BIO seems to call for important and widely-recognized work, not just a few appearances on screen. No objection to re-creation if better sources are found. I agree that Spanish language sources would be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Poor sourcing presents BLP issues and we should lean towards deletion in those cases. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse BLP needs reliable sources to assert enough notability of person, which does not appear to be the case here --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:24.22.227.53 (edit | [[Talk:User:24.22.227.53|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This used to be my "anonymous" user page. My IP address changed (I moved), I went away from wikipedia for a while, and after a while it was deleted. I spent hours getting it to the state I wanted, and would like it to be undeleted (if this is possible) for a few days time (ie. until June 1st) so I can download it for nostalgic reasons. -Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks (including the diff history, if possible). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could have asked you, but I discovered how to figure out who the deleting admin was after I read about the deletion review process :) (via the "logs" link from the DR template above).
Should such a situation ever come up again, I'll do that. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • LyricWiki – Closure endorsed. While there is some support here for making the link at least inactive, that isn't really a question where DRV provides guidance, so it should be settled e.g. on the article's talk page. – Tikiwont (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LyricWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD AfD2)

Wikipedia has a clearcut policy on linking to sites which violate copyright. It was made completely clear in the discussion prior to the keep decision that the people involved at LyricWiki know full well that they violate copyright, and have no plans to do anything to change that unless the rightful copyright holders of the songs whose copyright they violate specifically come to them and ask them to remove the infringing material. Wikipedia should not host an article which endorses such behavior. A decision to keep this article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies on copyright. Corvus cornixtalk 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:FootnotesSmall – As redirecting is in this case not an equivalent but more practical alternative to deletion, the template should be replaced, depending on its usage, and then be deleted. It might help to spell out the replacement rules on the templates talk page. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:FootnotesSmall (edit | [[Talk:Template:FootnotesSmall|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe the TfD for the page should be reviewed. I don't believe the input by other editors in the TfD was taken into account and I see no logical/"common sense" reason why all usages of the template should not be replaced by {{reflist}} then deleted. Rockfang (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as the TfD ended, redundant to {{reflist}}, but may cause collateral damage if deleted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ca. 2000 transclusions of {{FootnotesSmall}} should be gradually replaced with {{reflist}} during the course of regular editing, but targeted replacement is probably not necessary. (On the other hand, there is Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. An additional 2000 edits won't affect performance, given that we receive 150-200 edits per minute.) Perhaps the replacement could be made a general fix in AWB? –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon, but why is this here? I'm not saying that Rockfang is violating policy, but I don't see what is going wrong with what's been done, so I'm simply confused. Dozens of articles on my watchlist have already had Rockfang's idea implemented. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I have already started changing the {{FootnotesSmall}} template to {{reflist}}. This DRV for the TfD is here because I believe the closer ignored the input given by other editors. Also, administrators are supposed to determine consensus and examine policy pertinent to the situation. Consensus showed that the template was redundant. Policy states that redundant templates should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin: In this TfD, the rationales of the majority of the contributors (and since it's not a straight vote, the rationales are more important) made almost unanimous reference to the template's "redundancy" to {{reflist}}. The clear consensus of the discussion is that the functionality of {{footnotesSmall}} should be replaced by the functionality of {{reflist}}. A direct, but very inefficient, way of achieving this end would be to replace every occurence of {{FootnotesSmall}} with {{reflist}}. A very much simpler and more elegant solution, which was not explicitly suggested in the TfD but which is emminently sensible, is simply to redirect one to the other. Running an AWB script or bot to update the articles is simply unnecessary (WP:R#NOTBROKEN also applies very clearly in this instance). Happy‑melon 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would switching the templates on articles using AWB be inefficient? Using AWB to switch them over allows you to do spelling fixes, formatting/style changes (to be inline with the MOS), etc, at the same time. It is simple and quite easy to do. I still believe the Delete part of the consensus, and established policy was ignored. --Rockfang (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand what the problem with the action that were taken is. The consensus were that the template were redundant and should be replaced with {{reflist}}. As Happy-melon said above, the easy and common way to do this is simply to redirect {{FootnotesSmall}} to {{reflist}}. The only "benefit" to changing via AWB/bot/manually is a bumping up of edit counts. Redirects are cheap. KTC (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are partially correct. Consensus as I interpret it, was Delete the redundant template. This seems to have been ingored. Policy also says to Delete. I do admit that sometimes what needs to be done is sometimes against policy, but I don't think this is that type of situation.--Rockfang (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Substituting the template is not only unnecessary, those doing it are doing it incorrectly. In many cases {{FootnotesSmall}} generated notes at 100% font size. These should have been replaced with <references/>, not {{reflist}}. Gimmetrow 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A correction. Some were done incorrectly. All future ones done by me will be switched to <references/> if the size setting was previously at 100%. BUT, this shows a valid reason why the {{FootnotesSmall}} should be swapped for either <references/> or {{reflist}}. A redirect to {{reflist}} would change all previous occurances of {{FootnotesSmall}} to a small size regardless of original size correct?--Rockfang (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the replacement process was done incorrectly because the dual use of the template was not accounted for. Were any of the TfD commentators aware of this dual use? Gimmetrow 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the first line of the TfD I put: "Delete. Seems redundant. We have both <references/> and {{reflist}} if people want different sizes. FYI, the template was previously nominated here. — Rockfang (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)". Whether or not they saw that first line, you'd have to ask them. There was also a link on the TfD to the Template's page. I would hope that people clicked on the link before commenting. That's not something I can control.--Rockfang (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{reflist}}, as I believe I stated in the TfD. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No redirect - This is not exactly the same as {{reflist}}. If simple redirecting was done, many articles would lose their formatting as reflist and FootnotesSmall use different font sizes. Therefore, AWB (or bot work) sounds to be as the only sensible solution. Or, make FootnotesSmall a transcription (not redirect!) of reflist is also a good idea. As for the aftermath, I have no comment. --Deryck C. 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmn... seems an "oops" is in order. I didn't realise that the template was used so regularly to display standard-sized references; neither, it appears, did Rockfang. An analysis I did a few days ago (forgot to post here then) revealed that approximately a third of all the transclusions of {{FootnotesSmall}} used |resize=100%. At that time, the template had 1,800 transclusions; it's now down to 1,189, so it looks like you're having fun, Rockfang! Given that it's a non-trivial task to identify which instances should be replaced with <references/> and you seem happy to do the task, I'm now inclined to let you get on with it. If there comes a time when the the template is transclusionless, then yes, it should be deleted. Happy‑melon 10:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Merlin (bicycles) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Although I have not seen the article before it was deleted as I have only started long after it was deleted, but does 562,000 ghits mean the brand is not notable for this site Jay Pegg (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sure you really meant 2420 hits. Corvus cornixtalk 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We can overturn the expired PROD deletion for you, but unless you've got some sources you can add it'd just be deleted through WP:AFD. Or we can userfy it to User:Jay Pegg/Merlin or something similar so you can work on sourcing it before moving it back to mainspace. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want help with anything. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentYes, it can be undeleted and I think an adequate article could be written, but you really do need to have some additional material available to put into it, such as some 3rd party reviews of their products. DGG (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment on above lot:Is there a way I can see the article, considering I have never seen the article before as I just started after it got PRODded off. I will take the userfy option first so I can work on it. Jay Pegg (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfied per above request. SkierRMH (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken Pounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was copied by the Irish Higher Education Authority for use in a report, without crediting Wikipedia or meeting the GFDL requirements. Administrator User:Refdoc then deleted the article without checking in which direction the copying took place.

In July 2006, I was invited to contrubute to the Ken Pounds article by a user on my talk page. User:Tomber had made a start on the article, and I then substantially expanded the article using a number of sources, to which I provided links at the end of the article.

In September 2006, the article was archived by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine [10]. From this, it is clear that the Irish HEA have copied the entire article, with the exception of the date of birth, which is omitted. [11]

It is not possible for me to have copied the article from the Irish report as the latter was only published on 21 December 2006 [12]. In addition, if the administrator in question had checked the edit history, he would have seen that the article was built up and improved over a number of edits, which would not have been the case had it been copied in its entirity from the HEA report.

I have asked the administrator to re-instate the article, but he has refused to do so, and has also attacked my integrity as an editor. Please could the article be re-instated with its edit history? JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. You present your case well. I also find it very difficult to believe that you could have taken the text before it was published. At the very least an old version without the copyright issues should be restored, I'd suggest before the full DRV is concluded, which would have been the appropriate action on the part of the deleting admin. We should let the office worry about the GFDL violation. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I looked at the deleted version that existed on the date of publication of the Irish report, and the text was at Wikipedia before the Irish report was published. While it may be fair to say that 9 times out of 10 copying is from the other publication to Wikipedia, this looks to be a case where it went the other way. Certainly the referenced report followed the publication of the Wikipedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history and dates support the nominator's assertion that the article has been compiled from preceding sources in 2006 before the Irish report was published. CSD G12 actually suggests to consider the possibility that the other copy was obtained from Wikipedia. As there doesn't seem to be convincing evidence to the contrary, I'd overturn. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and consider somewhere the unjustified explicit accusations of bad faith from the deleting admin. DGG (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The initial deletion of the article is somewhat understandable, mistakes are made. What isn't acceptable is that when you pointed out the error with evidence provided, the admin choose not to believe you and it seems didn't even bother to check the evidence you gave. RMHED (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As the original deleting administrator I had a second look at the above. I agree that the evidence is as JRawle suggests. The basis for my original assumption of copyvio was the publication in a governmental media and when asked to review again, I remained convinced to a) governmental media + b) the previous deletions of multiple images submitted by the same editor. I accept the evidence and accept also the explanation given by the editor wrt the several images deleted. I wholeheartedly apologise for my assumption of bad faith. Refdoc (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reinstating the article and for the apology. I accept that you originally deleted the article in good faith due to the (rather surprising) fact that a government publication copied from Wikipedia. Therefore I don't wish any further action to be taken against you. JRawle (Talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Marina Verenikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wikipedia has eliminated hundreds upon hundreds of unsigned artists whose qualifications equal or surpass Marina V for true notablility. For example, recently Justin Lanning was removed from Wikipedia, yet he had CD's selling throughout retail bricks&mortar chains, a billboard on Sunset Boulevard, far more youtube videos and hits per video, higher sales ranking on Amazon by far, airplay on mainstream radio stations, whereas Marina V only has internet radio airplay. How can you claim Marina V notability exceeds somebody like Justin Lanning? I am not making a case that Justin Lanning be reinstated because I agree with his removal from Wikipedia, he was more notable than Marina V, though not sufficiently notable. I am simply saying that you must be consistent in Wikipedia decisions and Marina V fails notability in virtually every aspect. Let me restate one last time: super low Amazon sales, ultra low youtube hits, no FM radio play, only internet radio play, no national media coverage (mostly her "hometown" Chicago local media, and that's NOT notable, since most unsigned artists obtain niche coverage in their respective hometown papers at the very least or in various peripheral mags or internet sites, e.g., Bliss???, MishMash???, Innocent Word????), no concert halls, mostly coffeehouses, seeking record label = advertisement, etc. She is no different (and no worse) than the typical relatively anonymous unsigned artist, most of whom will be throwing in the towel by age 30, but Wikipedia has removed so many unsigned artists who are at her level or better, so it begs the question whether or not she has a special relationship with a Wiki editor who is somehow keeping her listed even while so many others are removed? I argue for Wiki CONSISTENCY and your decision to reinstate undermines that consistency entirely. Most worrisome, it opens up a potential hornets nest since many previously deleted unsigned artists will use a keep decision here as precedent for re-opening their own deletion cases. Your decision would theoretically require reinstatement of HUNDREDS of unsigned music artists who were deleted over the past few years and it makes NO sense at all, since to reiterate one last time, listing of unsigned artists with primarily only an internet presence VIOLATES all Wiki notability requirements. From her bio, she appears to be a sweet girl but don't think "sweet" should become the determining factor for Wiki listing, do you?

-MusicBizLady

This DRV refers to Marina Verenikina and is a request to overturn the keep outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina and delete the page. No opinion from me, just clarifying the listing. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure -- Marina Verenikina is notable for Wikipedia's purposes as the references provided in Marina_Verenikina#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of her notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which states in relevant part that

    If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

    Furthermore, there was a unanimous consensus for the retention of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina. John254 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear keep consensus at the AfD. Disagreeing with the closure is not a valid reason for us to overturn it. The two keep argruements completely rebutted the deletion rationale and improved the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. To refute the comments made by the requester of the review, BNET is (inter)national media coverage, so she has received coverage beyond the local media. Second, we already have an essay (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) discussing how each article is considered on its own merits—so while there may be a case for precedent in some cases, it doesn't always follow that if an article for an unsigned artist is deleted, that all articles for unsigned artists should be deleted. If User:MusicBizLady would like to start DRV for each of those articles, or at least the one's she's concerned about, she is more than welcome to get them considered for restoration on an article-by-article basis.
The only issue I possibly see in the AfD—which the requester did not mention—is that there were only two !votes at the AfD: one weak keep and one speedy keep. While it could be argued that the AfD should be relisted to get wider consensus, the comments at DRV so far here suggest that consensus will be wider and it will be to keep. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Withdrawal of Previous Objections

After reflecting upon the issue overnight, I am now inclined to opt for endorsement of Marina V listing, so I will now remove the label I affixed to Marina V's listing, and end this nonsense.
Although the Marina V keep definitely undermines previous Wikipedia standards relating to unsigned music artists, nevertheless, it is far past time to terminate the condescending and irrational bias against unsigned music artists long held by a collective of self-anointed "music experts" at Wikipedia, none of whom have a clue about the true nature of the music biz since most of them have never worked a single hour within The Industry. In the past, truthfully, I always felt most Wiki editors had no right to pass judgment on an industry in which they are so woefully ignorant.
It is very nice to see that I personally have inspired a revolution here at Wikipedia, one that hopefully will end the irrational bias against unsigned music artists in favor of label music artists-- and as far as I am concerned, most label artists are actually very undeserving of their "notability."
In the past, I often read negative comments from extremely haughty, ill-informed, Wiki editors about unsigned music artists, to the effect that many of their multiple sources were PAY FOR HIRE niche media. In reality, anybody who has been in the music industry knows that most media sources are PAY FOR HIRE, in fact, the worst culprits of PAY FOR HIRE sources are the record labels themselves. lol That is why I used to laugh at the idiotic and woefully obtuse Wiki editor comments that often accompanied unsigned music artist removals when it only proved those particular Wiki editors knew absolutely nothing about the realities of the music biz.
In any case, judging from comments placed here by various Wiki editors, it appears the keep decision will be endorsed, and to be honest, from a purely personal and business perspective (without any consideration for the insufferable and pompous concept of "protecting the integrity of Wikipedia," which I have found to be little more than sheer arrogance by various self-important Wiki editors who have less than impressive qualifications themselves), I welcome the decision, it's about time the severe restrictions against unsigned music artists were overturned by Wikipedia. I say one loud, "BRAVO!!"
Unsigned music artists have long suffered absurd restrictions by excessively demanding smirky Wiki editors who have long held inappropriate biases in favor of label artists. I am actually very happy to see this result, since I can forward the verdict to at least 20-30 unsigned artists of my personal acquaintance who were removed in the past year alone and who will be more than thrilled to use the Marina V "keep" decision as a precedent in overturning their own past listing removals from Wikipedia. You are about to open the floodgates in the unsigned music artist area, but hey, you certainly have my blessing, because over 50% of my current clientele are unsigned, it can only benefit my bank account in the end. :)) Sorry for the inconvenience, and I withdraw ALL objections, and again, I will remove the request to revoke the listing immediately.

-MusicBizLady
On one other side note, also withdrew request to delete another unsigned Russian songbird, named ELLY K, who actually has a much larger following than Marina V, and who also performs and is reviewed all over the world, and who outsells her and generally gets much higher ratings overall as an unsigned artist. You should fully reinstate Elly K immediately, and I will return with a longer list of unsigned artists who you MUST reinstate ASAP in order to maintain CONSISTENCY, now that notability requirements have been significantly relaxed here at Wikipeeia. BRAVO again for finally dispensing with the elitist and inappropriate restrictions against unsigned music artists foisted upon them for the past few years by largely ignorant Wiki editors who do NOT have a clue about The Biz, and I like to take the credit for being the one who finally broke down these longstanding yet nonsensical walls.

-MusicBizLady

One final request to Wiki editors: I would suggest you create a listing entitled, "Marina V and Unsigned Music Artists," that would show up when "Unsigned Music Artists" is searched on google, in order that this entire discussion be used as a precedent for establishing the new relaxed guidelines for notability requirements at Wikipedia. Then I can simply direct all previously removed unsigned artists to the listing, and they can begin the process of obtaining either original listing or reinstatement. No longer will their internet reviews, internet exposure, college paper interviews, peripheral media features, etc., be held to ridicule by self-important, yet ignorant Wiki editors; under the criteria discussed here (which I have copied for future reference), many previously deleted unsigned music artists have every right and entitlement to be re-listed. That is certainly good news, and I only hope the many Wiki editors who once aimed condescending arrows at deleted unsigned artists will have their noses rubbed in it as they so very much deserve. :)))

-MusicBizLady

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

25 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Demob (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was apparently speedy deleted without meeting any of the valid criteria for that process. The band are sufficiently notable to have 3 and a half pages devoted to them in a published book on the history of British punk rock. Appears to have been deleted due only to concerns over COI edits. Michig (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually the reasons given suggest that deletion was a response to something at OTRS. Unfortunately there is no note of the ticket number to guide OTRS members to the complaint. Since the band clearly meet WP:BAND I suspect that we have no option but to undelete it and possibly permanently protect it but I'd like to know more about the OTRS complaint before opining. Just thought you would like to know that the deleting admin would have been working in good faith for undoubtedly good reasons. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a discussion of the COI edits here and the article was deleted a couple of hours after the last contribution to the discussion (which certainly didn't decide on deletion as a course of action). There is no mention of any commnication from any of the band members other than edits to the article (quite the opposite), and I have to wonder whether the article was deleted simply because it was 'causing problems'. I added a good source to the article and there's plenty more out there (e.g. from the BBC). The only area of dispute in the article's content appeared to be whether the current incarnation of the band are really Demob or not - certainly would not justify the deletion of the whole article, which ironically was largely based on information from interviews with the former member who it appears has been making COI edits. If anyone could determine whether there is a connection to OTRS that would be helpful - if not, I can't see any valid reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (upthread to preserve continuity) I have found the OTRS ticket - for those that have OTRS access the ticket number is 2008033110014755. The deletion appears to have happened externally to the OTRS contact although I would be surprised if Guy hadn't seen the ticket. I don't see any information there that would preclude us from having an article on this subject. Spartaz Humbug! 16:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rewrote a quick stub. If an administrator could restore the history of the any unproblematic versions it would assist the article expansion process. Catchpole (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought the idea was to reach consensus here before restoring or recreating the article? It is too early at present to consider such a consensus to have been reached.--Michig (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore immediately A blatantly incorrect speedy by the deleting administrator on the stated grounds of "Marginally notable, locus of an edit war since day 1, subject of external legal action over rights to the name, dispute brought here. Wikipedia is not the place for this dispute.)" DGG (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. Does not appear to have been deleted in line with the deletion policy and process. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion of old version and send it to AfD, the current draft asserts some credible notability, move it to the talk page before restoring the old version, and send the whole bundle to AfD to see if someone can confirm it and find sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be more productive to restore it and allow some time for it to be improved before taking it to AfD, tagging it as requiring more sources if appropriate. The article already had one good source. There are 3 articles from the BBC's website that can be used and the band are also covered in John Robb's book on punk. There seems little chance that AfD would result in deletion.--Michig (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; deletion out of line with policy. I don't see any need to jump at AfDing if it really has as many solid sources as Michig says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rob_Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 206.174.72.112 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Alright, I guess this is the proper way to protest what I see as possible over eager Wikipedia users with perhaps not enough to do suggesting that a particular article be deleted. The article in question is about Rob Knox who died yesterday at age 20. It is not at all pertinent that the article is a newer one. This is exactly what I mean by would be deleters running amuck. I am in favor of leaving that article alone. Knox did enough noteworthy things to deserve this mention. 206.174.72.112 (talk)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yunek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

article is relevant and meets criteria as mentioned on the wikiMusic page and discussed on GB's page. GB deleted the articleMusicMovesMe (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC) ==[reply]

The discussions have revealed that the person may be borderline notable, but the article as deleted didn't really assert particular notability. I'd be happy with restoration and userfication pending improvement. GBT/C 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the article so that I can re-edit it. MusicMovesMe (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Seconds From Disaster (edit | [[Talk:Template:Seconds From Disaster|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nominated by a SPA, and other people who said "delete" did not know. Deleted in bad faith. 122.54.93.104 (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Bbblock (edit | [[Talk:Template:Bbblock|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The original TFD alone does not appear to show a community consensus, as the only participant was the nominator. Upon asking for a reversal, the closing admin declined. This template was designed to be subst:'d, so will not show many incoming links, but based on the inbound links to it's image, there are estimated to be >1000 instances of this template being utilized. (I am not opposed to this being deleted if the community shows consensus for it, but if so would prefer to userfy the template as I find it useful. (Did not go straight to userfication as I did not want to violate the recreated material prohibitions of TFD.) — xaosflux Talk 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am the TFD nominator. My main issue with this template is that it is non-standard in format and doesn't give details such as how to request an unblock or how long the block is for. I would not oppose userfication if individual admins wish to use, it but as far as a standard template I feel it is inappropriate. Also, it was one for the standard 7 days and all notifications were followed, so I don't see how there was a procedural fault. MBisanz talk 07:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm not certain why the creator did not address these issues at TfD, but since no one dropped by to express a desire to keep the template, I'd surmise the closing administrator closed discussion correctly. MrPrada (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree that the nomination was originally uncontested, but argue that there was not sufficient consensus to bar this from recreation (which was done temporarily at first, but then redeleted as recreation). As to why I didn't raise this at TFD, I wasn't aware that this was at tfd, though being a prior editor of the template I wasn't notified (not that I'd be required to be), and as this is designed to be subst'd there was no automatic mass-notice or it's existing uses; it wasn't until I went to use it and saw it missing that I knew it was gone (yes I had it watchlisted--but have >1000 pages there so it's easy to miss one) — xaosflux Talk 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main argument for this either be reversed or re-listed is "new evidence" (my keep !vote) that had it been in earlier would have likely ended this in at least a no consensus closure. The confirmation I'm looking for here is less determinign if there was a deletion judgement error during the original TFD, but in enforcing the deletion against future recreation. — xaosflux Talk 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In no way am I opposed to permitting recreation, but when it comes to whether Nabla made the correct call, I believe he did and would have done the same in his position. How could we ask to him act unilaterally to keep? We'd likely see a DRV from the opposite perspective. I am reviewing the process used, not the material deleted. When I first saw this at DRV I figured it was closed before the seven day minimum, but it was not. I agree its not a perfect process, but as its currently stipulated, I still feel he made correct call. MrPrada (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation. My use of this template lies just in its non-standard idiosyncrasy. I use subst'd versions, modified somewhat to address various circumstances (anon IPs, etc.) if necessary. I agree it should (if kept) be further expanded to explain how to request an unblock and how long the block it describes is for, and will expand the versions I use accordingly. I don't see a problem the original TfD, which functioned as (even if it wasn't) a prod deletion. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second permitting recreation. It was different ... I used it mainly for short first-time blocks. If it had the information MBisanz said it should have, and was modified to stretch across the screen regardless of width, I'd certainly use it more. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore an example of what happens for lack of required notification. In the absence of a firm policy for removing non-standard templates of this sort, the discussions should not have been closed without some input. DGG (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, I wonder if it is just general TFD policy not to relist debates? If it were an AFD (where I work more), I would've expected something like this to be relisted instead of closed. MBisanz talk 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement by closing admin. The closing could not be more clear. The process on TfD is clearly stated, on the top of the page, «Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised». The discussion was over 10 days long, no objection was raised, the template was properly tagged by the nominator, his reasoning (that it is a substantial duplicate of another template) was accurate, and I agreed with it. Given that the deletion was a completely obvious one. Yet, as I stated in the above mentioned talk, I have no problem with recreating it as a redirect. I see no use in having multiple templates for the same use, but not being used to blocking vandals I may be missing something and as such am neutral on that issue. A couple of side notes: First. I regret that when User:Xaosflux undeleted the template (and warned me, which is fine) also added two TfD notices to it's talk page, one stating that the closing was a "contested delete", which was not true. Second, the TfD notification process may need some adjustment as in cases like this it may slip unnoticed when substing the template - Nabla (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main reason for this DRV is to seek relief from the restriction against recreation that was enforced (legitimatley via the letter of the policy) for this page. Of course to maintain GFDL of an active page this would best be accomplished via an undelete. — xaosflux Talk 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn when the entire XfD is one user, and a second user challenges this, then you do not have a consensus to delete, regardless if the challenge came up during the XfD time frame or not. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, or recreate as a redirect to {{uw-vblock}} to which it is redundant and inferior. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? if there are substituted versions of the template that appear of current pages aren't we obligated to keep the history of the template showing its development under the terms of the GFDL license? Guest9999 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of it in deleted contribs would satisfy the GFDL requirements for pages it is subst'd to. MBisanz talk 20:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would not, as we are to never assume that we can undelete a page. Deleted contribs could be purged at any time and without warning. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, the developers I've spoken with have said that deleted contribs will never be removed from the database, its not a GFDL significant template, there are no rules at TFD prohibiting the deletion of subst'd templates, and if we want to be really particular, I'll list the 4 largest contributors to it in a deletion summary and on the TFD page as there were only four significant contributors. MBisanz talk 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are diminishing returns for debating the GFDL requirements of meta-templates here, (or most any template for that matter) requiring a much larger audience before making a decision primarily on that basis. — xaosflux Talk 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually concerned about a GFDL argument here, but I was simply pointing out that we never assume that we can always just undelete pages. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody's taking the trouble to bring this to DRV, it's time to stop claiming nobody objected to deletion. May as well relist or recreate, no harm in more discussion here. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


24 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of British Females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reopen AfD I was actually in the process of clarifying my deletion nomination of this list when the admin closed it as speedy keep a few minutes after it was created. I'd like this to be reopened as I do not possibly see anyone looking for this list on an incredibly minor and trivial topic even per WP:LIST. I think it's at least worthy of discussion. Ave Caesar (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reopen AfD per nom. The AfD discussion was only left open for 13 minutes. I think that assuming good faith should have led the closing administrator to leave it open for a longer period of time. There are several problems with the list that the nominator may wish to note, which may not be insurmountable problems, but are at least worthy of consideration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD. Request made in good faith and I can't think of any reason not to allow it. As stated above, AfD was only open 13 minutes. I would suggest that the nom do the clarification stuff when originally nom'ing the article at AfD, in order to avoid these problems in the future, but that's a separate thing. I'm going ahead and reopening it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a note asking that it not be speedyily closed again for at least one day, so Ave should have some time to clarify. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine. You missed the AfD header on the article, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a list to be deleted, it has to be indiscriminate and unmaintainable. This list is neither ... it has a specific criteria for inclusion in the list and in my view, can be reasonably maintained--hence, my decision to close as a "speedy keep." I say this as someone who's !voted to delete several godawful lists in my time. Blueboy96 03:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD. The close was entirely inappropriate. Corvus cornixtalk 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD. Speedy keep close was clearly against policy; Blueboy's argument may be a valid keep argument but doesn't bring the AfD within a mile of speediable territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD closure was entirely inappropriate as a user giving their opinion rather than evaluating consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. No reason at WP:SK justified the speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent I'm grateful that Ave Caesar accepted my invitation to expand the delete rationale, and I have no problem with reopening so the discussion can run its course. Hooray for process. (I've already replied to Caesar's expanded rationale, while the AfD was temporarily reopened, and I'm happy to make this here my last comment on the matter.) Townlake (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen AfD closing an AfD discussion as speedy keep within 13 minutes of the nomination should only be done with obvious bad-faith nominations. Hut 8.5 09:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Tbagfamily.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted because "an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago" when in fact the image itself had a fair use rationale, and had been uploaded the same day it was deleted.

There are roughly 60 other images all deleted on the same day. I won't list them all for obvious reasons, but they were all Prison Break episode articles, so if you go to Category:Prison_Break_episodes the images are available in the histories of each article. You can also see them in the removing admin's logs.

Anyway, these are two links that I reccommend you read.

To put a long story short, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, an admin, mass-deleted every single image for the Prison Break episode articles because they didn't "support analytical commentary". Most of the articles just had one image, and that one image depicted a significant part of the episode. The admin didn't bother to notify any of the uploaders, but rather just posted a single message on the talk page for List of Prison Break episodes: "Since this is a bulk case, I'll spare myself the trouble of individually tagging and making notifications in every single case; I assume that people interested in the series are watching this page." I don't know if anyone saw their message, but no one replied until after they were all deleted.

If this is the new consensus for episode guides, that would be one thing, but I noticed there are several television shows which still have their episode guide photos intact. Either way, I don't think the photos should have been deleted without a consensus or proper notification, especially since a number of them had the proper fair use rationales and didn't violate fair use. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It isn't a specific element about episode guides, it's the general policy about fair use images: they cannot be decorative. They must be used to illustrate something that would be difficult for the user to understand with just the text. These appear to have been decorative. Kww (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, would you reccommend I nominate the image at Pilot_(The_Sopranos) for deletion as an image of Tony standing there doesn't "illustrate something that would be difficult for the user to understand with just the text"?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without hesitation. Kww (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I normally favor an image or two in an article about an episode, but that particular Sopranos example might not be so good. At the very least, the image should be unique to the episode in some way (as in, when you see the image you could reasonably distinguish which episode it came from). -- Ned Scott 05:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no excuse for this fair-use violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even see the images to begin with?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without seeing the images it's hard for me to say, but if someone is challenging something like this then I normally favor taking it to IfD. Is there a copy of this image off-wiki? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin's comment: About my motives in not doing individual notifications, see my discussion with Ned Scott on the Talk:List_of_Prison_Break_episodes page; I have nothing to add to that now. About the matter itself: this is, in my eyes, an open-and-shut case, bringing it to IfD would be SNOWish. There's no way any of these were legitimate fair use. Ned, if you say you "normally favor an image or two" but "at the very least, the image should be unique" etc.: I couldn't disagree more; that criterion is far below any reasonable threshold justifiable under our NFC policies. Actual (but routinely ignored) policy has always been there must be critical/analytical commentary. Being from a key scene is not enough; having a caption saying from which scene it is is even further from being enough. Analytical commentary means, you might use an image to illustrate something critics have said about the filming technique (characteristic styles of lighting, camera angles etc.), or about development in the visual appearance of a character etcetera etcetera; these analytical issues need to be explicit in the text, explicitly connected to the presentation of the image, and sourced. Encouraging people that they can routinely have one image per episode is dead wrong. First let them write something that actually contains analytical commentary, only then, if and when that commentary turns out to require image support, should you even begin thinking about images. (Logical side effect of this is that any article that fails PLOT will also automatically fail image fair use, as was the case here.) I also do not follow the argument that you couldn't judge without seeing the actual image. You see the text. Does the text contain commentary that requires image support? You tell me. (But I can of course undelete the image for an hour or two if people really want to have a parting glance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, to actually be kept I think an image should be far more than I described. My point was that if it wasn't even unique to the episode then.. like.. there's not really a chance of it being kept. That picture is just of Tony standing around. It's a reaaaaally bad picture.. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So could someone show me an episode guide that fits this criteria? Because I've noticed even featured articles like Homer's Enemy and Homer's Phobia would fail Fut.Perf's strict criteria.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Most TV screenshots are poorly used. The vast majority of them, in my view. I find the image in Welcome_to_the_Hellmouth is a positive example (where it is used down in the text, not the instance of the same image in the infobox). It doesn't just show a scene, it illustrates something characteristic about the scene, and the important thing is, the caption says what that interesting something is. This is one of the rare moments where I (who never watch American TV series) come away from an article feeling I've actually learned something about its subject. Death Has a Shadow#Original pilot also strikes me as okay, as it illustrates something analysed in the text, about changes in appearance of characters. But these positive examples are few and far between. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Louisville medical associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

valid objective article DonDon101 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Turaga (Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2)

Per my comments here, not a unaimous delete and marred by the participation of a ban-evading sock account. In this case, because article seems to have been redirected, why not as a compromise keep the redirect, but restore the edit history so that if additional sources are found it will be easier to improve the article accordingly? Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support history undeletion, but I'll also endorse the close (so, in substance, it'd be more like a redirect close) - I think the closure was correct because I think there is just enough consensus. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — For the record, this was the latest AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Although there is (just) enough consensus to delete, there's a reasonable concern that the effect of the sockpuppetry may have tipped the balance. Relisting will help to resolve any doubt about this. Jakew (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no qualms in this being relisted, if that's what consensus warrants. I chose not to re-list myself because even without the banned user's comments, it was the other arguments for deletion that were better grounded in policy. Had Le Grand Roi proposed to me in our earlier dialogue what he has proposed above, we could have just skipped this part and restored the history, leaving it as a redirect (and I'm all for doing that :) ). Guess we'll see what this turns up though :). Seraphim♥Whipp 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Several contributors noted that the article contained no references to reliable sources, failing the core policy WP:V at the very least. The two "keep" contributions, of which one was labeled as "weak" and the other was weakly argued, did not address this issue. The opinion of the banned user was not determinative for the closure. There's no reason to overturn the result, and therefore no reason to undelete the history.  Sandstein  20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Others noted that sources exist and just needed to be added. The article therefore met our core policy of being consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. The delete contributions were weakly argued and did not provide real reasons for deleting. Plus, four of five editors arguing to delete there hardly reflect the real consensus as if we assume good faith then everyone who worked on that article also must have thought it met our policies and should be kept as did the various editors who argued to keep just over a month ago in the first AfD. Not to mention the 3000+ people who visited that page last month alone. There's no reason to delete this article that benefits our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they had wanted to make their opinions known, they had the opportunity to do so and we cannot presume to know what choice they would make. I've nommed articles for deletion that I've started. Popularity does not equal notability. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not if they happened to not be online for the mere five days of the AfD in which only about a half dozen editors commented anyway. I have come across a number of AfDs for articles that I would have argued one way or the other, but closed before I could chime in (for better or worse, of course). For all we know, they may have been editing other articles only to suddenly find this article gone or more recently redirected. And again, there are a number of times where I've searched for an article that is suddenly gone and it turns out it was deleted in an AfD with a half a dozen or less participants meaning that I and who knows who else may have been able to add a new element to the discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist At minimum the history should be undeleted. The tainting of the AfD and the presence of sources which were not discussed in the AfD lead to a relist being the logical conclusion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I'm not at all sure the article should be kept, but it should have another discussion. Looks like all the discussions that User:Graevemoore engaged in will need to be reconsidered. His sockmaster Eyrian was banned and desysopped for admittedly using multiple socks, so it's not suprising that it's continued. DGG (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus gets judged against policy not headcount. The sock's votye added no value to the debate and the issue was a lack of real world sourcing that wasn't addressed by the keeping side. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is clear, even without the sock's stricken comment, whether you go by headcount or strength of arguments. Even the "sources" (a google search) provided by LGRdC are rebutted in the afd itself, to which I'll add, there are nine works of fiction, and one passing mention. Endorse. —Cryptic 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as proper for AfD2, but supportive of history undeletion. Userfy for Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles if he really believes the article has potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No harm in doing so. If it's meant to be deleted then it will be deleted. Wizardman 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs with city names in the title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Per my reasoning here, the discussion was marred by the participation of a ban evading sock account. Moreover, it was not a unaimous delete and even if there are more deletes there, it is not a vote. And the deletes were essentially just repeititious "indiscriminate, trivia, unencyclopedic" non-policy based arguments. As indicated, the article was in fact discriminate, even if anyone claims it's trivia, there are specialized encyclopedias on trivia, and unencyclopedic is an incredibly subjective term per Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Other comments were more of a cleanup or so fix it nature. In fact, whereas the deletes there cited no policies or guidelines, the keeps cited LISTS and our First pillar. In any event, we absolutely cannot just humor returning banned editors. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as deleting admin. The AfD's clear consensus does not change at all if one discounts the banned editor's contribution; there were on the order of 16 delete versus 3 keep opinions. Even though AfD is not a vote, if that many people think this content is too trivial and indiscriminate for us, it probably is. This is a querulous request.  Sandstein  17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus to delete per WP:NOT is obviously apparent, and since this was so prior to the involvement of the sockpuppetry, it is equally obvious that this cannot in any way be attributed to the sock. Jakew (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the fact that one of the many users who thought the article should be deleted was evading a ban is nowhere near enough to overturn the decision. Lists have to do more than being discriminate and having clear inclusion criteria, per WP:NOT and WP:LIST (which states that lists should have value as information sources in their own right, or be useful for navigation or article development - none of these apply here). Hut 8.5 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The combination of a user evading a ban endorsing deletion and the numerous other arguments for deletin just being repetitive and subjective claims is enough to overturn the decision. The article had clear inclusion criteria and therefore meets what Wikipedia is. The article provides a valuable navigation tool for developing articles on songs with city names in their titles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A consensus to delete was reached. The banned user's contributions were unlikely to have had any bearing on the result. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we agree that AfD is not a vote and is a discussion, then what we had in that Afd even without the banned editor was indeed merely a vote. The bulk of it was just a list of "delete as it's trivia" votes rather than interactions with each other or new original opinions offered. Now if we take the AfD as a vote, then okay, more editors wanted it deleted even without the banned editor. But if we approach it as a discussion, then the final comment was from the nominator who suggested, "we could turn this into a category. What do you think?" But it was closed without myself or anyone else actually replying to the nominator's suggestion. What kind of discussion ends in a question? Thus, the actual direction of the discussion was moving in a different direction than the previous initial repetitive deletes suggests and we did not get to see any response to the nominator's suggestion at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia does not have a deadline. If we operate on consensus then there's no urgent or immediate need to kill an active discussion just because five days are up. I for one would have been okay with creating a category and then redirecting this page to the category as the article was clearly created in good faith, was not a hoax, could be obviously verified, was not libelous, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing a deletion debate wouldn't have prevented a discussion from occurring. That could have still taken place between any interested parties. You can still implement your suggestion. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems logical that the discussion would have been better to just continue there rather than start anew elsewhere and if I did just follow the nominator's suggestion and create a category and then as I indicated above create a redirect, the problem is that once a page is deleted, some delete the redirects or whatever too as "recreated material" even when it's not necessarily the case. It'd be one thing if the nominator made the suggestion and asked the question and others just kept adding delete after delete, but we can't really say how the discussion may or many not have gone if given a few more days or what have you. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was clear that the list was an indiscriminate collection of information (and WP:NOT is official policy), and the "ban evading sock account" in question was the last person to comment, and thus clearly had no influence on the earlier commenters. --Stormie (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but the last person to comment sometimes has an inordinate effect on the conclusion--and in fact that was Eyrian's favorite technique, as mentioned at the checkuser case. But in this particular case I can't really see that it did affect the close. DGG (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is the discriminate article consistent with what Wikipedia is, an official policy, the last comment at the bottom of the discussion was from the nominator who wrote, "we could turn this into a category. What do you think?" A discussion should not end on a question and regardless of whatever people posted before that question, the discussion should have continued to see what direction the AfD would have headed in. Thus, the banned user's comments should be struck out or removed and the AfD should be relisted to actually reach consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, terrible list and clear consensus, irrespective of some irregularities. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:JayneMariePlayboy.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted for WP:NFCC#8 issues which was not too convincingly established in the discussion. The article on the subject was much improved since, and it is clearly established that the image has been a key event in the subjects life and is and a much reprinted piece of glamor photography by a notable photographer. It was reuploaded with reduced resolution and cropped to leave out nudity, thus conforming to other potential issues. But it was deleted again as G4, which I believe can't be applied here. Recreation is perfectly agreeable when there is significant improvement. I was not notified of the happening as User:NAHID, an user who has been following me around in a not too constructive manner, raised the issue by sending e-mails to User:Angr. I am perfectly willing to defend my case in an WP:IFD, as this appears to be a mighty defendable case. WP:NFCC#8 is a subjective issue and better applied through consensus, as opposed to polling or non-discursive individual judgment, but G4 is objective and I don't think it applies here. I perfectly understand the amount of hardwork and drama endured by image patrolers, but I also appreciate our guidelines, conventions and the subject of the image in discussion. Finally, when discussing, please keep in mind that no work of art is necessary for reproduction to know that it exists. The use of a reproduction is in increasing information value, depicting the likeness of a piece of work that has wide notability and/or circulation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • a glamour photograph by a notable photographer that appeared in Playboy would seem exactly the sort of image that is most unlikely to be defensible as fair use content DGG (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that because there's a prejudice or something? Or is there some other issue I'm failing to notice? A photograph, even if from Playboy, shouldn't be any different from a screenshot, say of a Golden Palm winning film, in status (unless we pull in morality or something) as long there is sufficient evidence that the image is notable enough to warrant an inclusion, and a non-inclusion would probably reduce comprehension. I have also got hold of a reproduction of another image from the pictorial, and it is from the the Brazilian instance. Incidentally it has a bit of non-English copy that asserts the mother-daughter connection and, in a boxed inset image, shows the mother as well. It also is inherently safe for work. Would that be more appropriate? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant differences between a film screenshot and a glamour photo would seem to be the amount of the work used (entire photo vs. one frame from a film) and potential to interfere with commercial use (nobody's making money selling film screenshots). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason fair use is being discussed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm not sure I understand the fair use rationale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure "the copyright owner would allow this image to be used as free content" is a part of the fair use rationale? May be my experience is misguiding me, since I have never seen that bit anywhere before. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any confusion. I understand now that you are trying to have this image included as fair use content, and not free content. Thus, the copyright owner's lack of permission is irrelevant. But in the last IfD discussion, it appeared that the consensus was that the image did not qualify as fair use content, and I would need more information about why it might qualify as fair use content in order to endorse its inclusion in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I was a bit on the fence about it, seeing there might be a weak, very weak argument for fair use insofar as the article does a tiny little bit of commentary about the style of the photographs (something about "vintage Southern context" etc.), and the image could in fact serve to illustrate that. But then again, it's quite doubtful whether that piece of information is really relevant for the context of the article anyway; it indeed seems like an afterthought tacked onto the article just so as to fulfil some fair use rule. It's an article about the person, not an article of photographic art criticism. The fact that she appeared in Playboy is certainly an important element in her life; how she appeared in Playboy (other than: with few clothes on) really isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that commentary necessarily excludes information on circulation and notability factors of a piece of work, and may include commentary on the content alone? Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Future Perfect, particularly his final sentence. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "His final sentence?" I can probably understand most of the argument here. But, "his final sentence" as a criteria for deciding fair use? Isn't that a basic example of simple lawyering? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong on that of course. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to say that the sentence "The fact that she appeared in Playboy is certainly an important element in her life; how she appeared in Playboy (other than: with few clothes on) really isn't" is the sentence which I think sums up the argument against restoration best. I am sorry if you misinterpreted or were offended by that. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracting nom. Grammar notwithstanding, the wrongest thing I wrote was probably "this appears to be a mighty defendable case". It doesn't anymore. Thanks people for participating (I have so often seen IFDs and DRVs lying around for eons!). I retract my DRV nomination happily. The community has spoken, and I can always (well, almost always) agree to that (though often not without a fight). Can someone close it now, please? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cindy (dolphin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Userification request. The article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy (dolphin) (after two attempts). I'm not aiming to recreate the article on Cindy, but I'd like to merge the relevant details and sources on his marriage to Human-animal marriage, which currently lacks inline citations. If BLP requires that Cindy's wife's name be removed, that's ok with me. Andjam (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tribal Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why is the Tribal Wars topic not able to be edited? There's nothing wrong with it; and many other games are on this website. All I intend to do is to write a reference here for existing players to read and understand. It would help both players and educate non-players. I don't plan to advertise the game or say how bad it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamdrenite (talk • contribs) 00:30, May 24, 2008

  • Note: Fix't DRV entry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the AfD and the article as they were a year ago, there was a considerable debate whether discussions of the game on game websites combined with the popularity of the game was sufficient. It might be time to have another discussion. Consensus can change, and the way to find out is at AfD., not repeated attempts at re-creation followed by repeated speedies. If it had been kept, there would have been at least 2 or three chances to re-discuss it to see if consensus had changed to delete, and the process should be reciprocal. I don;t know what I myself think on this in terms of a possible article, and Del Rev is not the place to discuss the underlying issue. /
  • Comment. Can the deletion history be clarified, and the proposed version for undeletion be indicated? As I read that last AfD, I would argue for a relist, there definitely was not consensus. But if we're talking about something else (a speedy etc), I would need to know the rationale. If we're just discussing permitting recreation... no problem there. MrPrada (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Previous deletions were valid and based on a lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources. If you'd like to start up a reference, there are plenty of gaming wikis out there that will happily take your information.-Wafulz (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closing admin evaluated correctly that established editors didn't see the WP:N being fulfilled at all, and didn't see any sources establishing notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment""" Alright then. I'll not argue with that. I'll just work on other projects then. -flamdrenite —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:The weather in London (edit | [[Talk:Talk:The weather in London|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deletion cited WP:CSD criterion G8. This page has been previously discussed at an XfD discussion where the decision was "keep". As such, it is no longer eligible for speedy-deletion and must be nominated to MfD. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. As far as I can see nobody has made any claim that this was a valid speedy deletion under WP:CSD. Nobody besides the nominator supported deletion at the MFD. Really not a close call here. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also suggest that MZMcBride to limit himself to wheel warring on one issue per day for the time being. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: A long time ago, The weather in London was used as an example red link. Following a conversation with User:CesarB, it is no longer used as an example of an intentionally red link. Its talk page was "mistakenly" nominated for deletion; there was an odd debate of sorts that revolved around new users being informed of the page's purpose when they visited The weather in London. However, as it is not being used as an example red link any further, it is simply an orphaned talk page. Furthering the strangeness of the deletion debate, no notice was ever placed on the actual page in question during the debate, which in my mind voids the outcome entirely. Anyone who watchlisted the page was disenfranchised from participating in the deletion discussion.

    It should be noted that if it were allowed to stay, it would be the only orphaned non-subpage talk page on the English Wikipedia. And it would be being preserved to document the previous status of its subject-space page, a status that has now changed. This, of course, would simply confuse the casual reader.

    I would have explained all of this to Rossami had he approached me and asked about this talk page; instead, he unilaterally decided to undelete the page, something that he seems to have a habit of. : - / I see no need to overturn this decision and take the article to MfD simply for process' sake. That's simply silliness. My apologies if any piece of this doesn't make sense – I wrote it while heading for the door. If it requires further clarification, please let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I regard the statement that "I would have explained all of this to Rossami had he approached me and asked about this talk page" as a touch hypocritical, as MZMcBride deleted this article two more times after Rossami undeleted it without posting to Rossami's talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to the most recent MfD discussion, the utility of this page has been discussed in the deletion log and on the text of the Talk page itself. (For example, [here and here. Sorry, don't know how to make that visible to non-admins.) It has also been tangentially discussed in the several deletion discussions about the deliberate redlink The weather in London. Rossami (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. MZMcBride has deleted it five times and it was undeleted everytime but the last, by two different admins. That alone makes it not a speedy candidate; this needs to go to MfD. I find the behavior here by MZMcBride reprehensible; I expect more of an admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete And de-admin wheel warriors... --Rividian (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave current one up.' And I guess speedy close, since it's already been recreated? I'd !vote overturn if it hadn't already been recreated, so we should just leave it. There's no reason to delete the page, since ANY speedy is inappropriate. WP:CSD states that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." So, unless the talk page was a copyvio, MZMcBride didn't have a valid reason to delete it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew_Jory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Ajory72 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ZuluPad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Note: if you want to skip the history of this article, please see the "Establishing Notability" section below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Version of New ZuluPad Page: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad

I make the argument here that ZuluPad is at least notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_wiki , and as such deserves to be listed on that page. I also make the case that since the original ZuluPad page was deleted on February 27, 2006, it has come to be a popular and noteworthy program, deserving of its own Wikipedia page. I have asked for a deletion review because "new information has come to light since a deletion", and while a new page could be created, user User:VanTucky will not allow the page to be recreated, ostensibly because of the original deletion decision of 2/27/06.

I will establish ZuluPad's notability in a bit, but first, some history: I added ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki (originally "Desktop Wiki", but the two pages were merged, and hereafter I will refer to both as "Personal Wiki") page in early 2006, and I created a ZuluPad page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZuluPad . The initial ZuluPad page was deleted because the application was deemed to be non-notable. Granted, it had been released just weeks before, so it was probably non-notable at the time. I exercised my right to challenge the deletion on Wikipedia here, but lost. I respected the community decision at that time to delete the ZuluPad page, and leave it listed on the Personal Wiki page. I did not try to recreate the page.

However, ZuluPad has been listed continuously on the Personal Wiki page since February 2006 until being deleted--along with a number of other Personal Wiki applications--by User:Thumperward on May 17, 2008 with this note: "(rm inappropriate external links; please add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles. move all screenies to the top for now)". By this point, ZuluPad did have its own page, created by a ZuluPad user (with whom I have no association) around September 2006. This ZuluPad user mentioned his desire to have a Wikipedia page on the ZuluPad forum here.

Anyway, since ZuluPad did have its own page at this point, I followed Thumperward's suggestion to "add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles". ZuluPad had its own article at this point, so I added it back. It seems worthwhile to note that this direction to only list applications with their own Wikipedia pages comes solely from Thumperward, and is not the result of any community consensus or existing Wikipedia policy. It also conflicts with the community decision to delete the ZuluPad page and "Merge into Desktop Wiki (which could have some external links) until it gains some notability of its own." -rodii. Somewhat interestingly, this decision to remove Personal Wiki applications en masse also removed VoodooPad, which according to the Personal Wiki Discussion page, is the inventor of the genre. It should also most certainly be listed here.

I attempted to re-add ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki page, but another user, VanTucky decided to delete the existing ZuluPad page, and remove references to ZuluPad from the Personal Wiki page each time I added them, claiming it shouldn't be listed because it didn't have its own Wikipedia page. I find the circular logic used here astounding. The person who deleted the page shouldn't be able to make the argument that Wikipedia should be purged of references to ZuluPad solely because it doesn't have its own page, and a decision to delete a page shouldn't preclude that page from being recreated at a later date, which is what VanTucky is arguing. I ask here for a reversal of the original deletion decision, so VanTucky will stop deleting all references to ZuluPad from Wikipedia.

Establishing Notability

Why is ZuluPad at least as notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed on the "Personal Wiki" page? A Google search for "ZuluPad" will net you 23,400 results, some of which are the following: 

Digg.com
ZuluPad appeared on the front page of Web heavyweight Digg.com, garnering 1,481 diggs:
http://digg.com/software/Personal_Wiki_Application_As_Easy_As_Notepad_It_is_FREE

Lifehacker.com
ZuluPad was "Download of the Day" on Lifehacker.com, garnering comments that found it simpler to use than Wikidpad, which is listed on the Personal Wiki page.
http://lifehacker.com/software/wiki/download-of-the-day--zulupad-190656.php

Northjersey.com
Saturday, October 13, 2007, "Better Living" - Peter Grad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 
ZuluPad was reviewed by Peter Grad, a computer columnist for The Record, a daily newspaper serving New Jersey. Unfortunately, with this being a print publication, a link to this article is no longer available, but Wikipedia policy is that references don't need to be immediately verifiable, as long as references can be varified by a trip to a library or a letter to the newspaper, which should be the case here.[reply]

FreewareWiki.com - ZuluPad Review and Author Interview
"The program is very small, fast, and easy to use."
http://freewarewiki.com/ZuluPad

Donationcoder.com Mini-Review
"Nice workflow once you get used to the program"
http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=8599.msg63081

Gizmo's Tech Support Alert - Best Free Outliner
"Its strong card is the ease with which you can create a set of linked and cross linked documents."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/dr/best-free-outliner.htm

BestFreeApps.com - Review
"In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s near perfect for my needs."
http://www.bestfreeapps.com/productivity/zulupad/

DownloadSquad.com
"ZuluPad delivers what you might expect - a very small and quick notepad with wiki functionality."
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2006/08/02/zulupad-personal-wiki-notepad/

TechSupportAlert.com - Freebie of the Month
"ZuluPad is the most usable implementation I've yet seen for Windows."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/issues/issue146.htm

IHateSheep.co.uk
"I’ve been using Zulupad for a couple of weeks now, and it’s quickly become indispensable."
http://www.ihatesheep.co.uk/articles/tag/zulupad

Sourceforge.net
http://sourceforge.net/projects/zulupad

Freshmeat.net
http://freshmeat.net/projects/zulupad/

Anyway, I hope I've made my case. At the very least, I strongly believe that ZuluPad should appear on the Personal Wiki page, even if User:VanTucky disagrees, but I feel that it should also have its own page here on Wikipedia. Omeomi (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia User Comments Begin Here --Omeomi (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From Jimmy Lee Shreeve (Aka Doktor Snake)
I have top-selling books out in the UK and US, and I write for national newspapers and magazines. I use ZuluPad and have from its early days. It's a useful piece of software. Different and very handy for any writer or researcher.
One thing is for sure, it needs to be listed on Wikipedia so others can easily find it. Much of the software you find on the web leaves a lot to be desired, even when it is costly. ZuluPad really is different and it's got to be part of any author or writer's software "armory"!
Anyway, the program gets the thumbs up from me...the world's most famous voodoo doctor ;-)
Jimmy Lee Shreeve (aka Doktor Snake)
http://www.doktorsnake.com | http://www.jimmyleeshreeve.com
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.227.157 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 May 2008
  • bernard from RunningWithBulls.com
Hi there. I am a telecoms engineer working for a well known telecoms vendor. I am inundated with information, tips, tricks, little bits of information that I have to remember to a) make my life easier, b) keep people happy, c) do my job effectively.
Since 99% of this information is proprietary, and therefore cannot be shared online, or posted to the Internet public (it says so in my contract), I had to look for somewhere to store these sources of information.
I spent 3 weeks looking for:
  • an application, an installable, easily movable wiki application for my computer.
  • an application that allowed me to link to other pieces of information, in the public Internet.
  • an application that would allow me to share the information via a web browser with my collegues, inside our company firewall.
Since I found ZuluPad I have used it probably 3-4 hours of my working day, and another 1-2 hours at home every day.
Every time I need to remember how to do a certain task, I look at the ZuluPad wiki index page and navigate to the link I want.
I have used it for taking notes, in the middle of a training course, while every one else write on a sheet of paper.
I get notes created in seconds, instead of minutes.
And since it is an easy markup language, I can export it out to HTML, and put the files in my webserver folder on my laptop for other collegues to use.
The definition of a wiki, from this very site states:
A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language.
This is exactly what ZuluPad is.
Stop the nonsense and put the ZuluPad page back.
If you think this is some sockpuppet speaking, please e-mail me: bATrunningwithbullsDOTcom and I will happily telephone you and explain the other ways I use ZuluPad Wiki at home.
Its a pity more software isn't as easy and as cheap.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningwithbulls (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2008


  • Koonaone. I found it disturbing to send the longstanding ZuluPad page link to an associate and have her report back to me that it's defunct. On investigating the matter I find myself here on this page and beyond being disturbed, I'm now perturbed, and confused as well. I'm not about to spend much of my valuable time learning the semiotics of wikipedias word usage but it appears that notability is a salient and recurring focus. Something that's notable is worthy of notice. something that's worthy of notice is ipso facto notable. I assure you all that zuluPad is worthy of notice.
In my work I am faced with the daunting job of describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined, that is intellectualy incomprehensible without a set of strong hierarchical classification tools, and that works in such a totaly successfully integrated fashion that it is clearly Required that we understand it ASAP. In contrast is my clear conviction that all things in ecosystems actually are interconnected to one extent or another, and that the very tools of analysis we use to view the systemic scale of nature, work against a true human apprehension of the nature of Nature. ZuluPad has proven to be a trusted tool in this never ending chore.
ZuluPad is one of the only true Brains in my data stream that works in this regard in that ALL inputs to the project wherever they are from, and whatever scale of significance they may have, are easily and creatively entered, and just as creatively assembled again in new ways. My own brain is allowed to do its processing work in its moment without the constraints of hierarchy and with full confidence that the data is not being lost in obscurity. Exploring the true complexity of the linkages between objects isn't marred by any necessity to maintain fiats of order external to my own vision of the day, yet the program faithfully returns my input and allows the vision of a future day to add, ammend, or even delete yesterdays vision. Just like a brain. I consider that to be worthy of notice in the modern arena of pondorous, constrained and generally business oriented applications.
It is true that the perceptual slant of a programmer, shows through in their software creations sometimes I believe, and there is an accent or dialectic in ZuluPad that is subtle and perhaps could be missed in a cursory examination, perhaps this is what's happening in this unfortunate case.
I have spent more effort here than intended, all I can hope is that the ZuluPad page be put back where it belongs. Thanks kindly Koonaone (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>Koonaone (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC) — Koonaone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Too much to read here, lots of opinion and thought. Please delete most of it so only the reliable sources and your points are presented, I don't want a history lesson about the article itself.--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see clearly at the end a listing of sources that substantiate the claim that ZuluPad is notable. If you want to skip the history, just take a look at that list. --Omeomi (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as outside the scope of this process. If you can manage to get a few lines into the wall of text above, you'll see that the editors are asking for content to be readded to an existing article (e.g., a content dispute), which is not what Deletion review is for (it's for review of deletions). If ZuluPad is indeed worth including in the article Personal Wiki, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page, hopefully in a much shorter form. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation He recognises that inclusion of computer programs on a list depends on articles, so he wants to be able to reconstitute the article--and include it on the list as well. The inclusion goes with the article, so the basic dispute is in fact over the article. The last sentence of the request makes it clear enough. I see the evidence presented as quite sufficient to permit re-creation. The AfD was 2 years ago. DGG (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that can be used to verify such an article if it were recreated. Do you want to attempt to cite an article with no reliable sources to be found? Because I sure don't, and recreating an article for which there is no reasonable possibility of verification violates our core policies. VanTucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not allow There is no source material on ZuluPad that meets our definition of reliability. Digg hits and review sites without editorial structure and professional fact checking cannot be used to verify an article. If an article cannot be verified in any way, then we simply cannot have an article on it. VanTucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:VanTucky has shown a consistent unwillingness or inability to actually check any sources prior to voicing an opinion, and frequently overstates Wikipedia policy. The Record--listed as a source above under Northjersey.com--is a print newspaper serving the New Jersey area. The editor of The Record (Frank Scandale) is shown on this page: The Record (Bergen County). As a professional publication, one could assume that The Record has at least as good an editorial structure as any other print newspaper. Additionally, the very popular Lifehacker has an editorial staff, listed on the Lifehacker Wikipedia page. What's more, the reliability page mentions nothing about a requirement for a source to have an editorial staff, so the online sources should be considered just as much as any other source. I'm left wondering if User:VanTucky has some ulterior motive in this assault on ZuluPad. Why haven't any of the other applications listed on Personal Wiki been forced to provide sources in this manner? --Omeomi (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lifehacker does not meet our reliable source criteria, and neither does a news article for which there is no evidence at all. Please provide a link viewable by all for the article, or stop mentioning it; we can't use an article that isn't available as a source. As for your comments on "ulterior motive", they blatantly violate our behavioral guideline on assuming good faith, and you need to stop that vein of discussion. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, in this case by preventing the creation of an article that clearly fails our requirements for inclusion and fact checking. That's my motive. I haven't taken a look at the other applications on the personal wiki article, but that is irrelevant to this debate. Noting that other stuff exists is not an excuse for allowing another policy violation to continue. VanTucky 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've provided no evidence that Lifehacker does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. And as for the print article, here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is exactly what I am suggesting: the article is not demonstrably findable. You've provided no title, date it appeared, or any other specifics beyond author and paper name that are normally expected to be provided for news sources if they are to be treated as sources. Besides, one decent newspaper article does not necesarily meet our requirements for notability. VanTucky 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I no longer have the article myself, but it was published in November or December of 2007, and was written by columnist Peter Grad in his "Personal Technology" column. I assume there are many libraries in New Jersey that archive this newspaper, and the newspaper could certainly be contacted for back issues. It may not be the best way to cite a source, but it narrows it down enough that it is certainly "demonstrably findable". --Omeomi (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sources like this suck; they're hard to find, and aren't terribly high on the reliable source level. If you aren't actually using it as a source, it's not actually being used a source, which makes it questionable to link, and if you are going to refer to it, I don't think it unreasonable to demand an actual reference, not search through November and December 2007 articles for an article you think is there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I know it's there, I remember reading it. The only thing I don't know is the exact date. However, I will do my best to find out exactly when it ran. Besides, how can both online sources and print sources suck? You have to accept _something_ --Omeomi (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The problem is not online or print; it's reliability. Newspapers suck because they're hard to find, and the articles are frequently written on a short deadline with no real second-checking of sources. Online is frequently bad because it's either not independent or it's one guy chattering on a blog or an email list, with absolutely no fact-checking beyond it feels right. But there are some excellent online references.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay, then what's wrong with the Lifehacker source? Lifehacker has an Alexa traffic rating of 1,826, so it is certainly not a small site, and the "Download of the Day" article was posted by Gina Trapani, who is the Founding Editor at Lifehacker, according to the Wikipedia Lifehacker page. I think I've posted a wide enough array of sources here to show the ZuluPad is at least notable. I'm not saying it's the most notable thing since the invention of the wheel, but it is notable. --Omeomi (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's what you're not getting about source material: how much traffic a web page gets (i.e. Alexa) or the source's notability have nothing to do with how reliable it is. Reliability is about established editorial structure and fact checking. Lifehacker has neither to a degree necessary to make it fit as a serious source. VanTucky 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Lifehacker has an editorial staff. What gives you the expertise to evaluate the quality of their editorial structure or fact-checking ability? Do you have a reliable source that discredits the Lifehacker editorial staff? And if all we're debating at this point is the notability of ZuluPad, it seems to me that the notability of the publication in question is certainly an important factor. --Omeomi (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (outdent) Guys, just lay off. Talk a walk, get some sleep, and come back later, okay? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation; I'd like to see the exact source for that print publication, but several of those links, like to lifehacker, and TechSupportAlert.com are moderately reliable sources. They aren't stunningly reliable, but they're sufficient. (I'd also like to say that I'd hold notability requirements for stuff like this fairly low. We need to know it's not vanity, but it's not controversial or potentially libelous.) The AfD was two years ago, and it seems there's been several new sources in that time, so I think it not too arduous to reAfD it if necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It seems to me everyone is missing the point. The speedy by VanTucky was proper because the reposted content did not contain any of the sources now asserted above; the repost did not address the reasons for deletion at AfD and thus was a valid G4. This user doesn't need anyone's permission to recreate the article in a form that takes it out of the ambit G4. To do that all that is needed is a new article that cites sources (note: a list of links in an external links section, is not citing sources). Doing this then renders the article not "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted," and thus not subject to G4 speedy deeltion. If someone then believes it's still not notable enough, a new AfD is the way to go. All this citation to sources here is time better spent writing the article in a proper form. Do it offline or in a subpage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of us can't see the reposted content, and I'm not sure that VanTucky wouldn't just speedy the new article anyway. DRV is the way you get this discussion of the range of one user versus one admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your speculation about what VanTucky would or would not do if some other set of facts was in front of us is off topic. VanTucky's use of CSD G4 was entirely proper. If the article is recreated in a form that no longer meets G4 and is thereafter speedied by any admin then a DRV on that improper speedy would result in an overturn.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe VanTucky's argument is that ZuluPad is not notable enough for any article to be created about it, regardless of how well written that article may be. That is why I have spent the majority of my effort on establishing notability here. However, if a draft article will help the process, I will begin writing one. --Omeomi (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reposted content is available in Google Cache here --Omeomi (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (see new vote below)Endorse deletion until draft is provided It seems obvious that the old version was correctly deleted. I urge the interested user to make a draft on his userspace using the sources he lists, for example by creating a page at User:Koonaone/ZuluPad, and then present the finished draft at DRV to see if it's worth overturning the original decision. Presenting an uber-long argument with a few sources is not going to help. Seriously, I care about the article itself, I don't care if your work consists of "describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined". --Enric Naval (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I would point out that this Deletion Review was posted by me, User:Omeomi, not User:Koonaone. That last sentence you mention about "describing prognosticatively" was not posted by me, it was posted by User:Koonaone, a user supporting the recreation of the ZuluPad page. My write-up ends above the line "From Jimmy Lee Shreeve (Aka Doktor Snake)". Some of the comments in the upper part of this page don't fit the standard Wikipedia comment formatting. I'd go through and reformat them, but I'm not sure if it is allowed here. I will begin to work on a draft page at User:Omeomi/ZuluPad, although the debate here has mostly been about whether ZuluPad is notable enough for any article, not about whether the article is sourced correctly. Hopefully nobody deletes my draft while I'm working on it... --Omeomi (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have provided a draft version of a new ZuluPad page here, for everyone's review: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad. Comments are welcome of course. --Omeomi (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we seem to have moved from a discussion about whether ZuluPad is notable to a discussion about whether factual sources can be provided for an article, I'll start adding more factually-oriented sources to my list of sources above. The Sourceforge and Freshmeat links are new. --Omeomi (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The present draft I think takes this out of CSD G4 speedy range; that it does not meet the standard of a page "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. " I also think none of the sources meet the standard of significant coverage in reliable sources and a new AfD will result in deletion, but that it should now be a subject of debate rather than a unilateral speedy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it as a redirect for now Endorse deletion no independient sources showing notability. The only independient source I can see is the Gizmo page and it only makes a passing mention as one more product of the same type that happens to have good usability. Things like download of the day pages don't show notability, IMHO, since they just happen to feature a different product every day, and give them a glowing endorsement, since they want people to download the product, see other un-critical posts by same author. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reassessment in order? I am new to this so I apologize in advance if I am not posting in the correct manner. To begin with the newspaper referenced above The_Record_(Bergen_County), has the second largest circulation of New Jersey's Daily Newspapers. The article in question that contains a review of Zulupad is titled "Best backup for a hard drive". It was written by Peter Grad "The PC Guy" in the "Better Living" Section on Saturday, October 13, 2007. The article is readily available to anyone with a Factiva or similar account (I am in the process of requesting permission from its author and the newspaper to reprint it in it entirety in a link here...). Here is a quotation toward the end of the article:

ZuluPad is the coolest new text editor to come along in a while. One feature separates this from the crowd: a simple link feature, which turns your documents into an instant hyperlinked system. Write about various topics, each on its own "page." Give a name that describes the topic to each of those pages. Whenever you type a word in future notes that matches the name of a page, the word instantly converts to a link that, when clicked, will bring you to the named page. Students taking notes in class, office workers jotting down information during a phone call, or anyone who needs instant access to stored information on a person or topic will find these hyperlinks extremely helpful.

. The author also notes that Zulupad is both free and available for both PCs and Macs (with an optional paid "pro" version for PCs). I recently listened to an excellent interview with the creator of the first Wiki ever, Ward_Cunningham, who outlines the philosophical underpinnings of Wikis in general This interview can be heard on the FLOSS Weekly podcast produced by Leo Laporte. Link to show ZuluPad embodies the spirit of programming that Mr.Cunningham espouses: it's simple, elegant, and powerful. As a last note, I would like to submit that ZuluPad has been enormously helpful to me in my work at Teachers_College,_Columbia_University, where I have used the application to organize the schedules of more than 60 academic specialists in their site visits to the more than 200 public schools in New York City. For anyone who has ever been hamstrung by the limitations of MS Access or Excel in creating layers of inter-related searchable data that are also easily understood by non-technical users, ZuluPad is a welcome breath of fresh air. Please let's reassess the deletion of the ZuluPad article. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.--Cyber Shepherd (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Shepherd (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) — Cyber_Shepherd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I touched the above comment to convert an inline reference into a external link. I also touched the wording of the link a bit. See, "ref" tags are usually invisible on talk pages and and discussion pages like this one, you shouldn't use them outside of articles, drafts, essays and policy/guideline pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. User:Omeomi/ZuluPad looks to be better written and more complete that the version which was deleted as a G4, but it still lacks reliable sourcing. The improved writeup of the software in the new article is almost 100% based on the maker's website and does not represent the opinions of any third parties. Having the software be approved by Lifehacker is worthwhile but they don't provide enough coverage to offer any actual content of their own that can be added to the article. (Lifehacker wrote about 40 words about it, plus they included a quote from ZuluPad's marketing material). The new draft of the article has 23 footnotes, nearly all of them pointing back to the maker's website. There's also the 40-word treatment in Lifehacker as another footnote, and the local Bergen County newspaper which apparently liked it but did not do an in-depth review. (The article was 983 words and was primarily about some kind of a backup tool, as the title "Best Backup for a Hard Drive" implies). The 'instant hyperlinked' feature that is mentioned above is common to nearly all wikis. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out that you say that the article doesn't represent the opinions of any third parties, and then you go on to list some of the third parties who's opinions are sourced in the article. And the links to the maker's website are used to provide factual information about the application, not opinions. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to reference the maker's website for things such as which operating systems an application will run on, and whether or not it is open source. --Omeomi (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Remark: Ah, so, this post on Zulupad forums is why we were getting comments from users of the program who had just registered an account, as well as old users who had stopped contributing for months. The post is very neutrally worded "If you feel that ZuluPad should have a place on Wikipedia, your comments on these pages would be warmly appreciated" so I don't think that it counts as WP:CANVASSing at all. They must have reused the post that announced the AfD on 2006, that's why it shows a 2006 date despite linking to the 2008 DRV --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitation of comments off-wiki for a vote like an DRV seems like canvassing. Do you think it's a neutral request, with the title ZuluPad needs your help on Wikipedia? EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've seen worse, and this one was done on good faith and asked people to comment and not to vote. I see that they have removed it now and apologized for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this is a deletion review, asking people who "feel that ZuluPad should have a place on Wikipedia" to comment seems like blatant canvassing for vote-stacking. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I doubt that the user making that post was aware of these finer points, or knew of the difference between AfD and DRV, that's why I see it as a good faith petition for help. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had the source for the article, why wouldn't I have just posted it rather than coming up with some sort of elaborate scheme of having a fake university professor post it. Go ahead and do a checkuser. In fact, please do, because right now you're accusing me of something without having any evidence for it whatsoever. I don't know Cyber Shepherd aside from his postings here. --Omeomi (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 May 2008

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

Should be simple: I would like to get the 6 images used at User:Quiddity/highlight search box undeleted. I ignored or got frustrated at the bot-messages last year, hence they were deleted. I would now like to rectify the licensing-tag problems, and have the images back, both as a historical record, and to refer to for a current situation (WP:VPR#Move the search box...). They all just needed {{wikipedia-screenshot}} to be added, and a sentence linking to the page they are being used at (to prevent retagging by bot), afaik. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the images noted in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Maximum Bob (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted for not having enough information to be a stub. New information is available about the topic and if restored, I can improve on the stub greatly. I cannot remake this article, for I lack basic formattiong skills necessary to do so, so an undeletion is necessary. Initially, this article only contained that he was a singer and listed the bands he did this with. I have found through research more information about his identity, a more detailed history of his career, information about his style of performance, and his contributions to other peoples work. I also have a photos which can be used for the article. (updated 4:52, May 26 2008) Ritzbitz00 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you listed or cited the new information. GRBerry 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message to the user to come here and explain the new sources --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that userfication is always an option as well--in fact, that seems like it would be the preferable outcome in this case in order to prevent a WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion. --jonny-mt 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Google TechTalks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The discussion was closed as keep, however, there was considerable controversy in the discussion as to whether this would have been an appropriate close. I believe at best it is no consensus and there was at least one other contributor to the discussion who wanted to see the debate continued for further review. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close The difference between no consensus defaulting to keep and keep is meaningless from a DRV perspective, both involve nobody pressing the delete button on the article. For the purpose of future AFDs, some people see a difference in how many months should elapse before another nomination, others don't, and we certainly don't have a beauracratic rule about it. Since it doesn't matter for any reasonable purpose, there is no point to this request. GRBerry 14:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a policy by precedent that when an article is kept as keep it is not looked favorably to renominate the article. When an article is kept as no consensus it isn't. I anticipate renominating the article in the future and would prefer to do it with the confidence that consensus (or lack thereof) was properly described by the closing administrator. Even better, why not relist the article for more comments? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Four !votes for keep, one for delete, seems to form the basis of a consensus to keep. A proper close by the admin involved. MrPrada (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see nothing to lead me to believe this was an inapropriate close. What policy was breached in this closing? I clearly see a number of people with valid reasons to keep. I only see one person suggesting delete and their case is no stronger than the keep cases that already outweigh it. So this is very clearly a keep. I also don't see where you tried to do the following: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look."-Djsasso (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Obviously I endorse my own close, but I just wanted to note a few things.
    • I could have been more verbose in my closing and noted that while the keep comments made persuasive arguments for the notability of the subject, the same could not be said for the delete comments--for example, User:Jok2000's oppose was based on an opposition to the talks themselves rather than the article, and so I discounted his opinion.
    • While I can't speak for other admins, I know that an article's previous AfD history only influences my decision in the most borderline of cases. My job is to determine the current rough consensus, and so it is up to the discussion leading to that consensus to determine whether any previous arguments should be overturned, supported, or outright ignored.
    • I only relist articles when I believe that insufficient discussion as to the merits of the article has taken place--that was not the case here.
    • Finally, I appreciate User:Djsasso's informing me of this DRV. While I can't guarantee that bringing it to me first would have been resulted in a satisfactory response, I (and all other admins) would still appreciate the opportunity in the future. --jonny-mt 23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I see as a correct application of rough consensus. The keep arguments were strong: the talks are reported on notable media (Slashdot, InformationWeek) and have had notable speakers like the founder of Linux Linus Torvalds and the founder of Ubuntu Mark Shuttleworth. Also, other arguments like that fact that the notability was most probably going to grow, and other arguments, were grounds to close as keep, and other editors seemed to agree or at least they didn't dismount them. SA was strongly opposing the keep, but he needs to address all those arguments first. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I strongly dispute the outcome of the previous AFD discussion, in which of my motives were questioned instead of the issues at hand being addressed, and that Falun Gong SPAs were canvassed to keep the article. Since the outcome of the previous discussion, the article has been abandoned for 4 months without any editing, and my attempts to redirect the little content left and merge the article with Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China were met with Falun Gong SPAs previously involved in an arbitration case. PCPP (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article fails WP:Notability, WP:ORG, WP:NOT#NEWS. According to [13], the organization is a "little-known non-profit organization registered in Washington, D.C.", "The CIPFG itself is barely a coalition in the real sense of the word. Founded in April this year, it has yet to attract other human rights associations under its wing. On its website, the CIPFG lists no partners.", and "admitting that the CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa".

This article was created by Fnhddzs, a single purpose account, and later HappyInGeneral, another SPA and admitted Falun Gong practitioners previously involved in an arbitration case, to make a WP:POINT and a WP:WALL about their group's conflicts with the Chinese Communist Party, who previously created several other such articles deleted by admins ie Clearwisdom and Yale Falun Gong club. My conflict and supposed "pro-China edits" claimed in the AFD by Ave Caesar, also know by aliases such as Nonexistant User, Strothra, and Veritas, are really my attempts to dispute the POV and Soapbox content added by these SPAs, in which my edits were often systematically reverted by Falun Gong practitioners because it does not align with their POV, resulting in several edit wars and content disputes.

A Google search shows 25,700 results, news search now only lands only 19[[14]], quite low for a supposed organization, and mostly coming from either trivial mentions or the Epoch Times, which fails WP:SPS. For months the article has not been updated with anything with long term notability, and lack of articles focusing on the group itself rather than its cause.--PCPP (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close as nothing to do here. The last AfD was in January. If you want the article deleted, put it up at AfD again. If you want to redirect/merge, then it's a content issue to be discussed on the article's talkpage or an WP:RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Close I missed that this was a January AFD. Agreed, it has been too long for DRV to decide to relist when it can just be done, and that does appear to be a keep consensus if there is any consensus. Overturning would be ridiculous. GRBerry 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was clearly to keep, administrator made the correct call. MrPrada (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This nomination is procedurally bizarre, as I am the closing administrator in this debate, which can be found here. The debate has been closed as delete. However, due to the potentially vast scope of the deletion, and the certainty of this review being opened, I have gone ahead and filed it. My closing statement is available on the TfD page and should be considered to be my formal statement for this debate as well. I realize this is unorthodox, and I believe I have correctly applied policy in this case, but the work required in undeleting would be very great indeed if my close were overturned, so I simply have not taken that step as of yet. I am personally uninterested in the outcome, so do not expect much participation on my behalf, it would be wise to contact me on my talk page if any more direct participation is desired. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some recommended reading:

I hope these are helpful. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was an active participant in the discussion, so I will refrain from endorsing the decision here. However, I do want to repeat some comments that are buried in the extensive discussion on the TfD page and might be overlooked. I believe that the "right way" to replace these templates is threefold:
    1. Add links to pages such as 2007 NBA Finals from the infoboxes on player articles
    2. Ensure complete rosters are included on all pages in Category:National Basketball Association Finals (as they are for the 2007 page)
    3. Ensure all player articles currently transcluded from any of these templates have complete infoboxes
    After all of this work is complete, then the templates should be deleted. I suggest further discussion take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Defiantly not disagreeing as I think all of the above should be done. That being said the rosters were already added by someone to all the finals pages. That being said they need beautification but they are there now. -Djsasso (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly dispute the outcome of this afd because I do not agree with some of the assessments made by the closing admin. First, the statement "Many of the keep arguments center around the fact that the templates are nothurting anything, and that they are helpful" is incorrect as I gave many reasons as to why the arguments made by the deletion side are invalid. An exploding numbers of this type of navboxes isn't really a valid reason at all per WP:NOTPAPER, a policy. I agree that the deletion side has not provide sufficient policy evidences to support their position. The only guideline they could provided is WP:EMBED, which I think is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, the keep side has made some strong arguments. I think WP:IAR will back that up because deletion of these navboxes is clearly not going to improve Wikipedia, but to do quite the opposite. IAR also tells us to ignore bad policy that prevent improvement (in this case is WP:EMBED). IAR is also a policy whereas WP:EMBED is just a guideline. This should have been an easy keep. Definitely not no consensus. —Chris! ct 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not to get into the same arguements as the tfd itself. But deleting the templates significantly improves Wikipedia and keeping them significantly hurts the encyclopedia. I think based on the huge amount of precedent in past tfd's and projects scopes that an WP:IAR arguement is not all that valid as there is significant belief in the community that removing them helps the encyclopedia and keeping them does the opposite so I don't believe you can state that it "clearly" will not help the project. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't apply to the exploding number of infoboxes as its not size that is the issue, its the massive number of insignificant links that end up on an article masking the truely relevant information. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to reiterate my reasoning because I already done that over and over again. All I will say is that WP:IAR is an important policy here in Wikipedia. Your negative response toward WP:IAR makes me think that you simply dislike this policy. If so, bring that to the IAR discussion page.—Chris! ct 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I believe IAR to be a great policy and think its important to have. I just believe you misunderstand what it is. IAR is for situations where it is obvious that ignoring a rule helps the wikipedia. What I am saying is that it is not obvious that that is the case as many people obviously feel the templates are hurting wikipedia. IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. This is definately not the case in this situation. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also many people who obviously feel that these templates are helping Wikipedia. You are right, IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. The current situation about these templates clearly fits that description and I have explained over and over again why that is so. I think the only reason this dispute continues is that the deletion side refuses to accept what is right and blindly follows WP:EMBED.—Chris! ct 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For Chrishomingtang and Djsasso, please note that deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision to delete. I don't think this continuing debate you are carrying on is appropriate for this forum. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this, but it is appropriate to point out that the closing admin didn't ignore their arguements is it not, which was my point? That is the point of DRV right? To determine if an admin did or didn't close a debate properly? Based on his comments he is saying the admin didn't close it correctly, I am allowed to put forward a case starting that he did close it properly. Ideally I would have prefered that no one involved in the afd would have comented one way or the other. But y'all have. -Djsasso (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I think it's ok to leave one comment and move on. Back-and-forth debate isn't helping. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually hadn't intended to comment again till you commented. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to continue any argument, but I just want to note that I know deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision.—Chris! ct 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Betacommand/Edit count (edit | [[Talk:User:Betacommand/Edit count|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This useful listing update of Wikipedians by edit count was deleted unilaterally by administrator, User:Mikkalai, without going through any process or using any of the speedy deletion criteria. The given reason was "blatand disregard of a bunch of people not to publish their names in such lists." Prior to the deletion, no request was made to User:Betacommand to remove names or add placeholders for the users who do not want themselves to be on the list. The similar page, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits has been kept in AfD three times in the past, the most recent being Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (second nomination). I think that there should at least be an MfD for this as there is no consensus that these listings must be deleted. Captain panda 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on nomination: I am one of the two admins who deleted the page. For admins who look through the deleted revisions, you'll see that BetaCommand reverted efforts to remove names or add placeholders. In fact he reverted them using automated scripts that label as vandalism these attempts at honoring the agreement of using placeholders on the original list. So it's clear that BetaCommand intends this list to be a way around that agreement. The fact that the list was kept at MfD is completely irrelevant: there's consensus to keep this list but under the condition that users can opt out of being listed. So if BetaCommand is unwilling to abide by that, he's way out of line. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fine argument for a MfD, but this is a DRV. Do you think the deletion was in line with our deletion policies? 1 != 2 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I see absolutely zero reason for it to be deleted, even after reading the above statement. Wizardman 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: No reason to delete it based on your personal opinion (without discussion @ MFD). I see no reason to delete it even if there was discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if you don't want your edits to be counted by someone, somewhere... I guess you shouldn't make edits. Seriously... there was no basis for deleting this page unless Betacommand requested it. Speedy deleting pages in people's user space is unacceptable unless there's an issue like a copyvio or an indisputable attack. --Rividian (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTCENSORED re-created you cannot censor pure facts. βcommand 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (or at this point, since it's been recreated, endorse recreation) - Did not meet speedy criteria, should have taken to MfD instead if they felt it should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Admins cannot delete things simply because they don't like them. Bring it to MFD like everyone else. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (or, per Vega, permit/endorse recreation; in fact, I imagine that one might close this as moot, with the provision that any editor might, of course, take the issue to MfD if he should like, but I suppose that we might do alright to wait for Mikkalai to confirm that, in the presence of a clear consensus that his deletion was improper, he consents to recreation and does not view the recreation as having been out-of-process) I'd not have imagined that one would need to observe that, inasmuch as administrators act only to implement that for which a consensus of the community exists, our criteria for speedy deletion are to be construed narrowly and that IAR and BB are, except in a very few circumstances (and surely not in any in which controversy might reasonably be expected to entail), not to be invoked relative to deletion (or, really, to any process in which only a subset of editors may partake), but it can't hurt for us to restate that principle once more, as we do here. Joe 04:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/endorse recreation per above. --Kbdank71 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn administrators should not unilaterally delete pages like this. --Hut 8.5 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, does not fall under any valid speedy deletion criteria and was not subjected to any deletion discussion. This was an inappropriate deletion. Arkyan 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria. Should have been an MfD. Celarnor Talk to me 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and format list properly at actual list page (with bots not numbered, as is our practice), rather than in Betacommand's userspace, as per previous updates of said list. Punitive measures should be taken against the deleting admin for abuse of our procedure. Badagnani (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on there...the deleting admin made a mistake, but mistakes just that: mistakes. Unless there's proof they did it maliciously (there's not), he shouldn't be punished...and regardless, this isn't the place to discuss it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and List at MfD. This one needs more discussion by the community. -- Kesh (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn, I see no reason this met CSD criteria. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn I think we have enough now for an immediate overturn. DGG (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Whoever cites NOTCENSORED on this needs a big fat trout slap. This is classical disruption and Mikka made the right call here. There's an agreement in place about removing the names of editors who do not wish to be on the list. You want to argue against that agreement? Fine. You want to go around it by violating it in user space? That's a no go. I wonder whether people arguing here are really aware of how many lengthy, painful, contorted debates it took to arrive at the placeholder compromise in the first place. You're supposed to respect that and not throw gas on the fire by just saying "I can recreate it in user space so screw y'all". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This did not follow the correct deletion procedure and it was clearly not a speedy deletion candidate. Woody (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, incorrect deletion procedure. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No policy supports this deletion. They are just statistics. Try MfD if you think they should be deleted, but I cannot imagine what the argument would be. This is a content dispute and unilateral decisions by admins to use their tools in this dispute is not appropriate. 1 != 2 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Overturn Deleting on sight is not the proper way to deal with things you don't like. It was in userspace, which makes all the difference in the world. If someone wants it deleted, send it to MfD and see what happens. Enigma message 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the only people who have endorsed the deletion are the two that have actually deleted it, I would say that a speedy overturn would be reasonable, but perhaps we should wait longer for an uninvolved dissenting view. 1 != 2 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that nobody arguing for overturning deletion seems to be taking into account that this page is essentially re-creating in userspace a list in a form that consensus has decided to avoid. Until people participating in this debate take this into account, the deletion shouldn't be overturned. I don't care if it's in userspace: you're not supposed to use that space to go around a painfully crafted consensus. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus you refer to was for the page in the Wikipedia namespace, a collective page. Something in the userspace is a different story. I don't think there was a consensus that people's edit counts should be blacklisted from the Wiki entirely if they ask for it, it is a consensus for that one page. Regardless it cannot be denied that this is a content dispute and that unilateral admin action is not appropriate in content disputes. Make your arguments at MfD, and allow a consensus to form then respect and follow it. That is how we handle content disputes. 1 != 2 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled that you would make this argument. Userspace is not your own little playground where you can place things that for some reason or another were deleted by consensus in other namespaces. We would never accept for instance somebody recreating BJAODN in their userspace. An agreement was made that editors who did not want their name on this list would have their names removed. This is even part of the closing note on the previous MfD. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN was a copyright issue, this is not. The closing comments say nothing about prohibiting creation in userspace, the whole discussion was no consensus. Who said anything about a playground? This is a page of statistics, it is not an attack on anyone. If people don't want their contributions to be noted, well I don't know what to say other than Wikipedia is a transparent system. 1 != 2 18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? You made that argument on the original MfDs. Fair enough. But that's not what the community decided to do. Now you're saying "screw the community, this is my preferred version of the list." This is unacceptable, and you know it. If BetaCommand wants to have this list, he can store it on his laptop. If he's placing it there so that others have access to it, then he's unilaterally deciding to disregard community consensus and setting everyone up for another drama-rich MfD where everyone will cut and paste the endless discussions on the matter that were present in the MfDs and on the list's talk page. And if you don't like the BJAODN example, it would be unacceptable to find the good'ol GNAA page recreated in userspace. It would be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material. In essence, this is what BetaCommand's list is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what MfD decides then fine... but no such decision has been made. 1 != 2 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is disruptive about statistics? Who was disrupted? The page is tucked away in a userpage, I fail to see how it can disrupt anyone who does not first go out looking for it, then choose to be disrupted by it. 1 != 2 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until1=2, I think it would be honest of you to disclose that you were one of the staunch opponents of the placeholder solution. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and my position remains the same. I don't see why I need to re-announce that I held this position before but if you want then okay: I have always though it was silly to censor public statistics. People don't own their contributions. Regardless this is a DRV, not an MfD. While a tenuous agreement was made on that page regarding that page's content, that is a far cry from a Wikipedia wide ban on listing edit counts. My primary point is that it is well beyond the discretion of an admin to unilaterally use their tools in a content dispute. I wonder what your past involvement in this dispute has been if any(I don't remember, it was so long ago)?
I really don't see what any of this has to do with my question about what disruption was caused though. 1 != 2 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption is right here, YABT (yet another Beta thread). I don't buy the you-had-to-look-for-it-it's-your-own-fault approach for a second, all pages on the wiki are public, none of them are tucked away. There's a lack of simple courtesy here, if members of the community don't wish to appear in the count, what on earth is hard about respecting that? Choosing the alternative of beginning a hairsplitting argument about who agreed to what when and how is beyond reason. It's disruptive because the community reached agreement on participation in the list and this is a new attempt to drag up the same old discussion. If the page is tucked away nowhere, what purpose does it serve? It's purpose appears to be making a WP:POINT. It can just as easily be maintained off-wiki. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to that is WP:OWN. If someone finds you contributions useful then you need a better reason than "I don't want you to use my contribs in that way" to prevent it. These numbers are a matter of public record, and there is no interpretation made. These are just raw facts being presented. I don't think any Wikipedian has the right to not have statistics aggregated from their contributions. And yes, userspace is different than Wikipedia space. One reflects the community, the other reflects an individual. I agree that the community can determine what is acceptable in the userspace, but no such determination has yet been made against this page. That really is my point, it is MfD that decides if it is inappropriate, not a single admin with a point of view.
The only point I see being made here is that people are so incredibly concerned with their edit count that they just can't stand to have it counted by people who happened to be interested in this public information. 1 != 2 02:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E3value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

First delete because the article was not neutral and lack of references. Second delete with no reasons because the article was corrected Pipo489 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from deleting admin. First and second delete (by other admins) last week were because the article was spammy. I deleted the article yesterday after this rather clearcut discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3value, where the only one wanting to keep the article was the author of the article. I redeleted the article today as a repost (CSD G4), since it wasn't substantially changed between the closure of the AfD and the reposted version (the only difference I can see is more text in the references section, no substantial changes in the content of the article). The references are all by current or former members of the E3 team [15], no independent sources have been provided. The reposted version was tagged for spam as well (by yet another editor), but tag was removed by author of the article (despite the bold "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" text). Fram (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt, correct closure, especially after viewing the google cache of it. MrPrada (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Correctly closed AFD, correctly performed WP:CSD#G4 deletion. Consider salting if this comes back again. GRBerry 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, salt if recreated. AfD closed correctly, recreation speedied correctly. Redfarmer (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse still no good evidence of the term ever being used except by the inventor.DGG (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good delete. Salt if the author is persistent in recreation. 1 != 2 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Boar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am doing research on undergraduate beer-brewing organizations and would like to request a copy of this article's source code be sent to me for review off-Wiki Spf7 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have e-mailed a copy of the article to this user. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ryan Dilks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe this article has been wrongly deleted and would like to request a copy to be sent to me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandilks (talk • contribs)

Declined. Patent nonsense. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake – A majority here would not have closed the AfD as delete. While this doesn't necessarily make the original closure incorrect, there are also developments related to and actually initiated during this DRV to consider: Another article version was recreated that owes content to the original one but addresses at least some of the issues raised in the AfD, and another AfD on related topics was opened and closed with "the impression that the community wants to cover sourced responses to major disasters" in some form. Together this amounts to overturning here to 'no consensus' as the most adequate interpretation for this particular stage of a consensus building process for this type of article. – Tikiwont (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is disappointing that this AfD was allowed to pass so easily, as the nominated article was nearly identical to others such as International response to Hurricane Katrina, International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Katrina even has a third layer (Canadian response to Hurricane Katrina, Dutch response to Hurricane Katrina, French response to Hurricane Katrina, Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina, New Zealand response to Hurricane Katrina, Russian response to Hurricane Katrina, Singaporean response to Hurricane Katrina, Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina) of notable articles, because there was simply that much quality coverage available. And while there were allegedly keep votes cast in the tone of WP:ATA, this is an essay rather than a policy. In addition, the same argument could be used to discount the opinions of those who voted delete, such as WP:UNENCYC.

A pie chart illustrating the number and ratio of those supporting and opposing the AfD nomination (as indicated in bold)

I do not appear to be alone in having felt that this AfD would not do Wikipedia justice. To quote one seemingly upstanding Wikipedian:

Without this article being separate, the original article (already with an aid pledge section) will become very long and unwieldy. Without this section at all, Wiki administrators may have to decide whether a new policy will have to be drawn up, for I suspect the international reaction sections were becoming something of a standard following events. If this deletion goes through, then this "consensus built standard" will fall under question indeed. I say "keep" doktorb wordsdeeds

WP:NOT#NEWS

I intend to demonstrate in the following word-for-word dissection that this article is beyond the written context of WP:NOT#NEWS:

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events."
  • The aforementioned article was not a "news report"
"News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own."
  • This was an event that claimed the lives of 40,000 people
"Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."
  • The article did contain "announcements" but they were arguably beyond the scope of this statement. In addition, the article did not have sufficient time to mature, as seen in essays WP:POTENTIAL and WP:INSPECTOR.
"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be."
  • All of the primary subjects in the article were either governments, international organizations, or major multinational corporations
"Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)"
  • Does not apply, the article was not about an individual
"Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."
  • This is not a restriction

Notability requires objective evidence

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage."

While this would appear to rationally disprove notability for Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, it could also revoke the notability of Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks by the same rationale, which presumably would be considered notable by a very large percentile of contributors. This policy is also circular in nature, as it traces its roots back to WP:NOT#NEWS which I have already attempted to disprove under these circumstances.

Final words

Before making a final decision on the status of this article, please take a moment to reflect on WP:IGNORE.

I would like to make myself clear that I do not seek to be disruptive in this request. While I cannot guarantee that this article is truly notable, it is my opinion that there should not be a double standard regarding notability of articles that relate to how the world reacts in times of disaster. I would also like to recommend that an official policy be created that directly applies to the subject, as this is an increasingly popular topic, and in the opinions of many, encyclopedic.

Please forgive me if there are any discrepancies with my provided rationale(s) or logic, as I prepared this in a hurry, and lost a bunch of sleep last night. This is below my usual quality standards.   — C M B J   23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, it really sounds like you're just upset because the discussion did not go the way you wanted it to; DRV is not AfD2. You attempt to discount the WP:ATA argument by stating it is just an essay (see WP:ONLYESSAY). However, this is not a valid reason to overturn a deletion. WP:ATA exists to point out extremely weak arguments which should be avoided in deletion discussions. Such arguments are not valid and are not constructive to finding consensus. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an equally weak argument. Finally, the decision of the closing admin does not preclude the creation of another article on the topic. It seems the major issue in the discussion was the type of article. At the time of the discussion, it appears the article was simply a list of various government agencies expressing condolences. If you can address the issues raised in the AfD, there's nothing preventing you from writing a new article. Redfarmer (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that I fully addressed the issue raised in AfD, being WP:NOT#NEWS. I was aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS prior to making this request, and while it is a weak argument in many circumstances, the aforementioned articles are not similar they are identical. I do not understand why you have opted to take an aggressive stance against me.   — C M B J   23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know why you're interpreting me as being "agressive." I'm simply interpreting the data as I see it. I did not participate in the AfD at all but it appears the admin correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion, which is what DRV is here to determine. Redfarmer (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason I suspicioned aggression is that you alleged that I was merely requesting this review out for emotionally driven reasons, and that "DRV is not AfD2." As you will see on the related AfD, I was not belligerent whatsoever. This is not an isolated topic, and a review such as this could help pave the way for an official stance on similar articles in the future. Further regarding WP:ATA, many opinions in both spectrums could easily (and perhaps rightfully so) be discounted by this essay. I fully understand that essays are illustrations and generally accepted interpretations of policy.   — C M B J   00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not say you were doing anything emotionally. I simply said I believe you brought this to DRV because you did not agree with the outcome of the AfD discussion, not because you disagree with the admin's rationale for closing the AfD or because you believe the deletion was out of process, which is what DRV is here to judge. Redfarmer (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • By "emotionally" I was referring to "it really sounds like you're just upset because the discussion did not go the way you wanted it to." Don't worry about it, you and I are both here to make Wikipedia a better place. I felt that this was the best outlet to bring forth the concern, perhaps it could achieve something like WP:OUTCOMES. If you feel that it was highly inappropriate of me to bring this to WP:DRV, I could instead expedite the subject directly to CAT:PRO or similar for consensus. (Not just about this article, but concerning past and future)   — C M B J   01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, no don't withdraw on my account. I'm just one person and I've been known to be wrong in the past. It's just my interpretation of the evidence before me; someone else may see something I didn't. Redfarmer (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, Redfarmer, are you citing WP:ONLYESSAY to show that WP:ATA should not be discounted? Since WP:ONLYESSAY is a subsection of WP:ATA, that's rather circular. Deletion should be decided based on WP:DEL. While WP:ATA definitely has useful advice to keep deletion discussions useful, it should not be used by admins to discount some editors' contributions to the discussion. Admins should make their decision on the points made in the discussion as they relate to WP:DEL. Klausness (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, I wasn't citing it to show that WP:ATA should not be discounted; I was citing it to show why I believe essays should not be discounted simply as "just essays" without a compelling reason to do so. WP:ATA may not be policy, but it does highlight some of the most common weak arguments which are used in deletion arguments both ways and asking to have a deletion discussion overturned simply because WP:ATA is not policy and the nom is wanting us to follow WP:IGNORE instead is a weak enough argument. Redfarmer (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And besides that, why shouldn't admins ignore invalid arguments? By that logic, if someone casts just a vote, we should count the number of votes, no matter how compelling arguments are on the other side, and go with whichever side has the most number of votes, since WP:ATA is "just an essay." Invalid arguments do not build consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course admins should ignore invalid arguments. But citing WP:ATA doesn't show that an argument is invalid. Bad arguments are ones that have nothing to do with policy or that are just badly argued. Klausness (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as there were compelling enough arguments to keep in the AfD that suggest a "no consensus" closure would probably be most accurate. In any event, certainly not a slam dunk delete and I don't think I've ever before seen such a thorough rationale in one of these DRVs that it even includes a pie chart! I'm tempt to ask if the initiator of this thread could make me pie chart I can add to User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to permit merging, even though I largely agree with the closing admin's rationale. While the "Government response" section most likely does not merit inclusion (the characterisation that it consists of a list of condolences is mostly accurate), some of the content in "Responses from organizations" should probably remain in some form (in particular, the information about financial and other assistance pledged to help victims of the earthquake). –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say, without being aggressive, that it does seem highly unusual that no move has been instigated to delete, for example, Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina, whilst finding this article so instantly disagreeable. That is not to say I am using WP:OTHERSTUFF, merely observing as close to an equivielent as I can find. I am of no doubt that the deletion was made in all good faith, but the deletion article showed a split in responses, rather than consesus. And as I have been quoted, may I back up my view that now one article on this matter has failed its deletion process, Wiki editors may need to review the whole process of international reaction articles and sections. A way forward on this bt posting in the Recentism article yielded no responses. doktorb wordsdeeds 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the closure was accurate, though I don't dispute that there are strong feelings on the other side and, of course, it's all technically sourceable. My personal objections apply to most of the other articles that CMBJ lists, although I'm less annoyed by lists of actual relief responses than to the condolence guestbook appearance of this article. "Oh, how nice, Eritrea stopped by." It just smacks of an international-level WP:MEMORIAL. If we could get away with it, we could put one or two significant or eloquent expressions of condolence somewhere in the main article, but it seems we instead get bulleted lists of every country's kind words, which serves little real purpose (did we think anyone would say something mean?). Anyway, I see no argument for overturning the AFD on process grounds. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, there was no consensus either way, debate should have closed as "no consensus". MrPrada (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I do not believe the closing admin misinterpreted this debate. Arkyan 13:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per Arkyan MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to Hurricane Katrina MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (and yes, I was the original nominator) - clearly the nomination provoked healthy discussion from both sides, and both had good arguments. However, the "keep" side largely failed to address the "delete" side's points, and its arguments, as the closing administrator noted, were not that persuasive. This is just one of those cases where administrative judgment has to come into play over the raw numerical count, and while I can see why some may be disappointed, I don't see compelling cause to overturn. Biruitorul (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist A clear case of non-consensus. Even if one actually uses the criterion of being part of formal history, its pretty clear that it will be. Impact on international events is pretty clear. Mick McN brings up the afd on another article which was kept, and yet he wants to endorse this deletion. DGG (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or at least Relist. It looks to me like consensus was tending towards "Keep", though it could also be seen as no consensus. In any case, there certainly doesn't appear to have been consensus to delete. The closing admin cites an essay pretending to be policy as a reason for discounting most of the "Keep" !votes. Klausness (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As quite a few people above have said, the AfD was closed just fine. The keep arguements were somewhat less than persuasive, and didn't measure up to the delete ones. I also can't see any reason in this nom to overturn, other than the nom disagreeing with the close. Personally, I agree with the closure, having perused the article. There's no reason we can't have an article on the subject, since it is clear that there is a precedent for doing so, but such an article should contain actual responses, not just "A expressed condolences" sorts of things. The version deleted was mostly the latter. There's no reason someone couldn't take the current history and remove all that sorta' content to have a decent and workable article right now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if there's no reason we can't have an article on the subject, then the article should be kept and edited. Articles should only be deleted if they shouldn't exist in any form, or if they're in such bad shape that fixing them would essentially amount to deleting the article and starting again. An article on a notable topic that can be fixed should be kept and fixed, not deleted. Klausness (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that a bad article can be deleted even if a different article on the subject might be appropriate. I'm fine if consensus doesn't swing this way, but if that's the case someone should still go through and thin the article down to actual actions. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No consensus means keep, not decide for yourself. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, totally inappropriate decision. This is a topic of very high notability, so much so that I find deletion almost incomprehensible. Everyking (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is extremely highly notable infomation because ...., because why? Why will it be needed 2 years from now, or 5?, or 10? Just what is historically significant about this information that makes it notable? In fact who needs it right now? Is it highly unusual for countries to give aid and assistance during a natural disaster? Or as I have raised in the related Afd above, is just the general topic title 'international response to {notable natural disaster XYZ}' just an inherently notable subject on it's own? Articles don't inherit notability from a parent article just because of their size. It strikes me this view is just a confusion of the concept of 'newsworthy' with 'noteworthy'. There is nothing really remarkable about the listwise recording by every single country of the number of aid packages sent, number of planes, doctors, donations etc etc, that can't be distilled to the most unusual responses, and a summary of the rest, in the main disaster article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and perhaps relist. This was a no consensus result, the article should have been kept. Additionally, editorial decisions such as splitting and merging articles are not really under the purview of the deletion process. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the absence of Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, someone has created a new version. The new article will require merging with the original, as the "international" label creates unnecessary discrepancies regarding the status of Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Tibet, and the Vatican.   — C M B J   03:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material. I don't know who created it, but they seriously need to wait for the conlcusion of this Drv. MickMacNee (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have contested the deletion. While the topic is the same, the content and format are not substantially identical. Moreover, merging/redirection is preferable to outright deletion in this case (at the least, the title is a plausible search term). Finally, although the creator really should have waited for the conclusion of this DRV, given that the article has already been created, I think we can afford to wait. If this DRV endorses the deletion, we can address the recreation then. –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This clearly goes against the deletion policy, how is it not a substantial copy?, it's taken less than a day to be created, it's clearly been copied and modified from the Afd'd copy, which is against policy. Anyway, its moot now because it would be patently stupid to Afd this one now, I don't think you've encouraged good behaviour here at all. Perhaps at close of this Drv we might have 3 or 4 copies to merge. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Compare the old article with the new article. I do not deny that the contents of the new article are similar to the deleted version, but they are not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Much of the 'useless fat' of the old version has been removed and there is not the same feel of a directory of condolences. If you (or anyone else) would like to restore the deletion tag so that it could be evaluated by an uninvolved party, or to redirect the article (at least until the conclusion of this DRV), I will not object. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as deleting admin. Instead of just referring to my closing comments, I'd like to address two points made here:
  • I did not discount some arguments based on the essay WP:ATA, but because they were ill-grounded in policy and precedent, as conveniently described in WP:ATA.
  • Also, my closure did not determine the topic as such was not notable. It determined that we do not need an article that is mainly a long litany of boilerplate condolences. I.e., all are free to recreate this article as long as it is not mainly a list of condolences.  Sandstein  21:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ace Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ace Hood has had a semi-successful single, and he is the first artist of DJ Khaled's music record label, We The Best Music. He is also scheduled to be on DJ Khaled's next album, We Global. Reference to his single: http://www.mtv.com/mobile/video/detail.jhtml?videoId=10142391&channel=&from=index You can also find his music video on youtube, by looking up "Cash Flow by Ace Hood". This is also his single: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_Flow_%28song%29 Y5nthon5a (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Unsalted per this discussion and request by User:Y5nthon5a —Travistalk 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kristi Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd just like to see what it was that got deleted, can someone restore a copy to my userspace unless it's total junk? Thanks. Rividian (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ResCare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article for ResCare was deleted. I would like the article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review. It was deleted with copywrite as the stated reason, but this article was approved by ResCare and is not copywritten material. I asked the admin to take another look on 5/2/08 and have not heard back. Rackfast

FWIW, I will point out that we do not delete articles merely because they are written by a staff member of the company, but we certainly advise against it. In practice, they rarely do a good job, & it ends up sounding like PR & gets deleted accordingly. If you must do it, put it in your user space and ask someone to look at it. DGG (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth pointing out that even if the copyright holder "approves" the copying from their website, they need to follow procedures such as those listed at WP:CP#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia to verify that they are, indeed, the copyright holder. Corvus cornixtalk 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close We don't restore copyvios. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Journal of Forensic Accounting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Trophy Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article does not meet CSD:A7 (failure to assert notability) guidelines. The article stated that the game has several thousand users in many countries, and had one external link to an external site. A quick Google search for "Trophy Manager review" finds several other web reviews of the game that could be used for references. I'll agree that the article that existed was more in the shape of a user guide and needed to be severly edited, but that's an issue to be addressed by cleanup, not speedy deletion. Gentgeen (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted until *specific* sources asserting notability are provided. Looking at the google search, I see a bunch of notable user-driven reviews that could have been started by anyone [24][25][26], but I don't see *any* published review from gaming sites. Compared this situation with the reviews obtained by similar games [27][28][29] --Enric Naval (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletor comment: While A7 was used, the notes also infer G11, as blatant advertising. I used this rationale as it was the previous deletor's primary rationale, and because claims of notability are irrelevant in advertising, because advertisers use facts and figures to promote themselves; this article's sources were ALL from its own website, with the exception of the TM record book, but that was only a Freewebs page obviously created by someone connected with the trophymanager.com site.
    Having said all this, I've since noted that the Alexa.com ranking is close to 10,000, with the majority of users coming from Saudi Arabia, where the site ranks #745. I will restore myself if another established user other than the nominator would like to see this through the long way. Arabic language-proficient users could possibly help us establish the notability of the site in Arabic-language website mentions. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Utah professional sports' frequent use of letter Z in team names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I feel that the admin who closed the AfD on this article with a "no consensus" verdict erred on two counts 1) the preponderance of discussion was to delete, and 2) if the admin felt there was no consensus, the discussion should have been relisted to gather more consensus, since it had not yet been relisted. The article itself is about a trivial coincidence regarding the naming of pro sports teams in Utah, and while there are a handful of sources with a passing mention of this "trend," it's not enough to merit a stand-alone article. Move for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As I already explained to you, relisting is usually used in case of too little discussion to reach consensus. This particular debate had plenty of discussion, just no agreement on what to do with the article, and continued discussion would have likely caused further disagreement between parties. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. It was a close call, and while an argument could have been made that the consensus was, indeed, delete, I don't think it any egregious error to close as no consensus. Personally I'd have agreed it should be deleted, for whatever that is worth. So I guess what I'm saying is, I suppose it could be overturned as delete, yes. Arkyan 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: 10 vs. 7 hardly constitutes a preponderance, particularly considering that the preponderance of the discussion beyond mere "yea" or "nay" fell on the side of keep. There were well-reasoned suggestions for renaming the article (as the name is its biggest weakness), which certainly could be considered once the AfD status is resolved. You say the -zz naming convention is a trivial coincidence, but how do you justify this position? If it were a coincidence, there would be large numbers of -zz teams located elsewhere... Can anybody even name three non-Utah sports teams in the world that end in -zz? Utah has eight such teams. It's not a big state, nor is it a coincidence. It's a well-known joke (or sorts) in the state. There is no evidence that the admin acted inappropriately, so let's move on... -Macuxi (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV isn't AFD part 2. The close was proper, and though the article is a little wonky, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it that would justify overturning a no consensus. Just relist it yourself if you feel it's wrong...that's the thing about a NC close, you can just put it right back up there if you feel you need to. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MyPartner.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
MyPartner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have been working on this article and rewrote it after it was deleted before. I rewrote it this last time and it was not speedily deleted and stayed up for almost 2 months. Now, it has been deleted for Blatant Advertising. My question is if this was an issue how did it stay up for so long? When I asked the editor why (since this was a complete rewrite), the answer I got was that it was deleted before. I don't think the page should have been deleted and what changes do I need to make so it is no longer deleted? Blm0303 17:06, 19 May 2008

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hank Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

precedence and notability can be established. I disagree with the delete and the admin lock on further creation because person's notability is growing and I have found on Ben Going's page that he has the same sort of evidence to back up his notability. Additionally, Ben Going's page indicates an Internet culture project, which Hank Green would definitely fall under. Admin's page indicated he/she wanted further discussion of this matter to be brought up here. Goddessofoddness 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the evidence, so long as it meets WP:RS. Corvus cornixtalk 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to be that they're coatracking references to his project in unrelated articles, see [30] for an example. SirFozzie (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference above has been removed. There are several other coatracks included by possible Single Purpose Accounts/meatpuppets Here's the last (2nd) AfD of this article.: [31]. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that those references are inappropriate and should be deleted, I fail to see how that relates to the content of the Hank Green article and/or the previous AFD's. Would you care to enlighten me? Much obliged. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless reliable sources are finally provided. There were no reliable sources at any of the two AFDs, so their closure as delete was correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion after two correct AFDs more than 'disagreement' is needed, say a good draft or at least a list of reliable sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The first AFD was absolutely correct, let there be no argument about that. I have my doubts about the second one, though. It appears to me that the arguments in favour of deletion barely address the arguments for keeping the article. I was under the impression that the AFD is a place to discuss and find out which arguments hold out and which don't, rather than to just vote and let democracy decide. It also seems that there are more sources than adressed in the 2nd AFD. Not having read the article (April 9-19th version), I can only assume that those sources were present, seeing as the May 6th version was speedily deleted under CSD#G4. If not, the May 6th version would have been substantially different, making a speedy delete out of line, with the same result. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i see, the second Afd already built somewhat on the first. Beyond general notability comments that summarily addressed the available sources, it was pointed out that the NYT mentioning is the only reliable source about him, and not an in-depth one. The rewritten draft has more citations, but mostly by Hank Green or by other bloggers. So i'd say it does not move sufficiently towards establishing notability via multiple coverage by independent reliable sources, which has been the main deletion reason in the second AfD and the G4 deletion is in order. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so so far only his contribution to the NYT[32] is agreed to be reliable. Do his contributions to Mental Floss (magazine and book) count towards his notability at all? I don't know, maybe a little. I don't know how much the following sources are worth, but as far as I know, they haven't really been discussed yet:
  • Mr. Green's website Ecogeek was named by Time one of the 15 best green websites[33]. I suppose Time is reliable, but I don't know how much that counts towards the guy's personal notability. Maybe a bit towards him as an environmentalist.
  • Hank and his brother John were interviewed about the Brotherhood 2.0 project for Fox News Mobile[34], but while reliable, I guess that adds to the notability of B2.0 and not so much Hank Green himself. About the same as the interview on NPR[35].
  • Hank Green was invited to the MLA's annual spring institute this year, to talk (along with brother John) about B2.0 and social networking in general[36]. He was also invited to speak at an event about social networking, in Missoula[37]
(How should notability under WP:ENTERTAINER be established? (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.) Would over 12 million views and over 27000 subscribers on youtube do, or is an unrelated source stating that needed? (Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.) B2.0 was a quite unique in the vlogging world, and it has inspired dozens of vlogging projects on youtube.) JoinTheMadVender (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I meant the other NYT reference [38] because it says something about Hank, albeit little for what is supposed to be a biography.. The other problem we're facing here is a contrast of cultures: while wikipedia is not paper, it still relies on the written word, so editors look for someone writing even about novel visual communication and spelling out that it is novel, unique and why. Something like a publication on the emergence of video blogging and its main protagonists. To establish directly the 'cult following' thing is indeed difficult, but in this case it was brought forward at the beginning of the second AfD but didn't catch on, so procedurally nothing wrong here either. Personally I wouldn't mind for now a redirect to John Green (author)#Brotherhood 2.0 project. Once there are articles on other projects of his and some more refs, it can still be expanded. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we got two reliable NYT refences that both tell almost nothing :P You're saying that audio and video is pretty much useless as reference (at least to establish notability) on wikipedia? Hmmm, in that case I'll have to agree that a redirect to John Green's page would be best for now. 213.224.83.20 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment is mine, forgot to log in JoinTheMadVender (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Channel_R (edit | [[Talk:User:Channel_R|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I had the page speedy deleted, convinced I had a local backup for my own archives. Turns out I don't. Duh [bangs head on keyboard]. Could I please have a copy e-mailed? Thanks. (Or restored, so I can take it from there.)  Channel ®    15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Miranda/userpage (edit | [[Talk:User:Miranda/userpage|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nomination in reference to miranda reason and ANI. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page was not an attack page. So it should be restored. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - not an attack page. The page doesn't degrade other users. miranda 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Miranda's wrong that her contributions are licensed under CC-BY-SA. They're dual-licensed under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA, and Nick and anyone else can choose whichever of those two licenses they want. Whether there should still be attribution under the GFDL is an entirely distinct matter, but I thought I'd just note this. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not with CC-BY-SA, since we are on the subject of wikilawyering. miranda 05:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? You must contribute all your contents under the GFDL first and foremost. You can dual-license, but anyone can choose to consider your contributions as licensed under the GFDL as they please. If you disagree, stop contributing. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I license my contribs under cc-by-sa 3.0. GFDL is a given. However, attribution is a restriction which requires people to attribute your work if republished as stated in the text. I didn't want to argue on that point with you anymore, because it's a waste of time. But, whatever. Listing users who have used your work for another purpose is not a personal attack. Yet, it should be seen as a compliment to the user who originally made the template, with or without attribution. Also, when the deleting administrator is a person who used your work without attributon, later deleting your page for saying that you had the idea first and gave rationale that the text "contributions which x, y, z, didn't attribute me for" attacked him because the text was not helpful for his wikipersona (presumably, that was the G10) and then leaving an uncivil message on the editor's userpage is a blatant conflict of interest. I will leave the argument there. miranda 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - the page was not an attack page; the deletion was inappropriate. Aleta Sing 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, no need for a deletion, just fix that cc-by-sa thingy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and drop the wiki-drama. Ursasapien (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did offer to restore the page at any point, all Miranda needed to do was drop the bitching at the half dozen users she's pissed off at. I've not had any contact with Miranda for at least 6 or maybe 9 months, but I'm not prepared to stand by whilst she poisons the atmosphere here and spreads lies and half truths about various users here. Nick (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your offer still stands, I'll close this DRV straight away. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and restored the page, without the offending nastiness directed at other users. I can't see any reason why Miranda wouldn't agree to undeletion on those terms, so I just went straight ahead and undeleted it for her. Nick (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:BIA (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:BIA|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WP:BIA was a simple redirect to a silly page in my userspace here. SWATJester deleted the redirect. When asked why WP:GURCH and WP:EVULA both exist and are not deleted SWATJester has refused to delete those, despite his statements on IRC (where logging is forbidden) that all vanity pages and redirects should be CSD. I believe a bit of levity is fine and appropriate and ask for the delete to be overturned. Bstone (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's a valid CSD R3. Second, it's an inappropriate use of the project space to redirect to a user page called "Bstone is awesome." I'll note WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not valid. Secondly, I did not say all vanity pages and redirects should be CSD's. Nor did I refuse to delete those two pages. But little things like actually getting my statements right must be too much to ask, right?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Does not qualify for CSD R3. It was created specifically as an acronym to the page it redirects to. R3 is for implausible misspellings and such. And just in case anyone may think I'm trolling, I saw this discussion in IRC, and WP:BRC was just closed as a snow keep. We allow project space shortcuts to userspace when they are not needed elsewhere. Lara❤Love 05:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Yes, it's a stupid redirect, but it's not an R3. If anything, take it to RfD. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As others have said, this is silly but not disruptive. Swatjester should make his case at RfD. Ursasapien (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy was not correct. Please nominate for RFD so discussion can take place --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If as I understand this was a redirect from main wikipedia space to user space, it was a clear candidate for speedy deletion, editor should be warned not to repeat such an abuse of how things get done here. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this redirect may well need deleting, but it should go through RFD not CSD. It doesn't count as an implausible typo. Hut 8.5 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as vandalism or testpage This sort of redirect is playing with the encyclopedia in a nonconstructive manner . DGG (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (the rest of them too), we really don't need a redirect to a random user subpage for every user, and I don't see why these would make for an exception. And I really don't want to start explaining to every new user why they can't have their own redirects, even if someone else has one and they think they're way cool. And if you think process is more important than not wasting people's time, overturn, send to rfd and cut and paste this comment there. Thanks. - Bobet 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If they are all deleted, without exception, then I would be sad but would withdraw the DRV. SWATJester deleted WP:BIA but when I asked him about WP:GURCH and WP:EVULA he stated he wouldn't delete those. It's SWATJester's inconsistency I am mostly concerned about. Him and I have had significant disagreements in the past and I feel him deleted only WP:BIA but leaving the other two alone was punitive. Again, if they all go then I'll withdraw the DRV. Bstone (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, yes they should all go, despite the original reasoning that led to the deletion. Either you have a redirect for every user who gets around to creating one, which seems totally pointless since the redirects don't actually help people in finding anything relevant (the next step is the "this user has 213 redirects into his userspace"-userbox). Alternatively, you can start dividing the users on whether they're important enough to merit a redirect from Wikipedia namespace, which sounds like the worst idea ever since you don't want to have any more stupid factionalism. - Bobet 22:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (and, if one likes, list at RfD) Hut (inter al.) has it quite right, even as I might tend to agree with DGG on the merits of the underlying substantive issue. Joe 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate Overturn. This is not a valid speedy under CSD-R3. Listing at RfD is also not the right venue for this, since there lacks an actual or valid reason to delete. The criteria is for Mainspace redirects, not WP: mainspace redirects. While I do see that this redirect, and userspace page is not very useful, I'd rather see this as a G7, whereby Bstone requests its deletion, instead of a drive by speedy. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't have redirects in article space to user pages. Period. Corvus cornixtalk 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirects into user space are inappropriate, particularly personal ones (as opposed to something actually being used for the development of an encyclopedia) --B (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment specifically directed to Corvus cornix and B. This isn't AfD or any other XfD. Endorse or Overturn is how we do this here. I'd also suggest pointing to a guideline or policy that backs up your claims. This is about making the correct decision in deleting the redirect, not personal opinions. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that vital information, SynergeticMaggot, I think I know how DRV works. Corvus cornixtalk 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Reasons_for_deleting says, You might want to delete a redirect if ... [i]t is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. Corvus cornixtalk 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. Please review everything above your delete response. This doesn't redirect from article space (mainspace), but wikipedia mainspace (i.e. WP: fill in blank), and doesn't qualify. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cross-namespace redirect. The same logic applies. Corvus cornixtalk 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thats incorrect. Article space is not Wikipedia mainspace. Please see Wikipedia:Mainspace and cross ref with WP:CSD. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - note that it's a blue link right now. So saying "delete" or "undelete" makes it clearer what you are advocating than "endorse" or "overturn". I am fully aware that this is about process and the correct process for dealing with redirects into user space is (1) hit the delete tab and (2) hit the "delete page" button. Problem solved. --B (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blue link comment acknowledged, I was going on the fact that it was previously deleted. But I'm still waiting for a valid reason to delete it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be spelled out in CSD R2. I see someone has added "article", which is a bad idea. --B (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was done in 2007 here, as it seems that plenty of other redirects are in fact used. Also, I'd like to direct you to LaraLoves recent redirect here, that drew consensus. Although this is not directly related, it serves as an example of these types of redirects being used, not to mention Gurches and EVula's. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm assuming you meant AfD? Even still AfD is not the place for the redirect. RfD is for redirects. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats probably what he meant, RfD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I meant RfD. I'm just too tired. Redfarmer (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With that I have agreed. I asked bstone to change the redirect to something more useful to the pedia a few days ago. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I propose that criterion for speedy deletion #R2 be amended to read as follows (new verbiage is underlined; parentheses denote explanatory material not in the text): "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space, and redirects to the User: or User talk: namespace from the Wikipedia: or Help: namespaces (should be deleted). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think swat made the correct call with R3 as opposed to R2--a narrow interpretation of it would show that it is implausible someone would type in BIA, and if they did, they'd likely be looking for something else. MrPrada (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:The-Incredible-Hulk--1-.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|)

See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_1#Image:The-Incredible-Hulk--1-.jpg. Images was decided to be free and is not copyrighted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. IfD was closed as keep and crop (I think), and the image was kept and cropped. Per WP:CSD, having survived an XfD means that it shouldn't be speedied. Probably a link to it didn't get put on the talk page, so I doubt the deleting admin did anything wrong. It might've been easier to ask him to restore it before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, agree that, having survived an IfD, the image should have never been speedied. List at IfD if necessary but restore. Redfarmer (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (see new vote below) Overturn, per Redfarmer's comment, if you think that it's still an unfree image, then list it again at IFD --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unless it will be used Reviewing the IFD and the subesequent history of the image page, the image was decided to be appropriate fair use; it was never determined to be a free image. It was deleted as an unused fair use image. Where is it proposed to be used? The fair use rationale on the image page was for The Incredible Hulk (film). It was removed from that article 10 April 2008 in this diff. Looks like valid deletion to me, but also one that should be overturned if it will be used in an article (with appropriate fair use rationale on the image page). GRBerry 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, it's not a "free" image, but a "fair use" image. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until it's explained at which article it will be used and how. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - let me explain this image, which I could swear I once saw at commons and that it survived deletion there as well. This image is, in fact, fanart, and was originally marked CC. However, it's very good looking fanart, so someone assumed it was fair use, and changed the copyright tag (I think I may have seen it somewhere on flickr as well). The image then got deleted. I could be wrong about this. A look at the deleted history should confirm the story. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's irrelevant whether it's fanart or not; the underlying character is copyrighted, so Marvel owns copyright in the picture, even if the author also has a copyright on the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, the history of this one is messier than I originally thought, but essentially what I said before when I reviewed the deleted history the first time. The original version was from this URL, which is no longer an image of the hulk. The replacement version was a crop from here. The image was never marked CC; it was marked with {{Non-free 2D art}} in all revisions. You may be remembering a different image? GRBerry 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I am. Has anyone who has actually seen the movies (cmon, there must be some geeks on Wikipedia) say if this is a photo still? I believe the site states it's concept art. So we can move onto: is any generic green character with hair automatically copyrighted? I would say it likely is, but I would like to get the obvious question of if this satisfies commons:Commons:Fan art. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Courts don't like it when you make a claim not in your legal interest (this is cocaine, this is the Incredible Hulk) and then try and take it back at court time. Generic green characters with hair aren't automatically copyrighted, but if you try and use one as a picture of the Hulk, then a court will generally agree that yes, it is a picture of the Hulk.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unless (or until) there is an actual intention to use it anywhere. While I can't access the original image, it was either the one resembling the Hulk that was only eligible as fair use or the other per the summary, that was copyrighted itself and IMO wouldn't have been eligible for fair use in the hulk article. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Magillem Design Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Magillem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
o The page was deleted thru speedy deletion process without any chance to defend my standpoint. Steering contributing companies for IP-XACT standard formalized by The SPIRIT Consortium had WikiPedia pages, except 2 (out of 15). Hence the creation of Magillem Design Services or Magillem page to fulfill this scarce.
o I didn't want to be the author of the article since the purpose of WikiPedia is to iterate on a page with different people and standpoints in order to converge towards the right description. This is the reason why the page was supposed to be simply created without lot of content. Hence the page was deleted breaking WikiPedia rules about notability.
o I reworked the page in my workspace and I'm pleased to submit this draft as 1st iteration of the company description, especially targeting their activities.
o There's external 3rd party references. I'm looking forward for other references coming from university fellows in the future to be recorded in the page
o There's a reference in WikiPedia on this page (since this page was created as a consequence of another page, this creation is hence blatant). Once pages for Public or Opened Programs (R&D, Academics, European, Standard) mentioned in the page are created, then they will reference the page as well!!!
o Public technical papers jointly written by this company and other big companies are linked
o Information comes from their web-site, but is not for commercial purposes since presenting Public or Opened Programs, then no copyright issues. I don't want to go in deep details on their products since they address commercial businesses I'm not really interested in. I will let other people writing info about them.
o Hope this will help to reconsider the speedy deletion of this page. Regards.
o Bertrand Blanc (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically I agree to read counter-arguments, and I'm pleased to answer, but please be fair and bona-fide. Even though sometimes answers are blatant, they need to be worked out. For blatant answers, please hence avoid blatant questions :-) Bertrand Blanc (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those is an independent source. Please read the guideline at WP:RS. Unless you provide indendent, neutral, third-party sources, then the article fails the core policy at WP:V. Corvus cornixtalk 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • May you please provide specific sections of WP:RS and WP:V violated by mentioned sources? As far as I know all these companies and standardization organisms are reliable, independent and verifiable sources, aren't they?
        • Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. How can items published on the website of the subject of the article be independent of the subject? Corvus cornixtalk 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where are self-published sources since coming from The SPIRIT Consortium web-site, and OCP-IP Consortium web-site i.e. independent 3rd source, reliable and verifiable.
            • According to the article in your user space, Magillem is a member of the two consortia. That means that they are associates, and their information is the same as if it were on the Magillem site. Corvus cornixtalk 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What?! Both consortia are independent non-profit organizations. Informations are reliable and verifiable: what else? They are steering members. The point was to prove that this company is notable: I think it was proved since mentioned on this couple of independent web sites (at least in this chat) i.e. these web-sites are not promoting commercial advertisements from the company paid by the company.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's lot of web-sites on the Internet providing advertisement from/for this company: I've never mentioned any of them because I agree they are fictitious notability.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The point was on self-published sources: per your pointer theses references are not belonging to self-published bucket. Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • If an article about this company is found, written by an independent reporter, it will be reported as a piece of evidence for notability: I hope everybody is aligned on this statement.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • About papers, they are freely provided from their web-site as joint papers with big reliable 3rd party companies: the fact the name of these companies appear has a legal meaning, names are trademarked and cannot be used without agreements between companies, which is obviously the case since explicitly mentioned. Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just added 3 other references to SoCLib, ICODES and SPRINT projects web-sites, mentioning this company in their partners, which led to joint papers with reliable companies.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the current version from user space. Reasonable show of notability, not hopelessly promotional. It does need considerable trimming of public relations jargon, but that's an editorial question. I point out, though, that each article is judge on its individual merits, and it is possible that of 4 firms in a consortium, some but not all of them might be notable. DGG (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right that the article should evolve, I'm sure it will be reworked, rephrased, basically get cleaned up
    • That's right that not all companies may be notable
      • The point about this item was that it rings strange that 2 companies out of 15 (contributing members of The SPIRIT Consortium) don't have any page on wikipedia. My purpose is to fulfill this hole for this couple
      • About the article in which only 1 company out of 4 doesn't have a wikipedia page. Other 3 big and reliable companies are competitors, it's interesting and not common that they wrote a joint public paper... I'd say thanks to the 4th one which is their common medium of communication, who found a way to combine efforts towards their common purpose beyond competition concerns. I like this behavior.
    • Thanks for the support and comments
    • Bertrand Blanc (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Sorry, but a partnership relationship with a notable consortium does not make this company notable, since notability is not inherited. Things like SPRINT probably have inherent notability because of how important they are, but one of its partners is not notable by itself. Notice that all the sources are just technical papers that show that the company has made technical work on those projects, but they don't show that their contributions were notable. Some of the sources are just stating that the company is a partner, but don't assert why this is remarkable. Additionally, so what if some of the companies on the consortium don't have their own article? Notability is not inherited from the consortium. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right that notability is not inherited, otherwise companies willing to get notability would apply on a notable consortium. And probably won't be accepted since their lack of notability. I believe Consortia are by themselves a good filter, because companies belonging to the consortium are their best advertisement to get other notable companies joining them.
    • About The SPIRIT Consortium, 16 companies are steering companies driving technical features of IP-XACT. I believe their contributions (from all of them) are notable otherwise who would drive the standard. 76 companies are reviewing members, emphasizing that some people have to contribute, especially the 16 mentioned, including Magillem Design Services, and SONICS (which are the only ones out of the 16 which don't have a wikipedia page)
    • If contributions in the papers were not notable, why does their name appear as co-authors among top-notch companies in the field? Once a joint paper is issued, this is not fair to assume which contributions were natable and which were not. I might counter-argue that they did all the job and contribs, and others didn't do anything just willing to have their names on the paper because they were from top-notch companies: who knows? What everybody knows is what is official and public i.e. references by reliable 3rd parties to Magillem Design Services
    • Bertrand Blanc (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I don't think that co-authoring a technical paper asserts notability when the paper is not notable by itself. About the consortium membership being a filter for notability, we don't know what criteria they use for membership. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and keep salted. The origional unencyclopedic advert masquerading as an article is Magillem, which I've added above. Was speedied deleted five times (including spam redirect), and more importantly (which has not been mentioned), was deleted at Afd and failed a recent deletion review
This topic has run its course, the article will not become notable by virtue of repetition. Repeatedly this article has been deleted by the comunity as both non-notable and unencyclopedic. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Magillem Design Services was renamed into Magillem which covers both the company and the platform technology (as mentioned in the comment for renaming): nothing was done under the table as suggested in the comment
    • Well, I'm confused, these arguments about notability, self-promotion and advertising have repeatedly been brought up thru last sections and each of them were answered accuratly. I specifically added a paragraph to have fair and bona-fide counter arguments and would be pleased to answer to all of them. In this section I read comments which are out of the scope of the mocked-up article I proposed: I don't know what other people posted in deleted article I never saw, I didn't take part in previous discussions, did I? I would prefer to refocus on the proposal here.
    • That's right that same things need to be repeated many times since they do fit WikiPedia rules for notability even though some people arbitrary state they break the rules without piece of evidence. I agree to have arguments opposed to mine, but in the same manner I give some piece of evidence, I would find fair for others to provide their piece of evidence as well.
    • self-promotion is out-of-topic here. Where do you see self-promotion or commercial advertising?
    • Product placement rings strange for a company only earning money with service, "giving" their technology almost for free. BTW in the article, products are only mentioned in the section relative to "products" (as all other companies)
    • why not speaking about the content of the article: R&D programs, Academic programs, Consortium involvments, ... which is an editorial issue out of topic in the discussion here to assess whether the company satisfies WikiPedia notability criteria
    • Bertrand Blanc (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Halloweentown (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

History-only undeletion -- currently a bad recreate, then a redirect to the wrong page.

According to the log, it has been speedy deleted twice recently:

Unfortunately, there are a lot of links to this popular film page. My 'tween nieces are upset. Although I don't know much about it, I'm sure it can be improved to the level of the other related film pages. I'm sick in bed this weekend, and I'll try to at least fix it to a minimal level using the prior content.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter deletion was correct (article contents were "This page is a bitch") but the earlier looks like reverse infringement. The content on episodeguides is an exact match for the Premise section of the version as of 15:12, 8 October 2007, except for formatting (which is badly lacking in their copy). The first revision (17:22, 20 July 2006) by Jakz34 is mostly the same, but the differences were added slowly by a number of editors over the intervening fifteen months (examples: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]). Overturn. —Cryptic 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being an administrator, I cannot see those Special:Undelete links, so I have to wait for the actual history undeletion. There are now more links to the page -- I've disambiguated a dozen or so "Halloweentown" disambiguation page references in the meantime.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history under current revisions. Request is reasonable and I see no reason to decline it or do anything more. It might be easier just to write a good version, though I can see why you'd want the history to do that. Drop me a line if you want any help. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination) closed as "delete"; however, I think it was more a "no consensus" per my reasoning at User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_major_secondary_characters_.282nd_nomination.29. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as deleting admin. No argument has been made why my closure was wrong. I'm not opposed to a restoration of the content so as to allow a very selective merger, once it has been demonstrated that there is consensus for such a merger. But the point of a deletion is to remove content from sight, and I don't see why the community's consensus for that outcome should not be respected here.  Sandstein  06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no clear or overwhelming consensus for deletion, though. As indicated many of the deletion arguments were weak and there were sufficient keep and merge arguments for a no consensus. A merge and redirect without deletion would be a fair compromise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm afraid I don't understand the nominator's (LGRdC) arguments re whether the closure was correct. The reasoning presented is presumably this diff, and seems to be that if a) the article is not a hoax, libel, or a copyright violation, and b) there isn't unanimous consensus to delete, then we should default to keep. Do I understand the argument correctly? Jakew (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Reading the discussion, I'm afraid I can't agree with LGRdC's analysis. It's true that there were some weak arguments, for deleting as well as for keeping. However, the strongest policy-based arguments, identified by the closer, seemed to centre on the redundancy as well as the "lack of secondary sources about the characters" (note in particular the influence of comments by Collectonian and Graevemoore on the discussion). This wasn't a straightforward AfD, but in my view the closer read consensus correctly. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When there are strong arguments to keep we have a "no consensus", not a delete. The two arguments you cite were actualy relatively weak. Claiming it's redundant with another article is really cause for redirect, not outright deletion. Claiming Wikipedia is a work in progress and that the article can be recreated suggests that it has potential and is also not really a reason for deletion. Many of the other deletes were outright votes or "per nom" in nature. If you remove those who therefore just voted add in those who worked on the article in the keep category, coupled with those who argued in the AfD in December that closed as Keep, then it is apparent that consensus in this case is not clear. Reasons for keeping include: AfD is not for cleanup, forks of this type are quite reasonable, and defined in WP:FICTION, it passes Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verfiable list associated with notable franchise; title even says "major" in it), etc. Thus enough valid reasons to keep that we have a no consensus, but all I am requesting is a restoration and redirect, which allows editors to see again if anything can be merged, have the ability to much more easier improve the article should additional sources turn up, and allow for editors' contribution history to this non-hoax/non-libel/non-copy vio article to remain public. Thus, whereas as I see plenty of benefits to restoring the article and then redirecting, I do not see any gain from outright deleting it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AfD should have been closed as no consensus, as per Le Grand's arguments. Article should be restored at least to merge relevant info to the main character article. GlassCobra 16:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — The Keep comments were not based in policy: they were either "It's useful" or citing sources that do not fit WP:RS (fansites). There's no need to restore the history, and I'm disturbed at the frequent requests of late to do so for articles that are not being merged anywhere. Per WP:BEANS I won't elaborate, but there are ways of exploiting this off-Wiki that seem abusive to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the keep arguments were much better grounded in policy than the delete arguments which were mostly of an "I don't like it" nature. Clear lack of definitive consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flatly stating that they were better grounded in policy isn't terribly helpful, LGRdC. Perhaps you could explain what these policy-based arguments were? You listed above some arguments based upon WP:NOEFFORT (an essay), WP:FICTION (a proposed guideline that, according to you, lacks consensus, so it is puzzling that you should now refer to it), and WP:LISTS (a style guideline). Where are the comparable arguments to those regarding a "lack of secondary sources" (ie., verifiability issues)? Jakew (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They may be essays and and guidelines, but at least they're valid. The thing is there are nevertheless no valid polcy or guideline based reasons for outright deletion. For merging and redirecting without deletion, maybe. For a no consensus closure, okay. But not for a definitive deletion. And flatly stating that the delete arguments were better grounded in policy, when I see nothing convincing to that end, isn't terribly helpful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus to delete, proper closure. Deletion Review is not AFD part II. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was clearly no consensus to delete and yes, deletion review is indeed a continuation of reaching consensus. Anyway, another reason to restore the article is that one of the participants of this AfD listed above has just been blocked as a ban evading sockpuppet of arbitration committe banned editor Eyrian. He commented at least three times in that discussion. As I do not think it appropriate that we should humor banned editors, I recommend relisting these AfD and perhaps at least striking his comments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 12 deletes to 6 keeps is a consensus to delete, period. "No consensus" should be reserved for cases where the !votes are tied or run something like 7-6 or 6-7. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe in a vote, but AfD is not a vote, period. "No consensus" is used whenever the ARGUMENTS are significant to suggest that the article has potential. In this case, one AfD closed as "Keep, Consensus is clear" and as for the second AfD, whereas the keeps had original policy baased reasons for keeping, the deletes were "per so and so" and in some instances did not even have a reason for deleting. Another delete rationale was a per the banned sock account, which means that the sock account did in fact influence the discussion which is simply unacceptable. Other deletes lacked seriousness, such as "Cruftwagon departing, all abbooorrreed..." which of course fails WP:ITSCRUFT, anyway. Otherwise the deletion arguments were that the material is duplicated, which just means we could merge and redirect it without deleting. Bottom line is "no consensus" was reached and the discussion was clearly tained by the sock's participation as in addition to needing to discount his comments, well, we would also need to discount the others who said to delete per him, which means in actuality it really is a lot closer to 7-6. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wallace Collins, Esq. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Valid page Hermit711 (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Please ,In both Talk and again in the page itself his Notability was expressed He has been the attorney of many people already listed on Wikipedia and has many Articles written about him in the Press. This was noted on the page i created and in the Talk about Wallace Collins Esq.

His whole family has been Lawyers and his Grandfather was a famaous Lawyer during the Prohibition years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit711 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC) --Hermit711 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Collins, Esq. 

      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wallace_Collins%2C_Esq.&action=edit&redlink=1>

His Notability is evident in that he has been cited in Major Newspaper and Music Trade Pubs, and he has made case Law in the Copyright and Trademark arenas.

Please look at his page if i did it wrong then i need someone to put a Wikipedia page up that knows what they are doing this is all very confusing to me.

http://www.wallacecollins.com/

Under his legal victories you can see the articles that have been reported on him such as; http://www.wallacecollins.com/la.html

Making Case Law

http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw5.jpg http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw4.jpg http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw3.jpg http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw2.jpg

These are just some examples. --Hermit711 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His Notability is evident in that he has been cited in Major Newspaper and Music Trade Pubs, and he has made case Law in the Copyright and Trademark arenas.--Hermit711 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as stated elsewhere i have put up just some of the Cites here also i have stated he was a recording artist and here is that information :

His band was THE DYNOMITERS They were featured in 16 Magazine and other teen magazines and got press in the trades we were signed to Epic Records in 76 the most notable song was "Rock & Roll President"

--Hermit711 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse: No assertion of notability, badly written, only 2 references, no internal links, no sections... Need I go on? (The notability and references are the biggest concerns)...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have listed His band i have listed the Song. I have listed just 4 of Articles about him there are more i would put into the page if it were still there. I have listed the page where all the articles i have for him are, all by Major Publications, The Times the Post , DMA , etc this is not enough? As to form yes i need help writing the page BUT the Notability issue is very well covered just in what i have written here, he is at least as Notable as his Clients, that are listed in Wikipedia. If you are saying it is bad writting on my part then so be it i have asked for help, and i was NOT done writing it i ran out of time. But i will take any help i can get, to do that however, i need the page put back up. And i do not Understand what is meant by Assertion of Notability His winning Cases alone cover that "Whoomp there it is" was a major Sampling case. And he was in a music group in 1976 as stated above is that not enough? --Hermit711 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Whoomp there it is" Case which i believe i provided links for in the original article was Notable it made case Law on Sampling in copyright and that was not the only one, and maybe his music group was not wonderful by todays standards, but then it was covered and He would not be the Only 1 hit wonder covered in Wikipedia. If i did not write the Article correctly, I thought i was following the guidelines and over a week or 2 figured i would get it right, there are people who will help me fix that. But his notability Can Not be questioned by your Own Guidelines, As a 1 hit Wonder he is Notable by Wikipedia standards, or many other pages should be deleted. --Hermit711 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:The Simpsons Opening Credits Circus Couch Gag.ogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Media DID contain the correct source and info, but was deleted under CSD I4 anyway Adammw (talk - please email me for contact) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and tag Did have a source, didn't have a bot-recognizable tag, and was processed by one of the image admins that deletes as if they were a bot themselves. The admin should have fixed instead of deleting. GRBerry 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:The Simpsons Movie Opening Credits.ogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Media DID contain the correct source and info, but was deleted under CSD I4 anyway Adammw (talk - please email me for contact) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Restore and tag Did have a source, didn't have a bot-recognizable tag, and was processed by one of the image admins that deletes as if they were a bot themselves. The admin should have fixed instead of deleting. GRBerry 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Googlefight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

An article of this name was speedily deleted yesterday. I did not get to see it and, as the topic seemed notable, I created another article of this name today, per WP:DRV which states, "It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted." My version was speedily deleted with reason A7. This seems inappropriate since I took some care to establish notability by stating that the subject is well-known and citing sources to support this. Please restore this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Deletion. Colonel Warden's version appears notable w/ two good sources. Malinaccier (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I had a look at Colonel Warden's version of the article and it had appropriate references to support notability. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Had enough sources for a stub. Wasn't a good candidate for speedy, especially under A7. Celarnor Talk to me 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I saw the older version that was speedied, and that was borderline on the assertion of notability, and completely unsourced. I was considering recreating it myself from the copious sources that are available and I trust Colonel Warden managed something that was far from the A7 range of things. In any case, if someone wants to contest the validity of a well-sourced article, the proper venue is AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Celarnor and Dhartung. Colonel Warden's colloquy with RHaworth, deleting admin, suggests that the latter may not have appreciated fully the differences betwixt the version that was speedied (whilst at AfD) and the version created by CW and may not have recognized that CW's recreation was not necessarily contrary to the result of the AfD (or, more accurately, to the A7ing) and did not necessarily require the consent of Malinaccier, the (first) deleting admin (who, it should be noted, consents supra), and so I imagine that he might, having had occasion to reconsider, and in view of the course of this discussion, dispense with the issue forthwith and undelete. Joe 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but must add a couple of independent references. If anyone thinks it needs AfD, then the AfD discussion must be allowed to run its full course. (Colonel W., you really do not deserve this after the ridiculous fuss you made on my talk page. What was your objection to talking to Malinaccier?) For an article which has been around for over three years closing the AfD discussion prematurely was quite unjustified. The site may be childish and trivial but that does not mean it cannot be notable. Googlefight has a reasonably respectable Alexa rank of 31,000 which is considerably better than Googlewhack which also has an article here. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why should Colonel Warden discuss undeletion with Malinaccier, who did not delete his version of the article, instead of yourself, who did? A7 is not to be used transitively. G4, perhaps, but there was no AFD on which to base a G4. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • NFL on FOX commentator pairings – Deletion endorsed, but userfy on request. Both the AfD closure and the G4 deletion are found to be procedurally correct, low participation notwithstanding. Moreover, the assertion that the deletion discussion got it fundamentally wrong and a relist of the discussion would be in order, hasn't yet found sufficient support either. It is rather being preferred to have the article reworked first. – Tikiwont (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NFL on FOX commentator pairings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As an admin, with most of my time dedicated to NFL-related articles, I believe A) the deletion discussion did not have enough activity to form a consensus and B) the reasons for the article's deletion nomination were not valid in terms of the article deletion criteria. Namely, the list was said to be unreferenced -- this only applies to notability issues, of which this article has none. I realize that citing other articles is usually not an acceptable defense, but in this case, lists like NFL on CBS commentator pairings, or more broadly, timeline-form lists and charts of announcers say, List of AFC Championship Game broadcasters), or a timeline chart of primetime programs through the years on NBC exist. I've never heard these lists classified as unencyclopedic. This is my belief as an admin. At the very least, I think a relist is in order. Pats1 T/C 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn/Relist low-participation AFD that just got it wrong. --Rividian (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a link to the AFD please? I seem to be missing it. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as deleting admin) - AFD had very little interest, but was unanimous to delete. No objection to a restoration. Neıl ☎ 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand how it can be asserted that the article has no notability issues. Has the topic of commentator pairings itself received coverage in reliable third-party sources? Regardless of whether or not the article is notable, it is not exempt from verifiability. This list, as well as NFL on CBS commentator pairings and List of NFL on NBC commentator pairings have been tagged as unreferenced for months (some since December 2006). No sources confirming the information in the lists have been provided other than unreliable internet message board posts. Are there any new sources available? Do the game broadcasts themselves count as the sources, and if so, are they exempt from having to be third-party sources? Khatru2 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fundamentally, the list is notable. In terms of verifying all the information on the article, sure, there may be portions that require some more rigorous research than others. Still, by cobbling together various biographies of announcers and other sources, the list can be formed (not all lists can are verified by a source that replicates the list in whole - for example, to produce an accurate final roster for 1997 New England Patriots season, I researched a great deal with web.archive.org, found old NFL gamebooks, researched through newspaper archives, and scanned player biographies -- it's not textbook, but it's being bold for the sake of information...the same with the radio announcer chart for New England Patriots that I put together. That's just the nature of things -- the Spygate article, most of which I wrote, is very rigorously sourced simply because you can find a lot more material on Goodell's punishment than you can on the third string inside linebacker for the 1997 Patriots). I think the article passes the basic notability and verifiability tests, as a moderate level of research would produce a list with a fair balance of good info and gaps; the issue of referencing every nook and cranny wouldn't really factor into this deletion review discussion, though. Pats1 T/C 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article does not need to reference a single list that has already been compiled. However, this article didn't have any reliable sources at all for verification. If it were at least partially sourced, I could better understand. Can you produce some of these announcer biographies and other sources that include the commentator pairings to see if it is feasible to source the list? Khatru2 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Jim Nantz, Greg Gumbel, Dick Stockton, etc. Dr. Z of Sports Illustrated also does a review for each announcer pairing - like this one from 2002, or this one from 2007. Pats1 T/C 12:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Absent some references. Lacking references is a reason for deletion if they are not present and no-one can provide any. last I looked WP:V required information in an an article to be verifiable. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for more participation. Given that one of the comments was " It's a good list, but it still needs references" -- that would be an argument for keep and reference, not delete. We dont delete articles for being unreferenced. DGG (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closing admin rightly closed an AFD that was unanimous for deletion as delete. That participation was low is not a justification for overturning the procedurally correct closure. There is no minimum number of participants required for an AFD to be considered valid. Otto4711 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A low number of participants at AFD has traditionally been considered a situation where some leeway is to be given if someone comes along with a good argument, especially if some of the arguments in the AFD went contrary to policy. Let's not forbid an article here ever just because of what 3 random people said a year ago... consensus can change, especially when the establishment of that consensus was very shaky. --Rividian (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, unanimous delete recommendation. Note that an AFD does not "forbid an article here ever" — while a recreation of substantially the same content would be speediable, a recreation with new and different content would not. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the original AFD closure correct? Yes, for a unanimous AFD it was correct. Was G4 deletion correct? Again, yes, the first 16 May version and the last version before the AFD are identical as far as I can tell, which since it was literally an undeletion is unsurprising. I can't object to a relisting, but what the article really needs is sourcing, and I'd prefer userfying if someone wants to take on that project. (And if nobody wants to take it on, this is fundamentally primarily an article about living people, and I don't like the idea of leaving those around unsourced for endless amounts of time.) GRBerry 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michigan Dogman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Michigan dogman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was an important article on the mythos, both Native American and modern, surrounding a legitimate cryptozoological oddity. 3 books, 4 websites, a short film, and an album of music have been devoted to the Michigan Dogman. The fact that it is a controversial topic is not adequate reasoning for its exclusion from the wikipedia database. 61.147.254.71 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Graphalloy – Previous deletion endorsed for lack of reason to do otherwise; the content can still be developed (e.g.in userspace), keeping in mind the need for independent sources and other indications below. – Tikiwont (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Graphalloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

continue_to_develop_with_new_content Ebenwalker (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'comment probably it is possible to write an article on it, if there are references from the technical press. I'll be glad to take a look at a draft if you let me know when one is ready. DGG (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2008

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

An administrator speedy deleted the following articles of head college football coaches from Prairie View A&M University. These articles are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football where the historical consensus has been to keep such articles. A similar discussion can be viewed here for another coach.

The administrator deleted 22 articles in 6 minutes (obviously not enough time to review them) without allowing for discussion. The administrator also incorrectly stated that the source cited was the school's home page when it was the College Football Data Warehouse. The administrator then stated that the College Football Data Warehouse is not a reliable source, even though our project has thoroughly reviewed the source and recommends it as qualified and reliable.

Person is notable, NCAA Division I FCS School head coach, sources are cited, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football consensus is to keep similar articles.

Let the discussion begin!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion was A7, which states: 

"An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content 
that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from 
questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability;
to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just 
give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web 
content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums,
software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If 
controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead"
James A. Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Ronald Beard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Haney Catchings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Conway Haymen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
James McKinley (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Henry Frazier, III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Cornelius Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Larry Dorsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Clifton Gilliard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Greg Johnson (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Hensley Sapenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Sam B. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Arthur J. Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Jim F. Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
H.B. Hucles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
L.T. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Fred T. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
William J. Nicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Hoover J. Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Alexander Durley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Theophilus Danzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)


Jim Hillyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Endorse own deletions, none of the articles contained assertions of notability or cited any reliable sources. WikiProjects do not have the authority to decide what is a reliable source, nor can they impose a consensus on the community. WP:OWNership in play too. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly sure how WP:OWN comes in to play here, except I did enjoy the part discussion on Wikipedia:Assume good faith that states "Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same." -- A step that the deleting administrator did not take. If there is any ownership in play, I suggest that it is on the part of the administrator making the deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious overturn all - This is a case of a bad judgment call. Each article said the person was a head coach of a college football team, which alone makes none of the articles speedy deletable as A7. Additionally, the College Football Data Warehouse is certainly reliable and is widely used accross Wikipedia, I have used it in each of the 50+ player articles I have written. Furthermore, the school's own website is the exact definition of a reliable source for who their coach is. It is a primary source so does not count as 3rd party coverage, but it is certainly reliable and relevant as an external link. VegaDark (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturnall articles. Speedy doesn't seem appropriate with past community (AFD) consensus to keep such articles. Notability is established and although all are stub articles, they have source(s). No problem to list at AFD. MECU≈talk 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Adil Najam – While there may not be a clear consensus to overturn the latest speedy deletion, there is agreement that the version now in userspace addresses the concerns of the original AfD at least partially and would thus not be a candidate for CSD G4 but should rather be discussed another time at AfD once moved to article space. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adil Najam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a reproduction.And Person IS Notable Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (The deleter asked that I post the discussion here, after argument in Conflict of Interest).
    I don't understand how my article can be a reproduction, when I never heard of the man before, until reading about Negotiation on wikipedia, and created the article from scratch from the first 100 or so google posts that I found about him, Including the links which are from neutral non controversial sources. I felt its a cultural war to eliminate this person, since my post was very short, and well sourced, with media of all sorts and locations showing credibility to the person AND notability. Still don't understand how it can be NN. In the deleter's talk page, and above I wrote the full scope of notability I found. This article was deleted three times. Once because written by the man himself, and seemed to be self promotion. Second time for NN (non notability). I was not able to see any of the deleted articles - would like to. But according to user:Equazcion the second was deleted because it was a reproduction! My short entry CANNOT be a recreation of the first entry. A few minutes after entering it, it was deleted. I then started searching to understand if there is any controvercy around the person or his sayings. I found that there definitely is, but could not bring any of it to Wikipedia, because it was quickly erased. I proved the man is notable! Over 100 entries on the web from various sources, including books, sayings in his name, by extremely notable sources. Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The G4 deleted article, like the AFD'ed article, contained no sources. It also mentioned no new claims of notability. In my opinion a sourced article would be significantly different, but an unsourced article is not viable here. GRBerry 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It had sources for each and every sentence originally there, because I got all my information from online source. Ragib is claiming that the sources about prizes etc are all self created. But his presence in the media and on the web is undisputable, and followed and remarked of, by many people. Pashute (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is indeed not a re-creation, nor was it written by the subject, for it leaves out a number of the things that might in fact prove notability. It was rather written quickly from the web, just as Pashute says, & needs some additional work. At the time of creation of the original article, he was Associate Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, This is a really important place, though it was just Associate Professor. Since then he has become Director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future [46], also an important place. I thinks its a plausible claim to notability and a decent article could be written. The original AfD was before I joined WP. The arguments there were not substantive--it was judged vanity, and not considered whether or not he might actually be notable. I dont think it would be deleted now, even without the subsequent promotion. WorldCat shows that he seems to be editor or co-author of at least 10 books, including ones published by Harvard University Press & Palgrave Macmillan & Yale. They had not all been published back in 2006. Restore, & I'll help Pashute improve it. DGG (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous Relist entries are worthless, Please tell us who you are! Pashute (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's hard to judge G4s without the benefit of seeing the deleted versions, so I won't try to. However, I would suggest that the nom work on a draft version in his userspace (at, say, User:Pashute/Adil Najam) so we can judge it by its own merits. The AfD was closed delete due to lack of sources, so the addition of some inline citations would invalidate it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I have temporarily restored User:Pashute's version at User:EdJohnston/Adil Najam, for reference during this discussion. I don't believe that this version overcomes the objections made in the last AfD. Najam himself I think may be notable, but I won't support restoration of the article until Pashute can present better sources than the ones mentioned here. Only the Globe article has much credibility as a third-party view, and it is more of a human-interest article. A second DRV after proper sources are found might be in order. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Thanks, please take a look at last thread on bottom.
  • Overturn, per DGG, original AfD was flawed in that the close was based on WP:VAN without attempting to verify WP:BIO. There were reasons to clean up, but not to delete. MrPrada (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion he appears to be somewhat notable, I found the original Boston Globe article and I added a bunch of stuff to the article. It still needs a lot of copy editing and sources for stuff like speaking in front of the UN. I'd have it marked as a stub. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enric means he added more info to the temporary restored copy at User:EdJohnston/Adil Najam. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(this thread was meant to be under EdJohnstons Comment, sorry) Thanks EdJohnston, but why is a video showing him talk at the UN, not enough. Anyways, Ragib, I understand that Adil Najam's resume at MIT could be vanity, but how about Najam on UN website? Are his reader lists and book sales and quotes not enough. How about MIT report about Najam Nobel prize as first name on the list?. Does that not make Najam CV creditable, and does it not make him notable. I must mention that personally after reading what he says, I DONT agree to a lot of it, and I think he is controversial, but thats not a reason to erase him from Wikipedia. Pashute (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find third parties that have commented on his work. The Boston Globe article is good. If we could find even a single additional in-depth article on him, that might tip the balance for me. His speech at the UN is a work authored by him, and that's not sufficient to show notability. You could search for *reviews* of his books to see if they are well-regarded by others. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Indian(!) news - or maybe thats the problem..., Here's his book in a Bradley University course sylabus!Pashute (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the interview mean anything? I myself have been interviewed several times by several newspapers ... does that alone make myself notable? Being in the class readings is also trivial ... several of my colleagues and myself have written papers or articles taught at 1 or more class lectures in several universities. Such random links does not prove anyone's notability. --Ragib (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you receive a Nobel Prize, and has a report written by you been endorsed by the Bush administration and written about in the Boston Globe? He obviously does excelent PR for himself, but thats what all academics do to save them from obscurity, and make them Notable. Pashute (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a fallacy to claim that Najam received the "Nobel peace prize". To give an example, in 2006, Grameen Bank and Muhammad Yunus received the nobel peace prize. Now, if someone claims that, all executives, officers, and owners of Grameen Bank are therefore Nobel prize winners, that will be entirely a misstatement. I was commenting on the "interview" and the "class lecture" you mentioned above, so please stick to that when you are replying to that particular comment. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the "MIT report" cited above is actually a flyer for a talk put together by "Pakistanis@MIT" and "MIT South Asian Alumni association". Not really any official "MIT" endorsement. --Ragib (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ragib, First of all thanks, I'm finding it real interesting. He was interviewed on CNN twice at prime time. He is mentioned in well established newspapers more than 10 times. In the entry I wrote: "He has earned a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other scientists on an international climate change council". In various newspapers he is depicted as a prominent member of the IPCC (especially in the various institutes where he teaches). You got me looking again at MIT. Your right, and I'll change that in the ref note, but still at MIT World site, the IPCC was invited to a panel, with Adil Najam as panelist (third on list) depicted as the Boston University Pardee Center director, discussing the future of IPCC, where he took the stance of actively perscribing solutions. Pashute (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston: Here's a book review from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2Z5FVKSO4GPGS. Ragib, I added "Controversy" to the page. Please take a look there. (fantastically, an Anti Muslim site claims he is pushing himself into talk shows without being a true expert). He is at least notable on the WEB, leaves a strong imPRESSion... to that you agree, no? Pashute (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reader review of a book on Amazon is considered to be self-published material, and can't be cited in an article. Please continue to look for reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Jersey £1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a test case (one of many similar images, none of them uploaded by me). This image, of a Jersey coin, was deleted with the note "CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago". It seems to me that either we do allow images of coins in copyright, or we don't. The justification will essentially be identical for all of them. Assuming we do allow coin images, it is in my view unhelpful to delete them just because the uploader didn't happen to get the exact form of wording that would satisfy a copyright lawyer. Since the deleter knew that that justification was inadequate, presumably he or she also knows the correct form of wording to use. It would be much more helpful, and just as quick (probably quicker), for that person to retain the image and simply copy and paste a standard form of wording into the rationale. I propose therefore that this image (and others similar, which I will identify) are reinstated, and that a standard form of wording is copied and pasted as justification for use. Matt 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

Well, this particular image was deleted because its fair use rationale didn't provide the name of the article in which fair use was claimed, thus breaching criterion 10c of the fair use rules. It has nothing to do with whether we do or do not allow coin images (as far as I am aware we do). Fair use rationales cannot be boilerplate and must be specific to each use, and it is the responsiblity of the editor claiming fair use to justify it with a rationale, not for those removing invalidly-used images to go and investigate whether there is a possible fair use claim that can be made out. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if images of coins are in general allowed, and the only problem is with the justification of use in a particular article, then there is no reason to delete the image itself, only the use of the image in that article. I understand what you're saying about the rationale being the original editor's responsibility. However, I personally wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to write such a thing, whereas I assume that copyright patrollers understand all this stuff and know what they're doing. If an image of a coin is used in an article that describes the coin (as was the case here), and we have decided that this type of usage is permissible, then I still maintain that it would be better for the copyright patrollers to help out by fixing the rationale (which should be no more than a copy and paste), rather than taking the nuclear option and deleting. Even more so if it's a trivial matter of an article name being missing from the rationale, which seems to be what you're saying was the case here. The sensible course of action is surely to add the article name, not delete the image. Matt 14:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.212 (talk)
... but, moving on from debating the rights or wrongs of what happened with the original deletion, let me propose the following.
  1. We satisfy ourselves that the use of the now deleted coin images at Coins of the Jersey pound, Coins of the Guernsey pound and Coins of the Manx pound (those are the ones I spotted) was fair use.
  2. We obtain some suitable text that can be used in justification, to be written by someone who understands what's required, or copied from another coin image.
  3. We reinstate all the deleted images, apply the new text, and repair the relevant articles. Matt 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Restore and someone do the trivial work of adding the missing information. Deleting in a case like this is process-wonkery carried to the extreme. (I don't like that word, and have never used it before, but there's nothing that fits better.) If the type of use is accepted fair use, except that the name of the article is missing, add it and go on. If other elements of the justification are missing, look for them rather than delete. Copyvio is a matter of substance, not of form. This is like deleting an article copied from the PD because the source was spelled wrong. I've avoided working on images because of the excess technicality and rigid approach of the people in that section of WP. The impression I have is that the people who actually real ly oppose fair use altogether are seizing on the least technical defect. DGG (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've posted a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use to recruit additional editors to join this discussion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restored. Now, go stick it in an article and write a fair-use rationale for it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carnildo. I'll need to go and enlist some help to ensure that the rationale is correct this time. I would like to request that the following similar images are also undeleted, for identical reasons, and with a view to repairing the rationale in the same way. The images appeared on the pages Coins of the Jersey pound, Coins of the Guernsey pound and Coins of the Manx pound.
Matt 81.152.169.18 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Help_needed_with_copyright_rationale. Matt 19:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
Done. --Carnildo (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Corey_Worthington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This person was part of a national television program so his name should redirect to the article for which he is famous for (Big_Brother_Australia_2008) JayKeaton (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs (edit | [[Talk:User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

References Added Commoncase (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Members, I have done a lot of work on this article over the last week, and I believe it is now up to standard to be put back in the main Wiki, as simply "Bloodstained Memoirs". I have included references to many, varied third party and reliable news sources, stated reasons for notability, and generally tidies up the article to a more polished standard. There are no instances of Crystal Ball knowledge, as all items stated in the article have been referenced either from the official site, or third party news sites (with interviews from the producer). Commoncase (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not all together convinced that the references there now constitute reliable sources, but certainly all the WP:CRYSTAL concerns are addressed, and I'm certain reliable sources will be available in the very near future. MrPrada (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and tag it with {{Current}} or with similar tag that indicates that the information may change a lot when the documentary is released --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put back as a main article. I believe this is a good page and should be put back up as a main article. The references are well known Wrestling related news sites.I can't see where anybody else is expecting references from considering this is a wrestling production? I feel this article meets all criteria. Arthur Cutz (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)— Arthur Cutz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Wait - Looking better, but it still reads more like a promotional flyer to me than an encyclopedic article. Better sourcing, though some of it (YouTube, blogs) is still not going to satisfy WP:V, and others (the Production section) are kinda overkill. The big thing is that it's still unreleased, which still puts this into WP:CRYSTAL territory. I'd rather wait until it's released, when some actual independent reviews come out. There is no deadline, after all. -- Kesh (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Alas... You state, "YouTube video" as being a reference. But this is not the case. It is actualy a highly respected wrestling news site reporting on the video as a news item. There is a HUGE difference here. Also, there are NO blogs cited as a reference. All aspects of WP:V are satisfied in this article. Although the film is not yet released, there are hundreds of films listed on Wikipedia which are not yet released, or indeed haven't even begun production yet. Bloodstained Memoirs is in post production on the other hand. Also, this should not be put into WP:CRYSTAL territory because there is nothing in the article which is not stated by the producers themselves!? Nothing is speculation. Kesh, perhaps you could state what you feel is unambiguously established? And lastly, you state you believe it reads like a promotional flyer? That's a very strange promotional flyer, what with listing technical camera facts, criticisms and production changes? Commoncase (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrestling website, not reliable per WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V. A lot of references in this article come from wrestling websites. D.M.N. (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're citing YouTube views as if it were a reference. That is no more valid than Google hits. And yes, some of those fansites are little more than blogs. It reads like a promotional flyer because of the wording: "The documentary acts as a celebration of wrestling" and other such statements that praise the work directly (not from third-party sources). -- Kesh (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If wrestling websites are not reliable sources, perhaps you would like to personaly take down 1000's of wrestling Wiki articles and have a riot on your hands... I believe this bogus claim should be dismissed. I believe this backwards claim towards wrestling is the reason we are all here. If this were a Hollywood movie, which had already been filmed with 10 well known actors, reported on by movie websites and interviews available in the written press, do you think THAT article would be up for deletion? We all know the answer, and we all know the score. Commoncase (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really should switch to decaf. You're taking this far too personally. Editing Wikipedia requires a thick skin, because you're going to get criticized. We're not trying to insult you, we're just trying to make sure articles here are written as well as possible. -- Kesh (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from personal insults. I am not taking the issues personally so please do not try to educate me on Wiki etiquette. I am stating I believe it is an excellent article, and have given reasons why.
    • I have responded to your above posting, highlighting your errors with facts and answers, to which you have given no response. Please do so (for all matters I have raised in the review) if you wish to continue in the debate. I even asked you personally to state what you feel is unambiguously established?
    • I also feel the above posting RE wrestling websites not being viable should still stand up as a bigotry and lack of understanding towards the subject.
    • You imply I am unable to handle "criticism", but I ask you, where in this review is any criticism towards the article of which I have not been able to logically answer? Kesh you stated some inaccurate points - that is not a criticism - that is a fabrication. I answered this calmly to shed logic and light on the situation, you ignored the posting.

Perhaps instead of personal insults and ignoring my points in the debate, Kesh, you will directly respond to some of the above in a constructive manner. Commoncase (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much worthy article.

I still believe this is a much worthy article. The people in support of the article have cleary given reasons which satisfy WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V. Also as the above entry states, the detractors of the article rely on a lack of understanding towards the subject in order to boot it, or have listed reasons which are infactual / mistaken and are not true to the article. I believe an admin should be able to see the black from the white when it comes to judgement, so perhaps we should leave the matter as it is, as I don't think anything more could be added which hasn't already been said? And personal attacks are tollerated, Kesh - NPA Arthur Cutz (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kesh, can you please stop stating things out of context to suit your own agenda. If you read the article, stating the YouTube views actualy acts as a criticism of the producers, stating many feel the video was planted. The quote "acts as a celebration of wrestling" is a direct quote from a PUBLISHED magazine interview with the producer, and is in context with a wider agenda, stating he does not want the film to be negative, like a groowing trend of other wrestling documentaries. Please stop taking things out of context to suite an agenda. Commoncase (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem incapable of having a civil discourse on the subject, so I'll bow out of this discussion. I have no agenda aside from editing Wikipedia articles, and I'll thank you to retract your baseless bad-faith accusations. My previous comments still stand. -- Kesh (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Article Kesh, I must side with Commoncase here, and I think he / she has been more than reasonable. All he / she has done is ask you to elaborate on claims you have made - which he / she has been able to debunk with ease - and so far you have made no attempt to do so. And still you continue with the personal attacks which is a violation of NPA. If you do choose to come back into the debate, could you please edit at the bottom of the page, as I know most readers in a delete review instantly home to the bottom of the page to read new entries and I fear some of your edits will go unseen. Arthur Cutz (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Aset Ka – Deletion endorsed. Consensus (from non-SPAs) is that the additional sourcing fails to be either independent or reliable, and thus the new version did not address the concerns raised in the previous AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Aset Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm filing this request for GustavusPrimus. She claims the article was incorrectly deleted; the original AfD closed as delete, as it was an unreferenced hoax, however, the article was rewritten with more references and images, but similar information. The article was then speedied under WP:CSD#G4, something the author disagrees with. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (as closing admin) The only new source offered in the recent draft is a self-published book on Aset Ka that contains much of the same unreliable and unreferenced material that was used to substantiate the outrageous claims made in the previously deleted article. As such, I consider the original consensus to still apply and have therefore speedied the new version per G4. It is worth noting that no draft of the article ever offered any record of physical evidence for the historicity of the order or any published criticism of the research that led to uncovering its existence.
  • Trusilver put it best in the deletion debate, "It's a hoax, and not even that good of a hoax. Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references. There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago which as far as I'm concerned put this clearly in opposition of WP:NOT#OR." ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn "There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago" - Although this is not true, it is not even a valid argument, because even if the organization is 3 years old, it still is a valid organization. We are not here to discuss its age. The Wikipedia article does not endorse any of the order's ideals or belief system, it works only as a reference to an occult tradition. The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books. The last book added as reference is an international publication, with an official ISBN number, readily available on Amazon and countless other bookstores worldwide. No matter how much we may disagree from the contents of the book or question the truth of their beliefs, as we can do with any other religion or new age tradition, it still deserves respect as such. And the existence of the tradition is verifiable. It is throughfully documented in an international published book, and addressed in several other books not published and nor endorsed by the organization.
  • The reason for deletion simply that the organization does not exist, being a hoax. And that is easily proven false. The verifiability of the organization's existence is easy to research and prove, only their beliefs are not and are not even the subject of this debate. The Aset Ka is an officially licensed publisher from Portugal, with the tile granted by APEL, the Portuguese government institution responsible to legislate those organizations. They even have their own ISBN prefixes and ISBN gamma intervals that can only be used exclusively by their organization, marked as an "Occult Order" on APEL's databases, which I verified myself with a phone call, which any of you can also make to verify it.
  • The article that was deleted one year ago had several misconceptions in the terms of their theology and even nomenclature, all of that was corrected in the new article. Just the former writer of the old article probably did not cared about it and did not even defended his writings upon deletion request in the last time. The new book added as a reference and source was even already available as of last year, and it was simply did not mentioned, which proves how the former writer was not knowledgeable and misinformed, compared to the new one.
  • On the top of that, 2 images were deleted and marked as copy of previously deleted material (CSD G4), which is clearly inaccurate, since none of those images were ever present on Wikipedia, or anything close to it, which can easily be verified by any admin. Also, both images were presented with full information, as well as copyright and under fair use, meeting all of Wikipedia requirements and the United States law.
  • So I really hope this review for deletion can be seen with new eyes and more of an open mind, instead of a biased opinion based on the author's claims. GustavusPrimus (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any information on the order that is not published by the order itself? Every claim about the order comes from either its website, self-published book about a bible of dubious authenticity, or (apparently) its sole founder/historian. Wikipedia articles may not rely entirely on primary sources. BTW, the two images were deleted simply because they appeared in the article. Their copyright information and fair use claims were indeed in order. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "bible" is not of dubious authenticity, you are interpreting it wrong. It is never said, in any place, that the "bible" is an old book. It is merely a book name, Asetian Bible. The book is said as written recently, that is even explained on the book's introduction, that is freely available, without the need of buying the book. So there are no false claims in there, the book is merely a work that describes their religion, tradition, beliefs and tenets. It is not supposed to be any ancient work now finally published, and therefore having a "dubious authenticity" as you stated. As for the self-publishing, the book was first even announced as from other independent publisher, but in the end it was published under Aset Ka's name, I believe that it was because of a copyright issue that arose, according to my resources. But personally I don't even believe this is the point, considering all the other arguments that I have used. As for other information available that is not created by the order, there are several things, that if properly researched can be used to validate it, as the TV documentary for example. GustavusPrimus (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bible purports an "Asetian tradition" that clearly does not exist. It discusses lineages and hierarchies and quasi-historical connections to ancient Egypt without any shred of proof. This can be said without even delving into the various nutball claims about vampirism made in the source text and its analysis. Aset Ka appears to be a ready-made movement, except it has no verifiable history or constituency of followers, and it promotes itself as a "secret order" (note the logical inconsistency of that last part). In that sense, it is a hoax. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, very wrong argument, ultimately mistaken and biased. The tradition does exist and is fully explained in the published book. Their reference to Lineages, is explained in the book that it is NOT a hierarchy or ANY historical connection. It is not related with like our concept of a bloodline, or any genetic connection to people in Ancient Egypt. They explain it, that in their tradition, the term refers exclusively to an esoteric concept, a definition that is connected to 3 archetypes! Archetypes! No real connections or any quasi-historical thing, as you referred. So it needs no proof, since there is no claim! All these arguments are being made up upon comments made by vandalism and misinterpretations on the old article. This is what I should call as full misinformation or ignorance on the debated subject. You just stated something that clearly the referenced books state otherwise, so it should be better if the material was consulted before making arguments on it. This is ultimately nefast to Wikipedia and knowledge, since arguments are being made with no foundation and by people that don't even know what are they commenting upon. So first read the mentioned work, then comment please. Thank you. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not think that I can form a fair opinion of this without seeing the content that was deleted. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn: (Changed !vote to Endorse after seeing the deleted text) Apparently, in the year since the AfD, there's been a TV documentary and books (fully catalogued) published. The only arguments in the AfD were a lack of sources, which made it look like a hoax, but these new sources destroy those arguments...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Book - singular, self-published. The whole point is that the sources used were much the same in the new draft and shared the same flaws. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In publishing lango, self-published is a synonymous for vanity publishing, which means that the author is the publisher of the work. Even on the Wikipedia definition clearly states that self-publishing is the publishing of a book or other media by the author of those works, instead of third-party publishers. Which is precisely the case. The book was published by the Aset Ka, not by Luis Marques, who is the author. This is NOT a self-published work, but actually a work published by a Portuguese publisher that has released a book written by one of their most respected experts in the Asetian tradition. Again I see no problems in the validity of the organization. The problem here is residing in belief. But belief is not in case. They can believe whatever they desire, as an encyclopedia, we are merely showing information related to their tradition that can be useful as reference to anyone interested in the subject! Plain and simple. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it be possible for me to see the deleted article text, that could affect my !vote, I am simply going on what I have been told about the subject...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The documentary was in the version of the article deleted at afd (diff). The only newly-cited source is the Asetian Bible. Endorse. —Cryptic 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Changed from Overturn after seeing the deleted text. All sources are published by the organisation...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn
    The problem here seems to lie in belief. If this organization actually exists (which it appears to do), it has the right to claim whatever they believe in. The article just needs to give a definition of the concept of the Order, what they claim to be, what they believe in, and other good info to give on the organization. There is no way calling it a "hoax" will be an argument to delete it. We shouldn't focus on the tradition itself, since it's a matter of belief; we should aim to inform the people about what this organization claims to be, their beliefs and tradition. We are not evaluating their traditions.
    This organization, which shows itself behind the name "Order of Aset Ka", officially exists as, at least, a publisher. If they exist as a publisher, they are an organization. Since the organization "Aset Ka" publishes books about itself regarding religion and metaphysics, we are not here to judge their knowledge and the authenticity of their beliefs. Their book is legal, which makes it legal to quote it as a reference. Even it if it's published by the organization.
    People may see this organization as new-age, since it showed itself not long ago. What existed before it appeared doesn't matter. But it's legal to claim that existed for thousands of years, since it's based on belief. They believe they existed for thousands of years, and they justify it through religion and belief: Fine!, they have that right. People don't have to believe it.
    Selthius (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)— Selthius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Neutral: Changed from Overturn to Endorse to Neutral. After a more thorough examination of the text, the article looks like it would be OK with a bit of cleanup (sorry for being so indecisive)...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article seems to be quite revamped from the version it was deleted last year, made more clear and verifiable. The new book provided as reference is a published work. Verifiable enough. The article complies to Wikipedia standards and it is not a hoax. Period. Cristina Torres (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) — Cristina Torres (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Endorse deletion The book is WP:SELFPUBlished by a member of Aset ka, see this forum discussion[48], so it's not an independient source. The book appears to be a fluff job to make the order look important, so it's probably not reliable for notability and for antiguity of the order. If you look at their website, you will see that the whole site is based on the contents of the book. This is either a hoax or an attempt to give a patina of respectability to a recently created non-notable order. The only reliable source that we have is one mention on a TV program, wich probably makes only a passing mention. This article is not verifiable because we have no reliable independient sources to check anything that their book is claiming, and almost fails WP:N because we have only one independient source asserting its notability, and we are not sure of just how much notability it's asserting. Notice that we have absolutely no confirmation that the order actually exists out of the book and the website and there are 99% chances that it's an elaborate hoax by the book's author and a few friend. It isn't even a notable hoax, since it hasn't been covered anywhere as a successful hoax, so we can't base the article on that. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn 1 "The book appears to be a fluff job to make the order look important" - A fluff job to make the order look important? The book does not even talk about the order, but merely describes a spiritual tradition in terms of beliefs, dogmas, ritual symbolism and theology. I am starting to repeat myself, but I ask again that nonsense comments are not made by people that have not read the book or at least have no clue of what they are talking about. Otherwise clearly misinformed comments like this one would not happen.

2 "The only reliable source that we have is one mention on a TV program, wich probably makes only a passing mention." - One hour is not only a passing mention. So again, these comments would classify as lack of research or direct unilateral speculation.
3 "Notice that we have absolutely no confirmation that the order actually exists out of the book and the website" - This argument was already addressed for several times in this discussion as being wrong. There is no way to contest the existence of the order as an organization, that is even registered officially.
I am sorry if I start sounding too harsh, but it gets really hard to deal when we see so many misinformed arguments and claims out of the lack of research, and constantly see people doing comments running in circles, which is clearly against the purpose of this review. GustavusPrimus (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but anyone in Spain can register any number of organizations with just the signatures of three persons. Ok, so, the book is a fluff job to promote the "asetian knowledge", the order makes heavy usage of that book like you can see on their website [49], and it appears that the book was written by a member of the order. The title of the TV program is "Causas Comuns", and we have no proof that it's not making just a passing mention. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but using the argument that in Spain just 3 persons can register an organization, is again speculation. There is any verifiability that the Aset Ka is a 3 persons registered organization? This is just pure speculation, how many people they might or might not have. To be honest I see this as unilateral view. There are countless other organizations, probably even much smaller than the Aset Ka, and I don't see people question their credibility solely based on "anyone can register one with 3 signatures." It is happening in here because they are a religious organization that has quite uncommon ideals. And this is why people are against them, because of their beliefs. But the Inquisition has ended quite a long time ago. Their credibility should not be questioned out of religion. This is very wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavusPrimus (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 May 2008
  • It's the article that has to show with sources that it's something more than a hoax organization with just the signatures of three persons, given the lack of independient sources on the organization actually existing and the doubts arosen here. And it's happening here because of lack of sources, not because of any problem with beliefs or religions. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn - perhaps a strange article but certainly not cruft or non-notable. COI issues maybe a concern but with diligent cleanup and proper use of verifiable sources, I can't see an issue with a very strange but interesting article. Restore last sourced version. -- EhsanQ (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn
    I have seen people using forums as arguments in this discussion, so if that is the case, I would also advise to consult this forum, which has a very long, 5-page, debate on the Aset Ka, with 238 posts and 9,681 unique views, making the Aset Ka thread one of the most read ever in this forum, that alone is one of the biggest occult forums on the web. The thread even surpasses in replies and unique views the sticky thread at the top of the forum, which is viewed by literally everyone. This directly addresses the question of notability, representing the interest of the occult community on the subject. The views field actually speaks for itself, since the forum counts only unique IP addresses, so a scheme of page-reload would not work in here. Check the reference forum here [50].
    Also, in this threat several people talk as actually researchers on this Aset Ka organization. Not people from the organization, but researching it for long, which adds as another reference as the notability of the order. This takes us to another website, which is an independent forum entirely or at least highly dedicated to discussion of the Asetian tradition and the Aset Ka as an occult order. This forum is now locked for long and used to be part of a bigger website, which was a portal from a group that entitle themselves as Vampire Watchers Group, aiming at the research of vampirism, world traditions and the occult. Their portal used to keep several information and documentation regarding the Aset Ka, as well as vampirism, where this forum used to be a part of. Check the reference forum here [51].
    The VWG website that was highly active between 2001 and 2006, completely went down in 2007, which they claimed to be a problem in the backups of the old server. A new, but highly small and irrelevant, website was put online in 2007, that also has some comments on the Aset Ka, but nothing really important and seems like it was abandoned soon after for reasons that the VWG refused to make clear, but that is documented on their own forum. Check the reference site here [52].
    24.85.70.22 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain delete The sources given do not support the article. If the Portuguese TV magazine does, please provide a quotation and translation of the key part. A TV interview is not necessarily an independent source-- if it just consists of someone presumably associate with the site making bald assertions,that is not independent . If restored, stubbify to the only part that has any evidence, which is that the forum exists. DGG (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn It is not a TV interview, but a documentary on the subject. No one related with the organization was interviewed. So it is an independent source. Besides as already mentioned, that is only one of the referred sources. However I do agree that the article can be cleaned up and improved, as you said, which I was about to work on when it was deleted. GustavusPrimus (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've struck out the second and third "overturn" !votes by this user. Deor (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As the user that posted the new article, made the corrections and has fully rewritten most of the previous poor article's misconceptions, as well as uploaded the 2 new images, including the book cover, copyright licence information and associated ISBN. This new article is clearly being victimized by ideas biased by old research and clearly lack of honest research over the subject. Wether we like it or not, and how much of their Ancient Egyptian religious claims might be arrogant and doubtful, the Order of Aset Ka remains one of the very few references worldwide in what comes to Vampiric Traditions in the complex occult scene. They present probably the only accessible tradition with a predatory spirituality backbone and an Ancient Egyptian theology. Their tradition, theology, tenets, beliefs and spiritual system is detailedly described in a published work, which deserves its credit alone. And this IS verifiable. But not only verifiable, as it is even supported by books, not only published by the Aset Ka, as other publications, some written in English, others written in Portuguese, as the books and papers published by Ordem Peninsular, as well as TV documentaries, and workshops and thesis debated in Portuguese universities that are in no terms related with the Order of Aset Ka, that really does not relate with any outside institutions. The argument used that this new book is not yet mentioned in other published works makes no sense, since it is a recent book, so it could not yet be referenced on that scale. However, the tradition and the Aset Ka as an occult organization was mentioned on other works, as it was already referenced.

Using the argument that the book is self-published over and over is merely a theatric attempt to discredit a valuable work. Self published information is like when someone writes information about himself on a website. But if you want to use the term in what comes to real publications, then self publishing means an author publishing his own work, being his own editor and publisher, which is not the case of the work we are talking about. This work is published by a registered and credentialed Portuguese publisher, which can be verified on the appropriated government institution, not a work published by the author. It is even fully written in the English language, which is a preferable reference source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Being one of the few publications in what concerns this very specific field of the occult, which is real life vampirism in spiritual traditions, makes the book Asetian Bible certainly one of the most notable sources and references on the theme. What I think it is causing most confusing and uninformed votes and opinions in this deletion review is actually the fact that most people commenting against the article have in fact no real information, background or scholarship to comment on it. People that are actually in the occult scene, as researchers, especially in the niche that is vampirism and predatory spirituality, would certainly understand the point of the arguments defending Overturn and endorse it, seeing the clear notability of this article in what comes to the niche of information in question, and being nevertheless encyclopedic knowledge.

Ultimately all this discussion sums up to one single thing: is the Aset Ka a real organization or a hoax webpage created by some kid online? This was the reason stated for deletion of the article one year ago. The answer to this is easily verifiable with no doubts. They ARE an organization. They HAVE published work.
If their tradition, claims and beliefs are true or false, is out of subject in this discussion, and concerns only the followers of their tradition. But if the organization exists? To that, the answer is undeniable. So let's stop this whole nonsense debate once and for all, please...
Hellensmith37 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Hellensmith37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • All references to Aset Ka used to compile this article are recently published and self-referential. Any objective evaluation of an article on Aset Ka or the Aset Ka bible has to take into account the contradictory claims made by the organization, the lack of published commentary of its publications, lack of any verifiable information detailing its constituency, lack of any evidence for this new order having existed more than a few years ago, and the original research employed to analyze the ludicrous claims made in its source texts. Even though various proponents of the offer have made vague reference to supposedly scholarly works on vampirism, the occult, and ancient Egyptian mythology, I've yet to see any of them provide coverage specifically of the Aset Ka in anything close to a reliable source. The relative obscurity and newness of the Aset Ka order are reason enough not to have an encyclopedia article on it, as so far it appears to be little more than a recent curiosity in Portugese occult circles and some online forums. The Aset Ka may well be an interesting topic for some fans of contemporary vampire mythology, but it is far from being a notable organization. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn

Once again, I think that, since it's an official organization, there's no point in endorsing deletion. What they claim to be doesn't matter. People, at least, get able to know what they claim to be. About what the age the organization claims to have, all the beliefs that are into this subject: It isn't relevant. We aren't here to judge the religion and their beliefs. We are here to judge the contents of the article, remaking it in a way that it won't say "It is" but "It claims to be". It's just information. There's a really good article about the Loch Ness Monster. "The Loch Ness Monster is an alleged animal, identified neither as to a family or species, but claimed to inhabit Scotland's Loch Ness." You see. We aren't going to judge this knowledge. Some people believe it exists, I personally don't (but what do you care if I do?). But I will never want to delete this knowledge/information. Because people find it useful. Some cryptozoologists, for example, find it useful and interesting. Some students of vampire folklore, egyptology and "real-life" vampirism are interested in knowledge about the Aset Ka. Isn't it fair? I endorse restore. Selthius (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Selthius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


 Remark: It would seem that at least two single purpose accounts are voting to overturn. Gustavus Prime also looks like a SPA to promote the book and the order, see his first edit [53] --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow me to defend myself. I registered my account on Wikipedia quite recently, even after both of the Aset Ka articles were created. I did see their new article out of a simple search, and that motivated me to my first Wikipedia edit, on the same theme I was researching, which is on the Energy Vampires article. Since I am an anthropologist doing research work on this field seems only but natural to me that things have followed this path. I didn't make more edits yet because no one gave me the time to do them, since as I was going to start to work on the Aset Ka article, that other user posted, it got removed, reason why this whole review started. And now I am actively participating in here for an unbiased and scholar view of it, being probably the only voter qualified to even comment on the subject. If you check the article history you can even see my first edit on the Aset Ka article, fixing an error in the ISBN link from the original poster.
  • As for the other accounts, I can't really comment since I have honestly no clue of their purpose. GustavusPrimus (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy for that explanation, if it wasn't because of this timeline:
  1. 20:39 to 22:47, 12 May 2008 User:Hellensmith37 uploadas 4 different images that she will later use on recreating Aset Ka article
  2. 23:01 12 May 2008 SPA Hellensmith37 creates Aset Ka article[54] after almost 12 months of staying deleted
  3. 23:22, 12 May 2008 GustavusPrimus is created
  4. 23:50, 12 May 2008 GustavusPrimus makes an edit to Energy vampire including a wikilink to Aset ka, making a lengthy explanation about the Aset ka book and including the ISBN, which is already on the Aset Ka article, in the 50 minutes since the article is re-created, he has found the new article by chance on a search, he has created the account, and he has written a shining review of the book and the Aset Ka on a different article [55]
  5. 23:51, 12 May 2008 GustavusPrimus corrects the ISBN link on Aset Ka [56]
  6. 00:39, 13 May 2008 GustavusPrimus fixes the ref on Energy Vampire[57]
  7. 00:45, 13 May 2008 GustavusPrimus removes a 1 year old vandalism warning from an IP talk page [58]
  • Notice that the warning was made because of the IP leaving messages on Aset Ka article warning that it was a joke by his friend Ignacio [59][60][61]
  1. 06:12, 15 May 2008 GustavusPrimus makes a post on the talk page of the admin that speedy deleted the images on the article[62] where he:
  • claims that the old article was deleted due to an act of vandalism (the warning he removed)
  • says that "'This article and images, uploaded by the user Hellensmith37, are not a copy of the old material that was deleted a year ago (...) double check the old article and compare it to the new one and you will see how it cannot be claim to be a copy of previously deleted material" but the current history was not available at that time, so, GustavusPrime, how did you know the state of the old article unless you had already seen it one year ago?
  • says that the 2 deleted images were "both well uploaded under the guidelines and with the correct information on copyright and fair use. Both images were before never present on Wikipedia, and again substantiated as being a copy of previously deleted material". GustavusPrime, how can you be so sure that they were never present on wikipedia, and how come you knew the details about the copyright on the three different images that you didn't upload yourself?
  • lies about the amount of sources on the article "we can nevertheless deny its verifiability through published works. And in this case, there are several ones mentioned, even an international publication"
  1. 09:02, 15 May 2008 GustavusPrimus claims that the organization is legit because it has its own ISBN prefix. Notice the same fallacy as the organization thing: any organization can request its own ISBN prefix provided it has the money for it (it's expensive, see a list or ISBN agencies that give ISBN prefixes, no questions asked) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anetode&diff=prev&oldid=212563851
  2. 13:41, to 13:49 15 May 2008 The history of Aset Ka is restored "(43 revisions restored: It is not a recreation, it has more references, et al)"[63]
  3. 15:16, 15 May 2008 Anetode checks the old article and deletes it again saying "(bullshit: this was a hoax, it is a hoax, it uses the same self-published references. Take it to WP:DELREV.)" (btw, this is the real reason why this whole review started, not the fact that the article got removed)
  4. 16:31, 15 May 2008 GustavusPrimus lies on this DRV about the sources on the article "The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books." (notice the plurals) [64]
  5. 14:48, 16 May 2008 GustavusPrimus replies to me that "The book does not even talk about the order" but his first edit on wikipedia included a reference that read "Marques, Luis. Asetian Bible. Aset Ka, 2007 ISBN 978-9899569409" where he puts the book and the name of the order together. Putting this together with how the Aset Ka website consists almost enterely of references and quotes of this book and how the author is member of the order, I don't think I need to read the book to know that it was intended to promote the order and give it a patina of credibility and legitimacy. [65]
  • So, Gustavus, your history about how you found the article is not believable specially since you showed knowledge about a deleted article that you couldn't see at that moment and about images that you didn't upload yourself, you lied to the deleting admin about the sources on the article, and then you lied again on this DRV about the amount of sources. So, no, I don't believe you, I think that this is a hoax, I think that the book is a fluff job, I'm sure that the documentary only makes a trivial coverage of the order, and I'm this near of opening a sockpuppet case linking you to all the SPA accounts on this DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also love how Gustavus' writing style is so similar to the one from Hellensmith37 and Selthius. Also lovable is timing at May 16 on this DRV, when Hellen posted for the last time at 19:13 [66], then Gustavus posted at 19:28 [67] and at 19:40 [68], and then Selthius posted at 20:40 [69]. The fact that the only other post by Selthius parrots several Gustavus' arguments only makes it funnier [70] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not here to deal with insults based on ignorance. Again all the arguments you used are based on assumptions and speculation. And a clear mental handicap, I would say. Now I am even most of the other users in here, according to you. Well, I don't know how this works around here, but I would like that an admin would check all of our IP addresses, and see if they match. Or if they don't, if any of them is behind a proxy or firewall that would allow to put this elaborated scheme that your delusional mind claims. The point is that I am pretty sure those things won't match, since I don't know who Selthius is. We write in a similar style? Ok, now your arguments changed from misinformation and ignorance to clearly being ridiculous. I won't keep defending myself on things that I don't need to, I already have done enough to defend a clear non-biased opinion upon this article, now it is not up to me to keep judging and argumenting against some old circular and poorly researched ideas.
As for the ISBN point, again you show lack of information and research. I did not said they merely have an ISBN prefix, but that they are registered as an official publisher, under the Portuguese government, and that they have that kind of ISBN fully protected blocks. It has nothing to do with the link you provided and no, I am sorry, but it is not only about the money for it. There are several conditions that are required to be an official publisher like the Aset Ka, and especially in Portugal, it is not for any company to get that far. But anyways, I see you are not interested in real research, but just in blind attacks.
You can call liar as you wish, I will not comment on it again, since I am not here to get as low as that. But yes, as you said, everything is so "lovable". I like your use if irony to bring some false credibility. In your arguments you used the words "I am sure of" and "this is" in things that are clear lies you created, in subjects that can easily be verified, but that you're not interested on verifiability, but you have your own interests in this thread, which I already got you. So no more words on it. I just pity that things keep going forward by the hands of people that have no mind, no skill and no knowledge to even judge what they are commenting upon. Lie as you wish, insult as you wish... seems that is all you are capable of at this point. A typical sign of lack of arguments. Should I lecture some psychology on this? No, better not. I rest my case. GustavusPrimus (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. If you look at my link [71], find the Portugal agency, and navigate until this page, you will find the list of registered editor prefixes on the Portugal agency, then you'll see that Aset Ka is registered right there along with everyone else (mind you, I see that I was wrong on one detail, the ISBN registration itself is gratuit, it's actual code bars that cost money). The inscription form linked here clearly indicates that an individual person can register an ISBN, so having a ISBN for a book demonstrates nothing. I am not *totally* sure, but I think that any organization can publish a book and ask for a ISBN for it. I know for a fact that ISBNs for magazines are trivial to get in Spain for any organization, by only giving three copies of the magazine at the regional registration office so they can archive them.
I won't answer to personal attacks like "clear mental handicap" and "people that have no mind, no skill and no knowledge to even judge what they are commenting upon", among others.
You don't explain which are the incorrect assumptions and speculations for the problems I pointed here, and you fail to explain how to verify. Also, I love how you deny being Selthius (who really appears to be a different person, sorry for that Selthius), but you say nothing about not being Hellensmith37. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I commented on Selthius because that was the nickname you mentioned two times. But now I am not Selthius, but I am Hellen? lol You are funny how you change me to being several people. But again all I say is: an admin would please check our IPs? Then everyone will see how you're only a liar. GustavusPrimus (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, sure, whatever. Now, you know, your credibility would be quite improved if you actually addressed the criticism on this page instead of resorting to personal attacks. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personal attacks? I was the one being directly and personal attacked by your lack of arguments, starting to make unsupported claims about me being Selthius, then being Hellen, and only being here for lying. So again you are trying to use your manipulative ways to trying to take me credibility. As for the criticism on this page I have addressed it more than anyone in this DRM. So I believe I have made my part to fight for the good of Wikipedia, which is diversity of verifiable information. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse The only independent source is a Portuguese "TV magazine" show. The cite is deficient, pointing at the series instead of a unique episode, but even a good cite would leave us with difficulties even verifying the existence of the episode, much less its content. And "TV magazine" shows are not the most reliable sources, and frequently duped. And that's the only independent cite. If your sources fail to even convince us of the existence of the organization, they're insufficient to pass WP:N.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several books were mentioned along the article, and although most are written in Portuguese, at least one is published in English. What is the point if the author is part of the organization or not? His opinions and ideas on their tradition might be biased, but the fact of existing an author writing about an organization, being part of it or not, already proves the fact of that organization existing. The concept of "independent source" is being wrongly applied here. What is at debate is not the claims of their religion, but the existence of an organization under the name of Aset Ka or not. And this is verifiable. Do you understand what I mean? Sometimes I just fear I am not making myself fully clear with my arguments, and probably being misunderstood. GustavusPrimus (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it doesn't prove the organization exists. I can pull a number of books of my shelves that detail non-existant organizations. Furthermore, just because an organization exists doesn't mean it's notable; the 'Arvard Yard Boyz(spelling?) exists, but even if they swear in print that they're the direct descendents of war simulations done at 17th century Harvard, it still doesn't make them notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this organization exists. It has an address, making it physical, it is officially registered in Portugal. All that make it real... GustavusPrimus (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If all we have are primary self-referential sources then this is going to fail WP:V. This alos has a rather desparate self-promotional air about it. Spartaz Humbug! 08:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion an article citing solely self-published sources fails WP:V and WP:N, whether or not it is a hoax.--Hut 8.5 10:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn

Actually I don't believe I'm GustavusPrime. I really am not. And I think I write a little bit better in English than he/she does. But how irrelevant that is! I'm someone who is interested in this subject, and I registered after seeing it. The steps were: www.wikipedia.org -> English -> Search for "Aset Ka" -> "This article is under discussion..." -> I saw it, I registered. I think this is a good excuse. Can't people have specific interests? If I do, shouldn't I be here? Only people that don't have any knowledge about the subject, and only people who have no interest on the subject can be here? About the timings, that's ridiculous. It would be a pleasure to meet him/her (I think), but I really don't know him/her. I guess this is running away from the subject, since conspiracies about plans to rule the world won't help decide if this article should come back or not.


The reasons I think an article about the Aset Ka should be put on are the following:

1st - It's, as far as people know, a new organization about which people know little about.

2nd - It has an interesting book on specific subjects like vampirism and egyptology.

3rd - The only "self-published" source there would be, would be the book. Why wouldn't it be cited if it has a relation to the Order?

4th - It doesn't need to be notable to the world to be on Wikipedia. It is notable to some interested persons. If you think this subject isn't of interest in the vampire community, you're wrong.

5th - It's no Loch Ness Monster. Selthius (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've struck out the second and third "overturn" !votes by this user. Deor (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to Selthius's points:
  1. pretty firmly puts it into the non-notable category, and Wikipedia is not here to promote the subject;
  2. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid reason to keep an article;
  3. Citing the primary source is acceptable if the facts about the subject can be verified through third-party sources, but all we have is the primary source and its promoters;
  4. is flatly wrong. Notability doesn't mean "notable to some interested persons," it means "has been noted by reliable, third-party sources."
  5. I don't think anyone said it was, because Nessie has dozens of third-party reliable sources on her. -- Kesh (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The only information we have on this organization comes from their own publications. With no third-party sources, it's impossible to separate the facts from the self-promotion. -- Kesh (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry to keep repeating myself, I know it sounds wrong, but from the organization it is only 1 publication. There are other several works (books) mentioned along the article that are third-party sources, like the Ordem Peninsular Publications, which have nothing to do with the Aset Ka or their associates. GustavusPrimus (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the Ordem Peninsular publications being used to back up important points, though, nor do I find evidence that they are a reliable source in and of themself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Furthermore, one of three pages to mention Ordem Peninsular on the net is [72], which seems to use some of the text for this article verbatim for a different group. Admins might want to look at Deadly Poison and compare the history and authorship of that article to this one. This is sending up huge warning bells in my mind about any beliefs I might have formed that this is not a hoax.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Send more bells there. User:Deadlypoison worked on both Deadly Poison and Aset Ka articles, and he states two years ago on his talk page that he is "a college student of anthropology that have done a work about DPVO" [73]. Notice that GustavusPrime claims to be an anthropologist. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Answer Again, trying to manipulate everywhere. The contents addressed on this article is of special interest to any anthropologist or specialist in religion and world traditions. So I see that not only as natural, as highly common. As for me, since I am an university teacher, I can easily prove my resume as an anthropologist, and although I prefer to keep my privacy with my real identity, that is something that if matters so much I can think about sharing. In connection to the user DeadlyPoison, nor am I a student, as I have never done any works based on the DPVO, which from what I could tell, it was even removed from the new article that does not address the DPVO subject at all. But yes, as Prosfilaes said, I would like any admins to look at that user and again compare it to me, so defamatory speculation in what concerns myself can finally stop. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you want is a WP:RFCU or Request for Check User, by the rules state that they are not done to stablish anyone's inocency. Basically, you just fail the duck test big time, and I'm too lazy to open a case on you. Also, you haven't addressed questions like which are those books that you claim that exist on the subject, you have not explained why you removed that vandalism warning, you have not addressed the notability and lack of sources issues, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lazy to open a case? Yeah right, you were not lazy to go out through the whole wikipedia searching for logs to try to manipulative prove wrong things about me. So I see that you're only lazy when it fits your own interestes. Which in this case is that because you know you would be proven wrong. Anyways, as for the questions that you asked, I don't claim about any books. Those books are mentioned in the article. :) Which proved me just one thing, you never even read the article that you so have been trying to condemn. This detail alone proves your huge lack of research and credibility.
          • In what concerns notability, sources, etc, I have been trying to make it all clear in this DRM for long. If you can't see it, then you probably don't read my posts, or pretend not to. As for the vandalism warning the answer is simple. As I said I was getting ready to cleanup the article posted by Hellen and work on it, I even started doing it by fixing an ISBN link that she wrongly put to the Amazon site, which makes no sense to me, and that can be verified in the logs. On the Wikipedia Toolbox I saw this option called "What links here" and I pressed it. I saw that one of the links was an useless warning to an IP address user from a year ago, so I simply deleted. Was it pointless? Probably, just did it with interests of cleaning up, not being much aware of what are the guidelines concerning those situations. But if you carefully check, from what I have seen now, that user was actually warned by an admin, because he was vandalizing the Aset Ka post with silly comments. And since I am here defending overturn, the vandalism user was even an useful argument. So as you can see I did it highly innocently, and to be honest, I don't understand what deleting it can move anything for the good or the bad or has anything to do with this. You're again trying to take attention from the real subject, since you know there is no way to prove the Aset Ka is a hoax, you have chosen to try to attack the users proposing overturn as a last resource. Kinda sad, to be honest. GustavusPrimus (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, so maybe I have been a fool, I precipitated myself, and I forgot to WP:AGF assume good faith and not biting the newcomers. So, I'll try to talk only about posible improvements to the article, and not make any comments on editors themselves.
            • Looking at the article, I can only see references to independient books under he "Dark Mark" section. However, it's not clear whether those books are talking about Aset Ka, or if they are talking about some egypcian mithology, and the editor is then making synthesis by assuming that they refer to usage by this order. If those books are actually talking about the order, then they are asserting notability, so I would suggest going to the library on your university and digging for them, in order to provide better quotes of what exactly they are talking about. The only other book reference I can see on the article is on "(Aset Ka has produced) private and independent publications for several years, commonly only accessible to inner circles of the Order", it would be interesing to have access to some of those books and see if it's really a working order with member publications. While they wouldn't assert notability by themselves, they would help to solve doubts about hoaxing. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quantifica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No conflict of interest. Thanks for your answer Stifle. But can you tell me why in what way my article was advertisement? What should I change? I used articles made for competitors and nobody seem to think their articles were advertisement: Gartner, Forrester Research, Informa... Check these out. Bebeagrafe (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Ok so no one here even wants to check the links in french. Is it because no one speaks french here???Bebeagrafe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bruce Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted last year because he was just a "Local radio talk show host in Phoenix". But actually hes also a national sports anchor on Fox Sports Radio.[74] Im guessing the article didn't mention this. A few people in the AFD mentioned this but as the admin put it "I found some sources but don't care enough to provide them" is not a winning argument. As for notability I think hosting a show on a major sports network with 300+ affiliates across the US is notable. Just like the other Fox hosts:Andrew Siciliano, Ben Maller, and J. T. the Brick-- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. Someone should have at least checked the sources, even if the one editor did not care to provide them. We do not automatically default to delete. MrPrada (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless the sources (plural) are actually found and cited, rather than talked about. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the article did mention it: "and a syndicated weekend sports talk show on Fox Sports Radio." The article as deleted was extremely promotional in tone, and I'd suggest improving it with a more encyclopedic way -- and with sources DGG (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: Seems notable-ish, but relisting would be best...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as not notable. That's a source from Fox itself, so that's not independient coverage. Looking at WP:PEOPLE, I can't see that he has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", and I don't think that being a radio host on a pair of shows qualifies, so he is still non-notable and the deletion was correct. The decision was based on the sources currently available, it's not the closing admin's fault if nobody wants to provide the sources that *could* save the article from deletion. As for now, the only new source given still doesn't assert enoguh notability, so the closure should still stand. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve Beren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Steveberen (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I'd like to draw attention to the deletion of this article. The article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2006, was previously (back in 2006, I believe) suggested for removal because of non-neutrality. This was early in its existence, and was resolved quickly, and the article remained up through 2006, 2007, and until earlier today. I'm the subject of the article, and the original author, but the accuracy and neutrality of the article was not questioned further. I believe the decision to delete was wrong. There are a multiplicity of factors applying to this biographical article. In the proposed-deletion discussion, some of these were dismissed to one extent or another, in my opinion inappropriately when considered against existing guidelines. Moreover, even if one factor (failed former candidacy) is not notable in and of itself, and even if another factor (former communist/aheist turned motivational speaker and born-again Christian) is not notable in and of itself, the totality of these and several other factors equals sufficient notability. A more careful reading of my part of the proposed-delete discussion would lead to a different conclusion, I believe. Please review carefully and consider the above rationale for undeletion - Steve Beren, 5/14/08, 8:44 pm PDT[reply]

  • Overturn. I find the lack of a closing rationale rationale troubling. The main argument seems to have been that he failed WP:POLITICIAN, but as Les Grand pointed out, he met WP:BIO, with numerous verified second and third party sources[75], such as: Canada Free Press[76], Conservative Voice[77], Seattle Times[78], Seattle Post Intelligencer[79], New York Times[80], Seattle Times[81], Seattle Times[82], Seattle Post Intelligencer[83], Seattle Post Intelligencer[84], Seattle Times[85], Seattle Post-Intelligencer[86], NEws Tribune[87], Seattle Times[88], Seattle Post Intelligencer[89], Seattle Times[90], Seattle Times[91], Seattle Times[92], Crosscut Seattle[93]. This is more then enough to meet WP:BIO, even if he has never been a successful candidate. MrPrada (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times link above is broken, which is problematic, because a full-length New York Times article that has somebody as its primary subject would be prima facie evidence of notability. Also, many of the above sources only display the first part of the story, not enough for a reader to determine the nature of the coverage (unless one were to register on their website); if an article merely describes the campaign or the results of the election, this would only establish notability if the candidate won or came close to winning. Unless I can get more info., I would relist to get a broader consensus. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per 69.140, but Steve, please bear in mind the autobiography rules. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist but write carefully. The NYT article is a short 491 word article from 1970, about his success in suing for free radio time back when he was running on the Socialist Workers Party ticket for State Assembly in NY, long before he became a conservative Republican in Seattle. Paywall,but still a usable reference. DGG (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: The sources seem good enough, asserting notability...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While some of the sources give trivial coverage[94][95], others give actual coverage of the subject [96][97][98]. The NYT source[99] seems to assert that he is notable in spite of being a minor candidate. Basically, he presents himself again and again, and gets resources and attention despite failing to be elected. See also DGG's comment on this source. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per MrPrada and because the bio subject was a major party's nominee for Congress, not just a contender for the nomination. JamesMLane t c 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; I don't see any real notability in an article only the subject seems to want, and I think it disadvantageous to Wikipedia to undelete this article until such time as there is someone without a WP:COI who wants this article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was to delete, nothing out of process, properly closed. One of the only two "keeps" came from the subject of the article trying to use Wikipedia to promote his long-shot campaign for Congress which is a WP:COI. Political candidates are not notable unless and until they win. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kremlin (bar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like to bring to your attention the deletion of an article I created. I created the article Kremlin (bar) was was nominated for deletion after having undergone some revisions (the addition of two other identically-named bars to the article, as far as I remember). This is despite the Kremlin in Northern Ireland being notable as Northern Ireland's first gay bar. Unfortunately I knew very little of its history or anything else about the bar, and I had hoped other editors might be able to expand it from being merely a stub.

Excuse me for not following normal procedure here - I am in between Wikipedia user accounts, and I'm not sure what editing powers an IP-assigned editor has in this regard. Please feel free to tidy this up and submit a proper review on my behalf.

The article was deleted on the 31st of January this year, by four votes to one against (not including the nominator). --90.206.36.142 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

originally posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender[100] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was brought up at the AfD. Unless you've found a source, there's no reason to relist. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion No reasons given to overturn the closure. As for the "first gay bar in ireland" wich would give it enough notability to be restored, there was and there is a lack of reliable independient sources for the claim. There are lots of similar baseless claims made by pubs: "First pub opened on xxxx", "First pub to do xxxx", etc --Enric Naval (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion DRV does not give you a second shot at AFD, and the first AFD was closed correctly. No independent sources cited by the article. Hut 8.5 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Hemmings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Tomseddon (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone email me the content of this page that was deleted a couple of hours ago. The page was deleted most probably because i did not finnish it quick enough, i intend to finish it in my sandbox and then reinstate it

You need to specify an email address in Special:Preferences to receive email from other users. Hut 8.5 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per deleting admin comment. So, it's totally bad content. I'd suggest contacting DGG directly for a copy of the last version of the page if you want to put it up on a different wiki where this sort of articles is accepted. Userfy unless it was really bad content. I see no problem with letting him finish his article on userspace unless it's clear that it wasn't going anywhere --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I speedied it, & I'd have emailed if I had been contacted. The subject is asserted to be a secondary school physics teacher, claiming to have influenced the "World" and received a "Doughnut award" as he has "only recently fallen into the notable scientist category for his recent studies into electron relaxation." The rest of the article is similar. The law he "discovered" is a very basic textbook equation I did not regard that as a plausible claim to notability. I'm not going to userify this one. I suspect a student prank. DGG (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. General nonsense. Not useful to the encyclopedia. Also, what part of "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)" didn't register? Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve.museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm aware of this article's much deleted history (combo of speedy and AfDs) and am not doubting that it was not notable at the time. However in the interim it has received secondary coverage including The Age and The New York Times, and I've prepared a draft User:Travellingcari/Steve.museum based on that secondary coverage. I have included some of the primary sources, but that's because I believe they help explain what the project is. I have, however, removed a lot of the PR speak that was quite unencyclopedic. Keeper76 userfied this for me and I will notify him of this DRV momentarily. Thoughts? Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article. This diff proves to me that TCari is serious, and in one edit, she took a really bad, and rightfully (at the time) deleted spam article, and made a really good, well sourced, notable article. Time healed all wounds with steve.museum. Speedy restore, as it would most certainly pass AfD at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/restore I agree that the article is improved, and these three [101] [102] [103] sources look like significant new information. From the looks of those three, it might be better to have an article on the general phenomenon than on the specific musuem, as that is where they appear to focus their coverage. But that can be debated later. I do strongly suggest losing the current image; so far as I can see it isn't associated with steve.museum at all, and is thus just decoration. GRBerry 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree and have removed the picture. I took out the others as clearly unrelated but wasn't entirely sure on this one. The specific program is steve.museum, unless I'm misunderstanding your question. Am happy to discuss that. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you partially misunderstood my comment. The part that you appear to have misunderstood was understood when Enric Naval expressed it better below. GRBerry 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy deleted, which is separate from the AfD process. The closure of the AfD means only that it was speedied, not that the debate caused it. It's a common practice, check some of the WP:AFD logs. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And regardless, even if the AfD was closed prematurely, 69.140..., it was 18 months ago. The draft up for review here is completely refined/improved/sourced compared to the one from November of 2006. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still vote to relist, on the grounds that "The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action)." See above. After relisting, we could always vote to keep. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is the path that I desire for the article:
  1. Re-list on afd. It was speedied in error, but in my opinion the correct way to remedy that is to list it on afd again, rather than overrule.
  2. If it is re-listed, then I intend to vote to keep it, under its current name.
In summary I think there is a consensus that it was speedied in error, a consensus that your version is best, but no consensus on what to do about it procedurally.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think it was speedied in error due to the (lack of) notability at the time as well as it being a re-creation of deleted content, etc. I'm not too fussy about whether it is restored directly or taken immediately to AfD as I think it would be kept/merged, either of which I'm fine with. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore however, given the sources, this should be restored into a "online tagging museums" article, so that other museum initiatives con be worked into the same article, and steve.museum be a redirect to this article. The NYT source talks about this type of museums on general and cites steve.museum as one of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment would you suggest a merge to Folksonomy? That appears to be what that article is discussing, although none of the sources for Steve.museum refer to it as such. I'd almost suggest Folksonomy in museums or something similar. Thoughts? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, that name sounds good. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the sponsors in the reritten article, I think it has a reasonable chance under its own name. DGG (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • With regard to the name of the article, most people probably don't know what Folksonomy is – I had never heard of it until I saw it on the deletion-review page. So I would be inclined keep the name of steve.museum after it survives an AFD – if it is restored directly, then steve.museum should at least redirect to it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. I wasn't familiar with the term either. I think that a rename discussion is best had following a decision (either via DRV or AfD) on whether to keep the article, otherwise I see it as pointless. That said, I agree that Steve.museum would be a merge/redirect to whatever the home article is as I believe the content there has a role in the main article. Thanks for your feedback TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that we should just close this with a "overturn deletion due to better draft", by moving the userspace draft to Steve.museum, but putting as a condition that it's moved to Folksonomy in museums and reworked to fit the title, because an article on the museum itself might not stand on its own (no opposition on the musem being split out into its own article if/when it gets more notable). (I'm implicitely invoking WP:IAR to run loops around the DRV procedure, in case it wasn't clear to someone :) )
            • About renaming and merging, moving the whole article to Folksonomy in museums preserves the history, and editors just have to add the references to the other museums on the article. The references to the general phenomen can be easily looked up on the history and re-added as necessary. (Notice that this automatically leaves a correct redirect in place and that people searching for steve.museum will be directed to the right place). --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I oppose imposing a condition that it's moved to Folksonomy in museums. Per WP:Naming conventions (common names), "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" I doubt that somebody will type "folksonomy in museums" as the search query. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm with 69.140 here, and also for the reasons DGG mentioned. I don't think there's anything wrong with restoring it under the existing title since that project is notable and then a discussion about merging it elsewhere, if needed, can happen. There's no requirement to merge it elsewhere to preserve history and I think the folksonomy... title is very scholarly and not one the general public is likely yo use. I don't know what the right title is, but that doesn't need to be decided at DRV as I said above TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Operación masacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON

I don't understand why this page was deleted several times. It may have been for lack of content, however, I feel this is a very important article since it represents the first example of investigative journalism before In Cold Blood by Truman Capote. I am willing to work on developing this article, since it's important to Argentina's history and also to literary scholar's purposes, too. I feel that it may have been lacking sources in the beginning and I feel I could quickly bring this up to a average quality page by basing the article off of the Spanish version and off of sources I'm familiar with regarding Walsh. Neagley (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Operación Masacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
At the time I deleted the article, it consisted of two sentences, a stub notice, and some categories:
Operación Masacre by Rodolfo Walsh is the name of the first book of nonfiction. Was published 9 years before In Cold Blood of Truman Capote.
I explained briefly on the talk page of the author, User talk:Diegoamo why it was deleted, and gave a more detailed explanation on the article talk page (which was deleted about a month later as a talk page without a corresponding article). I said there:
I think the claim is that this is the first non-fiction book from this author. However, the article does not have enough content to be worth keeping in the state in which it is being created. It needs to consist of more than two sentences. Saying what the book is about would be a good start. An ISBN number would be good too. It also needs to say why the book is important - see Wikipedia:Notability (books) for guidelines on what makes a book important. Some external links to scholarly reviews would also help. If the book is only available in Spanish and there are no English-language reviews, then a single link to a Spanish review would be better than nothing.-gadfium 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is a well-developed article at Operación Masacre. If you could translate that into English, that would be excellent.-gadfium 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can translate it, but as User:gadfium mentions, I don't think a simple translation will be adequate in either case. Neagley (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Moriori had deleted the article several times before, and had also conversed with the author on the talk page trying to explain what was necessary to make an article worth having. It appears that the author did not have a sufficient understanding of English to be able to create an article which established notability.
Unfortunately I was unable to see these conversations. I think it is important however to develop this article again. Especially since it explains anti-peronist first-hand accounts. Neagley (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an article which gives a bit more information, including an external source, and which does establish notability. A simple translation of the Spanish article might not suffice, since I see that article has tags for lack of references and original research (it didn't at the time I deleted the article and suggested a translation).-gadfium 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you on the fact that a pure translation of the Spanish article will not suffice. I believe that the Spanish article is a good start, but really needs to include some sources from the literary canon about the work. I couldn't see the discussion originally that took place and I completely agree with your original deletion. Could we work together to develop this article in terms of depth and breadth? Neagley (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no expertise in the subject, otherwise I would have fixed the article in the first place rather than deleted it. You go ahead and develop a decent article on the subject.-gadfium 08:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will begin working on it. Neagley (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as no context. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The book is probably notable. Worldcat shows the Spanish version in 156 US & international libraries, mainly academic libraries. (not including South American libraries, which it does not cover) It's been translated into German and Czech and Dutch. It's been made into a film. A Spanish book "Rodolfo Walsh : operacion masacre by Barbara Crespo" and a Portuguese thesis "Rehacer y resistir el proceso de escritura de operación masacre de Rodolfo Walsh." by Graciela Foglia; Valéria De Marco" have been written about this book specifically, not just about the author generally. That last point seems to settle notability. DGG (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Worldcat generally doesn't show any of the libraries in South America because the libraries here are not connected with Worldcat for some reason. There are many dissertations about this book in Spanish speaking countries, but they wouldn't show up in most of the western libraries unless a particular library has an interest in maintaining a specialized collection about Argentina. Likely the perceived political instability of Argentina contributes to why In Cold Blood was falsely recognized as the first example of investigative journalism, and also because radical governments following the Peronists did not want the world--or Argentina--knowing the things that these governments were doing. That's another reason in itself for why this book is notable. Neagley (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--with respect to S America, that's exactly what I meant. WorldCat at this point includes almost all US libraries, major ones in Canada, major academic ones in the UK, and national libraries elsewhere in Europe--plus, more recently, some libraries in N Zealand & Australia. Absence of coverage for a book of primary interest elsewhere is not evidence of non-notability. To the extent US libraries have a S American book, it shows interest worldwide, & that's how I saw the holdings--as positive.DGG (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective now. I guess since I'm a student here right now I'm a little irritated at the lack of WorldCat usage in South America!Neagley (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nevada State Route 805 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have no beef with how this deletion (and the others at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 26#Nevada State Route 805 → USA Parkway and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 11#Nevada State Highway 805 → USA Parkway) were handled, but I'd like to be able to recreate them because the media has used the number to refer to the road: [104] This was not mentioned in the deletion discussion. NE2 07:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation in the face of new evidence. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - One or two references in the media to "Highway 805" is not the same thing as proof that "Nevada State Route 805" is an applicable designation. As was pointed out previously, the route designation does not appear on NDOT documents anywhere. Until a source can show that NDOT has/intends to apply the state route designation to this road the redirect is not appropriate. Arkyan 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the only possible type of highway here is a state route, it is proof that someone, somewhere, wanted it to be State Route 805. Whether or not that was NDOT is irrelevant. --NE2 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with your assessment, and reaffirm my opinion that "someone, somewhere" does not cut it. State route numbers are under the purview of the respective state department of transportation and in my opinion they are the only source that matters. Arkyan 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the source is a dead link, and Google is searching a cached version. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a published newspaper article... --NE2 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to get a better consensus. The original discussions on RfD (see links above) contained 2 votes to delete and 1 vote to keep Nevada State Route 805, 1 vote to delete State Route 805 (Nevada), 1 vote to delete SR 805 (NV) and 1 vote to delete Nevada State Highway 805. That's not a broad enough consensus for me. [By the way I briefly mentioned this page on Wikipedia talk:Notability (Places and transportation), in case anybody is interested.] 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Admins correctly assesed the consensus there. It's normal that RfDs have only 1 or 2 commenters. Remember that, on RfD, if nobody comments, then it defaults to delete. The source only stablishes that the name can be mentioned on the USA parway article. Come back when NDOT makes the name official --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - There's nothing wrong with recreating an article if new evidence supporting the road's designation and significance can be established and written. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
College Street (TTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Proceedural review. Additional Articles were added into the nomination by seperate Editor (not the original AFD nominator). Concerns were raised, and never addressed, involving not following the proscribed process for proposing multiple deletions. Although I feel I know what the outcome will be, AFD closers should adheer to transparency and clarity when not following guidlines and proceedures, and explain such actions clearly in the close statement. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin statement Consensus was to delete all. Although a separate editor added these, the pages were one-line mini-stubs, and any useful information was merged with another article. One article was kept because that's what consensus requested. I should have been clearer in my closing statement, but I went with consensus, and wasn't trying to avoid transparency or clarity. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 07:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Per this edit in the remaining article the bundled nominations included addition of the AFD notice. This is fairly standard and there is no requirement that a multiple nomination start that way. The objection that there were some votes before the bundling is fairly minor, as many articles change significantly during the AFD process, but the closing admin can take this into account at closure. Finally, any objection should take into account whether a change in procedure would affect the result. I see no evidence it would have. Ultimately, there's no benefit to making AFD more about process than outcomes. Everybody's a volunteer and time is limited. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There were enough delete opinions after the extra articles were added to the AFD that the fact they were added late is immaterial. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per above, there was sufficent comments after that addition of the articles. I agree Peter could have made this clearer in closing, but as Exit2DOS2000 says, this is mostly procedural. Pedro :  Chat  11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question if any content was merged, was WP:MAD ("Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, requires that the history of the merged text be preserved") followed? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closure was correct. The fact that the admin could have made a better closing statement is not a reason to overturn the closure --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per E.Naval. Well said. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nothing wrong with the close but the point, made above, about preserving the history for GFDL reasons, since there seems to have been significant content merged, needs addressing. There is some discussion of the implications in the essay WP:MAD. Smile a While (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
March 23, 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 23, 2004 was closed as no consensus. I was just about to close this as delete. The reason was that the closer wasn't willing to "create policy" however, I felt that there was precedents to delete these if desired, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 25, 1988 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 22, 1963 (which ended up redirected to one event). Plus, the consensus I saw to easily be delete. I was like to see this overturned and deleted. Wizardman 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from closing admin - Wizardman approached me about this, and I explained that I believed the respondents on the AfD had significantly different understandings of what we should do with date pages. Since this wasn't something that could be easily handled at AfD, my very strong preference was that the community make some decisions about how to handle it. I am not comfortable with a "policy-bat" like that one a low-traffic AfD entry. I wasn't fond of creating precedent like that, either. I am glad this has come to DRV (and supported Wizardman in his suggestion to bring it here) because it gives it a wider viewership as we determine what the appropriate way to handle articles such as this are. - Philippe 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently there are are a lot of pages like this. They do not really belong in the article namespace... since they exist only to be transcluded and aren't useful to view on their own (since they provide no context). I would suggest merging them all back into the month pages. --Rividian (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision. This is a tough one for me. While I'd like to see the article deleted, I suspect the right way to go about it is to approach this as a policy thing. There are so many articles for dates (every date from 2003 and 2004), all of which are live. Rather than delete an individual date (or all of them?), we should focus on making sure the policy is clear, and then get it all cleaned up. If/when the policy is clear, the content will need to be moved to the relevant month articles, and the ~700 procedural speedy deletes could probably go ahead. -- Mark Chovain 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please do not delete the date articles. We don't merge and delete :) Just leave them as redirects. --- RockMFR 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This would set an inappropriate precedent as well as leaving holes in the list of dates. Would recommend opening a centralized discussion topic about it, to consider merging the articles to months (or other units). Stifle (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It appears the close suggested would set a much larger precedent than I'm comfortable letting AfD do. I'd suggest going to all the month pages, substituting the days, then making them all into redirects, as at least a temporary solution. The redirects should then not be deleted to preserve history. I believe I'll get started on that later today, when I have more time. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done January 2004. Man, is that tiring. I'll do February 2004 later, but I have work to do first. If anyone else would mind lending me a hand with these, that'd be great. It also appears that there's more than just some from 2004 that need this treatment, so it might be worth writing a bot to do all the subst'ing, fixing, and redirecting. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per closing admin's argument. That said, I see no reason at all why these articles should exist as anything more than redirects, given they are all redundant. In the case of htis specific article, it is redundant to March 2004. Not at all certain why we don't just list all of this information on the monthly article rather than transcluding a large collection of daily articles. There certainly needs to be some discussion about these. Resolute 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I too see this as a larger policy issue. Normally when dates appear in Wikipedia articles, clicking on them will not send you to a page on the specific day in question, as the month-day combination (March 23) and the year (2004) are linked separately.
    I would strongly prefer that clicking on the date send you to a page on that specific day, but that's a decision to be made on a system-wide basis, not in a piecemeal fashion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I somehow missed the AfD, and my comment now is not really a DRV comment (since DRV is not AfD2), but I do hope that you'll allow me to expand a bit and perhaps reconsider it all. I have, quite a while ago, raised the discussion to delete all date pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 16, 2005, and the consensus at the time was that we indeed don't need them, but it was unclear what was the best solution. Later, looking deeper into this, it turned out that these pages are transcluded on month pages, and were used by some predecessors of the portal current events. I have then started moving these pages to the portal current events, copying their current practice, so that their coverage is extended backwards in time. I did this for five months (August 2005 - December 2005), but then stopped for a number of reasons. The result is pages like August 2005, which are in line with what is done for August 2007 and so on. If these pages are considered useful and worth keeping, I would strongly suggest that all date pages (2003, 2004, and half of 2005) are changed to portal current events pages (a tedious job, but perhaps it can be automated?) and afterwards deleted (with removal of the few links each page has of course). Fram (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G12 this page and all the other pages for dates in March 204 as copyright violations of March 2004#March 23, 2004, the pages seem to have been copy/pasted without attribution from this version of the page and then transcluded back to the main page in this series of edits. Without attribution or a link to the previous page histories this is a violation of the GFDL license under which the content was released. Guest9999 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the copyright issues I don't see how thirty short pages make the subject matter easier to access than one reasonably sized page with exactly the same content. I would be in favour of returning the March 2004 page to its pre-transcluded state (which would also restore the table of contents making it easier to navigate) and having the individual dates redirect to the appropriate sections. This doesn't really appear to be a question of content as much as one of style and presentation and I really don't see the need to have more than thirty articles where one will suffice. Guest9999 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

For some reason these were supposedly speedy deleted under CSD T3. There was no discussion about deleting these under the template talk pages I could find, (self-comment-edit snip confused junk) --Mysidia (talk) Withdrawn --Mysidia (talk)

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

13 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tennessee Center for Policy Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

My understanding is that this article was deleted from Wikipedia in February of this year when persistent vandalism became an issue. The vandalism occurred as a result of a press release filed by the center criticizing Vice President Al Gore for his energy consumption. I understand that this vandalism is not an appropriate reason for deletion, so if my understanding is unclear, I would appreciate being informed of the real reason for deletion. At any rate, I am requesting temporary review of the article in order to assist me in creating a new article on the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. I hope I've done this correctly... I have to admit that I don't truly know what I'm doing. Mlumley (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anne Blair Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was still in the process of creating this page. Ms. Blair Brown is an accomplished professional painter in the Plein-air style. Her works are sold in many galleries and she is a teacher in the style. She is worthy of an article in the encyclopedia. If more needs to be noted on her accomplishments, I can write additional content. Please restore and allow me to add more.

Katrocity (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can meet the requirements for visual artists, there would be no objection to rewriting an article. But the article when deleted asserted only the presence of her works in various commercial galleries, which is not notability. I'm not sure i would have considered it even a claim to notability. 14:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Maltese Rugby League Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable international rugby league association,players like Matt Gafa are currently declared for them Gnevin (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Seconds From Disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

Nominated by an SPA that hasn't been investigated or even mentioned by the closer, other sock votes are present, the main deletion votes were quoting the opinions of an essay, and what other templates might be created if this one stays - both invalid reasons for deletion per the deletion policy, also the backlog skewed the vote, had it been closed at the proper 7 day point it was a clear keep. MickMacNee (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - The primary argument for deletion is that the template only really applies to a single article. There really was no counter to this argument presented. The template was subst-ed to the proper article, which means it's no longer necessary to keep. The fact that the debate ran longer than normal is irrelevant; XfD debates often run long, and sometimes that can change the outcome. It's not a deciding factor for overriding the decision though, unlike a debate which is closed too soon. Being nominated by an SPA is also not a valid reason to overturn. -- Kesh (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument against that position was made, being that it is perfectly obvious what the link was, being the feature topic of the the show's episodes (aside from the fact some voters didn't have a clue what Sfd was even about, even though it was a highly notable show, referenced in many articles already). The argument that they need to be linked in some tangible way over and above having been analysed in Sfd episodes is an argument put forward in an essay, and thus is not policy, and thus not a valid reason for deletion. The SPA is relevant, has a checkuser been run on any of the voters? Did any of the late arriving deleters go canvassing? The initial delete voter has a history with me, and I with him, so I have trouble extending good faith in this instance. Why was one deleter on his 11th edit? Even after double the amount of time, the vote was hardly over-whelming on numbers. You'd see how someone might think the process could have been skewed here. Anyway, that is all irrelevant to the major point, an essay position cannot be used as a valid reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As others have pointed out, using an essay to emphasis deletion reasons is considered valid. It cannot be the primary reason (all by itself), but it can factor into the deletion reasons. I'm afraid consensus is against you here. There really was no valid "counter" to the fact the template is only relevant to a single article, and the events it links to are only related by the show itself. They have nothing else in common, which means there's no reason to link them together with this template. And again, whether you AGF or not on the nominator is irrelevant to the final decision. -- Kesh (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The argument that they are linked by the show is the argument for the template. How can I phrase this any clearer? The essay says the opposite, and as an essay and not a policy, this means the arguments are at best equal, therefore the amount of keep votes registered dictates this was a default 'keep' as no clear majority emerged (discounting the socks and SPA), when you discount the other invalid argument 'if you keep this then x,y,z, will be created' which also has never been a valid deletion rationale. As you point out, an essay supports, well in this case, what policy was it supporting? Nothing but the POV that the program is not enough of a notable link. No policy, no valid deletion, just an equal argument to 'this does not violate any policy'. To illustrate, there are essays on all sorts of opinions, most conflicting. This is why they are essays and not policies. Or do I seriously have to create an essay 'Using templates to link the related subjects of an analytical television documentary series is a good thing' before you see this basic fact? Essays are opinions, as are other votes. There are clear reasons for a deletion to be made, this did not pass that burden. It is frankly a POV opinion to say the relation documented in the template is not a reason to link the articles. Or are you also going to object if a See Also to the series is added? Which achieves the same objective, in the same amount of space, but is basically worse than what has been deleted for no good reason than a weak POV. If things were deletable on such weak merits eventually there won't be much left on wikipedia. And the motivation of the nominator is highly relevant, unless you are advocating a free for all of SPA nominations. The fact is, if I were to call for a check-user of the nominator with all the deleters, there would be an outcry, so how else do you suggest that SPA nominations are to be prevented if they aren't speedy removed, as I have seen happen before many times. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The argument that they are linked by the show is the argument for the template. And as I stated, that's not a valid argument to keep it. One show covering numerous topics does not mean that a template is necessary on articles about those topics. Anyway, we're going in circles here, so I have nothing further to say. -- Kesh (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who says? Do you even know what the common theme of the show is? Or are you like some of these ignorant delete voters who were not even aware of the show? Like I said and keep saying, give me a single policy or guideline that says that being on the same series is not a valid reason to keep, when you actually understand what the show is about. If all you have is an essay, then you are basically coming to the party late. You need to turn the essay into a guideline and you might have a fighting chance, turn it into a policy and its a lock, but you cannot use it as a binding POV in a deletion discussion, when it does not meet any accepted standard for a reason for deletion. In most sensible discussions, the case is supposed to be err on the side of keep in such weak circumstances (and it should be especially so in this case where there is a clear self interest from someone to try and turn such a weak position into a delete, for reasons only they know); in the spirit of maximum benefit for all readers over pointless destruction based on a few POV opinions in the dark recesses of Tfd. MickMacNee (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is long-standing precedent that a navbox is only used for articles which are closely related. Being part of the same television series does not fit this criterion. How much more plainly can that be stated? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • At least now you actually admit you have no policy or guideline reason, so now we're left with you stating you can use essays on precedent, with others stating essays can become policy on precedent, so which is it? If this is a precedent, why isn't a guideline? /policy. This is a very handy hypocritical loophole if you ask me. And yet again you show your ignorance by merely stating this is just another tv series, as if there is no possible reason why anyone might be interest in the links. Are you aware of the Titanic theory? Of the method of analysis of the show and how it relates to information in the articles? Or even of the common aspects between the episodes? This isn't just a weak relationship you're removing here, this is a documentary analysing the causes and effects of disasters in a common way, with common themes. Who are you to assume these aren't related beyond a title? You haven't given any factual reason for this belief beyond a freely ignored essay on weak grounds, presumable more concerned about clutter than relevance, which is a joke as I have stated a hundred times this takes up one line of space, no more than a See Also list entry to Sfd. I'm frankly thinking this is more about the ignorance of the deleters about the show rather than any concern over the relevance of information in the pedia. And what about the precedent that people don't usualy create things that don't add to the encyclopoedia? Or the precedent that SPA nominations are usually speedy withdrawn as against AGF. This is a totally selective viewpoint, and doesn't recognise the keep votes, or the comments following its creation from editors who appreciated the creation. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin statement. XfD - especially TfD, due to usual low participation is not a vote. The number or type of accounts which participated in a debate is completely irrelevant to the final outcome. This was not a proper use for a template. Seconds from disaster uses extremely well known events in its episodes, and having a huge unwieldy navbox on articles such as Titanic is not an appropriate use of the template namespace. How many television specials have done episodes on the Titanic? Do those all need navboxes? What about September 11, 2001 attacks? (That wasn't an article from which the template was removed, but is given as an example) Should there be a template at the bottom of every article about whom the History Channel has done an in-house biographic special? Of course not, because the navbox would be huge and unwieldy and the fact that the History Channel has probably both done in-house specials about Isaac Newton and Harry Truman doesn't mean the two are now any more inextricably related. This TV show, and template, are no different. When it comes down to it, this is a DRV for the sake of DRV. The arguments to keep the template on all of those separate articles had no merit and the procedural grounds on which this DRV are based hold no water. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a deletion for the sake of a deletion, you have given no policy reason for the removal of this template. What might happen in the future to articles is completely irrelevant. The comparison with History Channel bios are irrelevant, the nature of those biography shows bear no resemblane to the science of analysing causes of disasters, and was a common fallacy made in most of the deletes, complete strawmen arguments along the lines of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And at the sake of repeating myself so much is getting ridiculous, this template takes up one line of space, no bigger than a See Also list entry. The continued references to Titanic also completely ignore the many smaller articles this template was on. And you have singularly failed to give any other example of these what you and others assert are hundreds of TV shows exactly like Sfd dealing with different articles in this way, bar the fallacies such as History bios or laughingly, films by James Cameron. I'm not even sure how you justify a deletion decision by giving your own arguments for deletion, rather than pointing out on what policy grounds the delete votes made outweighed the keep votes. You have singularly ignored the keep votes by the way, this was not a small vote with few votes as you suggest where you eeded to make your own interpretation, and if it was, socks and SPAs are highly relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Actually I was about to close it just about the same way (but I think the closing admin should have explained his reasoning there). Essays are perfectly valid to use as arguments, they are shorthands of the editor's opinion, there was no much point in copy/pasting them instead. I think some keeps are very weak - saying "The episodes aren't notable, but the insidents are" is actually a reason to delete the template (the episodes aren't notable) and keep the incidents (but that is not the discussion subject); two other keeps were not about the template but the nominator's intentions - while most (all?) deletes refered to the template itself. - Nabla (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say again, an essay, which does not quote a single valid policy to be used in a nomination for deletion, is not a valid reason for deletion. And on the point of notability, I can't believe how many people have clearly never even seen this program and have no clue about what is in the episodes, and how they relate to the articles in question. On the grounds of notability, the latest credible theory of the sinking of Titanic was revealed on the relevant Sfd episode. The episodes are routinely referenced in other articles. The arguments for deletion have been basically IDONTLIKEIT essay reasons and relatively unimportant style concerns dressed up as important policy violating content issues, and like I said, have given an obvious suspicious SPa his desired conclusion, and not a single admin is even suspicious. Removing this template adds nothing to the encyclopoedia, but doesn't protect it from anything either, not even the nonsense examples given as the theoretical thin end of the wedge it would apparently encourage, basically an ill-thought out argument. There was no valid policy argument for the deletion nomination of this template, and therefore this deletion is invalid. I can't put it any plainer than that. If someone gives me a policy reason, fair enough, but they haven't because they can't. The template has not violated any policy or even guideline, hence why a freely ignored essay has been quoted as if it was one. I am frankly pissed off at having to take an enormous amount of time to defend a valid template that even two editors thought was a good creation even before this vote, at the whim of a poxy SPA who obviously has something to hide, but knows that there are plenty of people willing to do his destructive work, even sock voters it seems. Why should anyone seeing this deletion ever bother to create anything for wikipedia? If anything admins should be discouraging this behaviour, not enabling it, for the bad faith example it sets to other contributors. Everyone whines on about NPOV and BLP, but these sorts of deletions are the real dirty secret of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to neutral. Note that this as little to nothing to do with your reasoning. You try to make a case strictly based in policy, while you ignore it yourself. There is no ploicy, that I am aware, backing you. There is none against SPA nominating to delete. None against votes after any set date. None against quoting essays. So, by what looks like your standards, your DRV should be speedily closed as not based on policy. Well... I'm not that strict, I think we should do what's best for an encyclopedia. Period. That's *the* policy. I'm changing because I remembered why haven't I closed it, althoug I was leaning to close as delete: because I thought it could be useful to let it go for a while (relisting is rare at TfD... maybe I should have done it...) as the decission was not absolutely clear.- Nabla (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As Ryan said, this is not a vote. It's a discussion to gather a consensus. And I hate to disagree with people above, but you don't need to give a policy reason to delete an article. If an admin feels like a consensus has been reached to delete something, then it should be deleted. Consensus trumps all other things. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The DRV nom appears to have no clear procedural violations to point to. If a policy reason is not given in a !vote, the closing admin may use discretion in weighting such arguments, but if consensus is clear the admin should have a good reason to go against it. As Nabla says, in the end the main rule is doing what's best for the project. This is clearly in violation of WP:NAVBOX, which is an essay to be sure, but there's no reason editors can't cite it. (Essays can become guidelines if enough people support them, after all, and how else to reach that new consensus except by testing it?) --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Violations - variously referring to policies and essays interchangeably, referring in deletion reasons to 'what might happen', delete voter never having seen the show, not recognising it is 50/50 at best when SPAs and socks are eliminated, not recognising that removal of the template brings nothiing to the encyclopoedia, yet does the work of an obvious bad faith nominator. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closer accurately judged "keep" and "delete" opinions' relative cogency and accordance with WP practices and precedents. Deor (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Essays are a collection of arguments that you can refer to instead of having to write them again every time. Keep votes did not address why their template should not comply with the arguments listed at WP:NAVBOX, or how their keep votes were nothing but what is described at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the admin correctly valued so instead of making a head count. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough of the crap, OTSE was never an argument made by keep voters, if anything OTHERSTUFF-MIGHT-EXIST was a large argument made by deleters. As for the essay, if we actually have to consider it a valid argument for deletion as opposed to solid reasons like VER and NOT, then let's address the essay's requirements:
      • Navigational templates provide navigation
        • Of course, condition met
      • Navigational templates provide navigation between existing articles
        • Of course, condition met
      • Navigational templates provide navigation between related articles
        • It depends if you consider them related, the fact some deleters do not even know what is on the show should invalidate their views, the unwillingness of others to address this issue beyond false and frankly laughable comparisons with random shows on the biography channel for crying out loud should eliminate the rest. I am not going to re-iterate why the methods and findings of this show in relation to each and every article is important, if you haven't got it by now, you clearly never will, but sure as hell a delete opinion doesn't help anyone who actually does see the relevance, because through deleter's ignorance, supported by SPA's and socks, they will never have the opportunity to realise the fact.
      • Navigational templates are not arbitrarily decorative
        • Of course, condition met

MickMacNee (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making blanket accusations that all/most that voted delete are sockpuppets, instead report them at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. So far none of them is tagged as such and most (but one, I think) are long established editors, so hardly sock puppets.
The delete reason was precisely that these incidents are not related themselves, except that they share a common (possible) source, and that such connection is faint and not enough to warrant a template. Those are valid opinions.
Nabla (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vote is 60:40 at best given the over long vote due to the backlog, with SPA and sock/s, so of course it is relevant. And with your other comments, you're only reinforcing my opinon that you have never seen this show, and as such cannot and never will appreciate the link served by this template, as now you apparently think the link is because all disasters had a common source. This is a simple case of ignorance of a subject. It is not a simple filmography, but if you haven't seen the show you seriously just wouldn't know what the connection was. Im still amazed at the fixation with the Titanic article, when there are articles such as the Hyatt Regency collapse as well. The point is others will, and do, appreciate the significance, irrespective of what a few people only interested in Tfd /DRV think. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You simply refuse to reply to any question, instead keep on making accusations without anything backing them. I asked what policy backs you... no reply, who are the sock puppets... no reply. No point in discussing any further. Oh! Yes, I've seen a few episodes, quite good most of them. - Nabla (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, the articles are *not* related just because they appear on different chapters of the same TV series. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the above comment, this ignorant view seems to be born from never having seen the show in question, rather treating it as the same as subjects appearing on the Biography Channel. Absolute rubbish. MickMacNee (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Seconds_From_Disaster, it looks like a very well done series of documentals, but you need a convincing reason of why the documentals are important for the disaster articles. In particular, finding sources that use those documentals as basis to explain the disaster, or similar notable stuff that relates the documental to the disasters. I don't think at all that watching the documentals would change my mind. To be honest, I think you were just wowed by well done and spectacular documentals. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about breaking the latest Titanic theory, or is that just irrelevant spectacularism? I have seen this very program used as a source in wikipedia. Do you not know what the National Geographic is? At least my suspicions are confirmed, you have no clue about the series, like most other voters. Anyone would think we were discussing A-Team episodes being linked on a political template. MickMacNee (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't oppose using those documentaries as sources, and I don't think that they are not notable on themselves. However, a template to link all disasters talked about on the series is unnecessary and brings nothing to the articles. If, for example, the documentary dismounts one of the theories of Titanic's sinking, then you can just use it as a source on Titanic article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/comment: as I understand, the template was appearing on the articles about the disasters themselves, rather than only on articles about the episodes? If my understanding is correct, then I would endorse deletion, per WP:IAR and the rationale of the deleting administrator. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the MMN's A-Team analogy above. That's exactly what this is like. Not at all a good idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - There's nothing wrong with linking to an essay, as long as the link is accompanied with a reasoned argument. (Ultimately, the quality of the argument matters more than the place where it is expressed.) Since most of what I could say has already been written above, I will repeat my comment from the TfD (with one modification): "There is no need for a template to connect one article about a real-world disaster with another article about a completely unrelated disaster. That the Chernobyl disaster, for instance, was profiled for the Seconds From Disaster series is ultimately an extremely minor detail in the context of the Chernobyl disaster. [That the sinking of the Titanic was also profiled for the Seconds From Disaster series is completely irrelevant in the context of the Chernobyl disaster, and should not be mentioned in that article, which is exactly what this template did.] At most, this template ought to appear only in Seconds From Disaster, where it is redundant to the episode list." Black Falcon (Talk) 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Assassin vine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Phantom fungus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Tendriculos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello! :) Late last year, Assassin vine was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, Daniel deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history?

Also, if you are amenable to it, I would like Phantom fungus and Tendriculos restored and redirected to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters as well, which were deleted at the same time as Assassin vine under the same circumstances. And if it’s not asking too much, could you also restore the edit history of Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) (which was deleted at the same time, but there is now a redirect). Thanks!  :)

I had attempted to contact Daniel, but he appears to be an inactive editor now. I e-mailed him, but have not yet heard back from him. Previously, he restored and redirected Treant, Shambling Mound and Shrieker (Dungeons & Dragons), so I could only assume that if he were still around he would do the same for me now.BOZ (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) As with Destrachan, I feel that restoring the history under the redirect is more appropriate than a history merge, as stated by Bobet there. BOZ (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

There used to be an article on a website known as grudge match that was deleted without any discussion and I was wondering if an admin could send me the information in that article or a copy. I was referred to here in the help desk.

Anyway the site has been around for over 10 years and the creators of the website have made a book in the same style as the website and it's been mentioned in Entertainment Weekly so I think that may establish notability, in case someone wants to un-delete it (if that's even a word).Father Time89 (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was deleted as an expired prod but has a substantial edit history as it was recreated as a different topic, then merged to another page. I would have no objection to restoring the page as Grudge Match (website) or similar, but am not certain on how to go about this without screwing up the history. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Move the current redirect and history to a temp page, 2) delete the new redirect, 3) undelete the old article, 4) move it to wherever it is going, 5) delete the new redirect, 6) move the temp page back to the current page, 7) delete the redirect at the temp page. I think that will keep all of each page's history in the right place, and have all the redirects solely from this process end up deleted. GRBerry 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Karina Pasian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Artist has released a single that has radio play and a video, so I feel that the notability concerns no longer exist. Her album even has a released date: August 19th. [106] ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mainly I don't want this particular page restored, just the page unprotected so that the article may be recreated and merged with Karina (R&B singer), and merged with 16 @ War. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD consensus was based on the artist failing to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Having a single with radio play and a video does not remedy that, unless the single is "a charted hit on any national music chart". Keep Deleted unless sources are provided demonstrating that Karina Pasian does now satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria. --Stormie (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #11 under Criteria for musicians and ensembles states "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's currently protected from creation by non-Admins. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 14:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then restore the history, and keep it protected --Enric Naval (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stardoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm wondering if the community will allow this page to be unprotected so I can move a newly written and far less promotional stub about the Stardoll website into projectspace. The page was recreated multiple times here and at Stardoll.com, but was deleted as G11 or as A7 several times; as indicated in the draft, there has been substantial coverage in major media, and the hit counts adn member list for the site would indicate notability at this point. (Note that I did this responding to a request for assistance from Wikisolipsist (talk · contribs), who identified him/herself as a rep for the site and wanted to avoid conflict issues.) Thoughts on the draft and the opportunity for unprotecting? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion/allow recreation. With the Washington Post source there now, I'm confident this article would pass another AfD, so there is no need to relist.
Comment. The AfDlisted above doesn't make any sense and appears to be spam. MrPrada (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with a {{db-empty}}. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Operation Bold Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The procedural reason I bring this here is that there the debate was closed as delete, when there was no consensus. It should therefor have ended as no consensus. The closer stated there was clear consensus that the operation was non notable, but half the editors pointed out that military action by a brigade sized unit is inherently notable, which may have been unclear at the time. MrPrada (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The closing admin noted that the original deletion nomination was very weak. There were no real reasons given to delete (NPOV and N), rather guidelines for things that could have been improved.

    These articles that are getting deleted describe activity under the counterinsurgency doctrine, not the force-on-force warfighter doctrine. Their scale is the same, but the motives (finding insurgents, weapons and intelligence as opposed to destroying an enemy army) are different.

    If a division level element says the operation is notable, then it is notable. If an individual company or battalion was asserting notability I would say otherwise, however in this case we have to trust the primary source until the history books are written. As another editor pointed out on a deletion discussion for a different Iraq operation, "I do not agree with this recommendation to delete this article. The fact is this is a named military operation in an recent ongoing conflict and it simply hasn't been going on long enough to hit the history books yet. It is also my opinion that the reference is from a good source so it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps this is a good example of the WP:IAR policy. Just because the references are scarce does not make it non-notible. I would state that any names military operations is notible and should qualify to have an article on wikipedia even if its only a stub."

    Having been to Iraq, "battles" don't occur in the traditional force on force sense. Anything deemed an "Operation", especially when conducted by an entire BCT (4,000-7,000 men) over a 2-3 day period is notable. I could compile a list of similar actions from nearly ever other war on Wikipedia, but I will spare you the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.

    The list at List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, where the other Iraqi-related AfDs have gone, fails to include many of the most notable Operations, e.g. Market Garden, Attleboro, Powder River, Ad Duluyah Sunrise, etc. When the history books are written, I'm sure they'll all be FAs by then. However, right now it is too soon to state that any particular operation is or is not notable. However, conducted at the BCT and above, which requites coordination of 4-5 battalions (5k to 7k soldiers) across a wide geographic area or major city, plus Iraqi troops, are inherently notable. If there was consensus that these were not notable operations, myself or the other editor would have conceded the possibility for that to be the case, thus, consensus. However, the opposite occurred, and the delete editors conceded that the operation may in fact be notable. So the consensus would have been that there was no consensus, not to delete. MrPrada (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and history merge. Jonny-mt closed this one well. In response to the delete position that the operation isn't notable, keepers respond that that WP:N isn't policy and can't be citing in deletion discussions. However, this arguement is invalid because WP:N is an inclusion criterion, so an article that fails it shouldn't be included. I suggest a history merge because of the existing redirect, and because it makes the GFDL happy. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer correctly evaluated that we need to apply WP:N on this case. Even if it's a named operation with many men, we still need some published independient third party sources asserting its notability. You see, this is a one day operation to locate caches of weapons that had no repercusion on the course of the war (didn't locate anything, and didn't cause any death, injury or damage to anything), and we have only one self-published primary source stating that it was important, and it says that it was because of the deterrent aspect. This can perfectly be an exaggeration from the US Army. The Iraq war has a string of non-notable operations, and wikipedia should cover only the ones that become notable. Please, compare to Operation_Attleboro which must have been smaller than this op but was actually bigger, with 16,000 men participating, and was covered several times by TIME magazine. Or Operation_Market_Garden, which was actually important on the war, has been studied extensively, and has been featured on several films and videogames, and meets WP:N by a huge margin. This editor says that List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War has many notable operations, but I say that we consider them non-notable until sources that assert notability are given. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Market Garden and Attleboro operations that I'm referring to are OIF operations named after the originals. They are among the largest counterinsurgency ops conducted thusfar, for instance, Attleboro was executed by two divisions. However now its only a brief mention in the list article. There were minimal casualties, and the only sources would be from the 1st Cav and 1st ID, and maybe some Iraqi newspapers. Under the lense we're using now, it'd be deleted. However others authors might share the view that these Operations likely have lasting notability that may not be clear so close to the conflict. That is the consensus to keep that was established in the AfD, which was not outweighed by the consensus to delete. Hence, the close should have been no consensus. MrPrada (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I already noticed that you were referring to Iraq war operations with the same name. However, the point here is that those WWII operations are notable, while these operations from Iraq War are not notable for now. If/when they become notable with indepedient sources talking about them, you can ask for re-creation. Until now, I have only seen sources dependient from the US military, which seem to be trying to give publicity to their operations --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - six deletes and two keeps is enough to delete absent very strong arguments from the keep "voters", which weren't there. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the arguments given above there are thousands of pages that would currently fail the notibility guidlines including a large percentage of the biographies for military figures and famous actors and actresses. Using this logic if a Medal of Honor recipient were input and the only reference was from the Marine Corps Whos Who site then it would fail and would be deleted even though precedence has been set that ANYONE who received a Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross is automatically notible. I still stand behind my earlier comments that these are recent named military operations and the reason there arent,t any additional sources is because there hasn't been time to write it out. After doing a little research I have determined that using the logic given above Operation Bold action passed. When I google this op I get no less than 4 Sources I would consider good. Global Security, MNF-Iraq Website, Defense Link, And the Army webpage. I am sure that with a little more effort I could find more. The point that I am trying to make is instead of sayng it wasn't notible because it only had one reference, someone should have looked for more references rather than delete it. Additionally, what is a non-notible article to you or to a specific country might be completely notible to me or another country. For example if I was from america the David Hasselhoff Rock and roll article wouldn't be interesting but to someone in europe where he was a big rock and roll singer it would be. With the millions of edits and hits that wikipedia gets a day to say the it failed notibility because 6 bothered to stop and cast a vote to me seems like a weak poll.--Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as correctly determining consensus of the discussion at hand, which is all an AfD closer is asked to do. DRV is not AFD 2. I agree with the close of jonny-mt, I also have no problem with a histmerge and expansion to the redirected article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Operation United Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The procedural reason I bring this here is that the debate was closed as delete, with no reason given. I assume it was closed for the along the same lines as the above article, as they were nominated at the same time, by the same user, and closed by the same administrator, so I suggest overturning for the reasons listed above and below. MrPrada (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I find the original deletion nomination very weak. There were no real reasons given to delete (NPOV and N), rather guidelines for things that could have been improved.

    These articles that are getting deleted describe activity under the counterinsurgency doctrine, not the force-on-force warfighter doctrine. Their scale is the same, but the motives (finding insurgents, weapons and intelligence as opposed to destroying an enemy army) are different.

    If a division level element says the operation is notable, then it is notable. If an individual company or battalion was asserting notability I would say otherwise, however in this case we have to trust the primary source until the history books are written. As another editor pointed out on a deletion discussion for a different Iraq operation, "I do not agree with this recommendation to delete this article. The fact is this is a named military operation in an recent ongoing conflict and it simply hasn't been going on long enough to hit the history books yet. It is also my opinion that the reference is from a good source so it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps this is a good example of the WP:IAR policy. Just because the references are scarce does not make it non-notible. I would state that any names military operations is notible and should qualify to have an article on wikipedia even if its only a stub."

    Having been to Iraq, "battles" don't occur in the traditional force on force sense. Anything deemed an "Operation", especially when conducted by an entire BCT (4,000-7,000 men) over a 2-3 day period is notable. I could compile a list of similar actions from nearly ever other war on Wikipedia, but I will spare you the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. MrPrada (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and merge histories. There wasn't anything wrong with the closure of the AfD. Jonny-mt may have not included a reason, but I don't think one was necessary. You presented the only keep arguement, and it doesn't outweigh the delete ones. Now, since there's an existing redirect, I suggest we merge the histories under it, have GFDL be happy and generally everything's good. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion fails WP:N, should be expanded inside of List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War where it belongs. See my comment on related DRV above --Enric Naval (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was clear and correctly interpreted. DRV is not AFD round 2. No problem having it in the list mentioned above. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as correctly determining consensus of the discussion at hand, which is all an AfD closer is asked to do. DRV is not AFD 2. I agree with the close of jonny-mt, I also have no problem with a histmerge and expansion to the redirected article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Las_Vegas_Reservation_Bureau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

revised article in my sandbox - I'm very new to this and caused the page to be deleted. Not a spammer. Datado (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Hmmm... I'm not really sure yet. The proposed version (located here) isn't speedy-able, but I'm not sure it'd survive an AfD. My guess is that it'd be a valid stub, but I'm not confident enough to !vote here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Per Lifebaka I don't think this page would survive an AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Undelete. Please allow my revised article to reside on the page. The original article was the cause for deletion. I inadvertantly removed an important tag, which apparantly expedited the page removal. I am confident that the current article (located here) would survive an AFD if given the chance. Datado (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The sandbox version still reads a little advertising-like, and the sourcing is very weak. Only the Travel Nevada '98 article is really an independent, notable source and that's just a passing mention of the award received. There's just not enough here to keep it. -- Kesh (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source is strong, actually. The other sources provided are to the Nevada Commission on Tourism and Nevada Magazine, a division of the commission. They are the original source. they do not archive their back issues but they can be contacted to verify the information. Furthermore, the Nevada Magazine back issues are available in the periodical section of libraries. Perhaps verification is not easy, but difinitely verifiable. Datado (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing from the references section can be verified, they need to more specific. MrPrada (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references have been edited. The references can be verified in two ways. 1. Visit a library and refer to the periodical. 2. Call Nevada Magazine, ask for an editor and request verification. Datado (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I wrote that, it did not list a specific article. It only said "Nevada Magazine". However, now that you've fixed it, I'm still not sure that the detail on the websites achievements ("oldest", primary source, and "Best in 1998 and 2002", from the Nevada Magazine guide) is enough, and the impact and historical significance is negligible, which likely means the original Speedy was correct. I'm struggling to convince myself how this passes WP:WEB, but I find it more in the realm of WP:NOT#INTERNET.
        • May I suggest a very similar article, VEGAS.com, a company owned by a major multi-media corporation, whose references are mostly provided by their own sister companies. This article's only real achievements are receiving awards for their own ad campaign. If this article passes WP:WEB then so should mine. Additionally, the annual "Best Of" editions of Nevada Magazine, a bi-monthly periodical, lists the "Best Of" many things, which is chosen by the readers. I referenced only the "Best Reservation Service" in Nevada for 1998 and 2002. This is notable and verifiable. The company is the oldest continually operating reservation service in Las Vegas. It began in 1973. I understand that verifying this is difficult but it is a fact and also notable.Datado (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That article uses the Las Vegas Review Journal, New York Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. If your site is as notable as Vegas.com, why aren't there similar second party sources available?
            • Because my site is not owned by a major multi-media corporation (newspapers, tv stations, major cable provider, etc.) with sister companies providing most of the sources. The company that owns my site is very small, which is notable because it still exists. Datado (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but unprotect after a period of time, say, 30 days. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Tobasco Donkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer --evrik (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for admins viewing deleted text: another version of this article has since been deleted that was a stright copyvio from the band's website; for the article deleted at AfD you need to go back at least one revision. Black Kite 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wijikipeddia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

and the other redirects. deleted out of process, these are real languages and Wikipedia is being very discriminatory in deleting. Thefurryman (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and possibly speedy close - nom seems to be a troll [see contribs], and these 'languages' have 0 google hits, as do the 'Wikipedia' translations. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:53, May 12, 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally go with "very confused". Let's not bite the newbies. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to be a newbie. I think that he knows what he's doing and is not at all confused. The bad faith is clear. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Google Me: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As a representative of the producers of this film, I'd like to have a Wikipedia page up for the viewers and buyers of the DVD. I have been discussing the notability of the film with the administrator. Having a wiki page would help answer the many general questions that we get on a regular basis. Please let me know what I can do to get the page active. Thank you. Googlemethemovie (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List. Best way to deal with a contested speedy or ProD. Furthermore, this seems to be a close case, which would be resolved better through an Afd. I strongly recommend listing it there. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Although there are obvious serious COI issues and other problems the movie maybe be notable enough for inclusion. See [107] [108] which may meet WP:N. If there are concerns about the COI I'll be happy to help out and keep a close eye on the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd have to say that the above puts it beyond speedy-able territory, but not out of the woods yet. I'd suggest the nom work on it on a subpage in someone's userspace (but not his own, since the username is advertising itself and should probably be blocked). Userfy the old content if he wants a starting point. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a userspace draft first Ooops, I hadn't noticed what the author intends the article to be. I would like to see a draft of what I'm !voting about. Relist Speedy was correct for the information an that time. Now we know that there are some sources like Washington Post[109] that could maybe stablish enough notability. This is not a clear case, and border cases should just go directly back to AfD instead of discussing at DRV --Enric Naval (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The purpose of the request for recreation is completely at odds with Wikipedia's purpose. If the user wants a page to answer general questions, etc., it should be on his own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite in User space - As Stifle says, the request is rather improper. Given the sources that are being found, a new version could be written from scratch that would properly satisfy WP:V and WP:N, provided WP:COI is kept in mind. I'd want to see the rewrite before it gets moved to article space, though. We aren't here to provide a FAQ for the company. -- Kesh (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The speedy was correct in this instance. MrPrada (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of lifestyles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2)

Propose making a list or other for specific subcategories of lifestyle. E.g. lifestyles that doctors consider unhealthy (smoking, alcohol, caffeine) or sexual identity lifestyles (gay, transgender, nudism, but not foot fetish or any particular practice--the lifestyle must be a sexual identity). Bejjinks (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't. The nom doesn't object to the deletion, and DRV isn't meant for doin' anything else. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new. After I wrote this I found list of subcultures. Perhaps all we need is to redirect all searches for a list of lifestyles to the list of subcultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejjinks (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sigma Technology – While not strictly meeting the G4 criterion, the deletion is being endorsed for the other identified problems. Noting that meanwhile an article on the related IOSO technology has been created, I'll redirect there for now. The mentioned deletion discussion can still be invoked by interested editors if the article is expanded. – Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sigma Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

well, i just can't understand why this one exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esteco ? BTW if i began with software being produced (i mean not company page but explanation of the IOSO technology>other article name) the result would be different, won't it? Xevilgeniusx 04:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list at AfD. Incorrect WP:CSD#G4 deletion; this content has not been subject to a XfD discussion. Not spammy enough for WP:CSD#G11, but likely not notable, so AfD is the best place to discuss this. Incidentally, I deleted Esteco as WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking Jc37 just pushed the wrong button; the article was tagged {{db-inc}} and the closest I see the article coming to asserting notability for the company, as opposed to the techniques it uses, is "The core development team has about 20 highly qualified employees, somу [sic] of them are well-known scientists in the world(5 Doctors of science(engineering) and 8 PhDs)". Endorse. —Cryptic 10:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - while not a valid G4 deletion, G11 and/or A7 could have applied. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List at afd There are enough people who want to list it that we might as well get a community decision there. *endorse deletion A7 and G11 are so close that listing one for the other does not necessarily amount to a reversible error. DGG (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) my meaning was not that it was a mistake but that the two are often equivalent or almost so--if the only claims are advertisement, there's often no actual claim for notability, and vice versa. DGG (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    No, I didn't accidentally hit the wrong button. Though I would welcome discussion concerning my evaluation of the page. I also have no problem with this going to AFD, though I doubt that further process will "save" this content.
    First, I'd like to note that it was created with the hangon tag in place before it was even listed for speedy this time. (link to deleted text) First indicator (to me) of recreation.
    Second:
    "The algorithm allows us to reach the speed-up parameter value that equals the total number of operational CPUs. For example, when using 20 processors we can speed-up the optimization process 40 and more times."
    Note the use of "us" and "we". And that's just one example. This is clearly promotional material, and quite possibly a copyvio.
    Note also that all 4 references go to the iosotech website. (Which may possibly be the "source" of at least the brochure part of this advertising/spam. Though I'll admit I didn't search through the site's pdfs for it.)
    The rest was nearly duplicate of the previous speedied article. So this, to me, was a combination of G4/G11 (A7 being a lesser concern at this point), and I attempted to note that in the edit summary. My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. - jc37 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand G4; it requires a previous XfD to be aplicable. Previous speedy deletions don't cut it for that one, I'm afraid. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. In reading it over, I see the CSD page says that. I had thought, since it met the CSD (G11 et al) requirements the last time, and since little had changed (except adding a possible copyvio) that G4 applied this time. Definitely worth discussing "somewhere", though not here, obviously. In any case, G11, and A7 (and probably G12) all apply. So I'll still endorse the deletion. Thanks for the heads up : ) - jc37 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11 is about advertising, not spam. I believe you are mixing this up with G12. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it meets G12 but may or may not meet G11. Different reasons, same result. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Broadmoor (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article deletion was based on WP:MUSIC. On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadmoor (album) was explained that on WP:MUSIC is nothing that says that the article should be deleted. No policy-based neutral argument was for the deletion. User:Neil suddenly deleted the page although the deletion nomination was wrong. The admin already deleted a page wrongly: User talk:Neil#AfD on Navneet Singh Khadian.  LYKANTROP  10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 May 2008

[edit]
  • Darth Vader's helmet – Endorse status quo of merge-redirect. Actual content of many delete votes indicates a consensus for merger, regardless of what bolded statements say (which indicated no consensus). That said, there is a clear editorial consensus here (and there) that an article on Darth Vader's helmet does not belong on its own. If significant new information with reliable and independent sources should come to light, future discussions to split the article should take place on the Darth Vader talk page. No prejudice against relisting at RfD, as a minority felt this was an unlikely search term. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darth Vader's helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Once you get past the initial repetetive "per nom" and "nnotable" non-arguments, the article was improved during the discussion to contain information that the consensus was really to merge and redirect without deletion. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because of GFDL problems, I'm OK with restoring history and leaving a redirect Endorse deletion of the redirect barring GFDL problems. Seriously, non-notable item outside of Starwars universe, and nobody is going to use that as a search term. It would just be brought to WP:CFD categories for discussion and summarily deleted as an unlikely search term. No comment on GFDL authorship attribution problems on deleting the article with its history after merging the info it contained. Couldn't histories just be merged? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at Darth_Vader I can see some sourced mentions of his helmet, but it doesn't look like a major contribution to the article that needs attribution. Remember that the GFDL only requires attribution to the five major authors of the current version of an article.[citation needed] We are just preserving attribution to every single guy that edits the article because you never know who will wind up being a major contributor. In this case, I think that they merged so much little info that preserving history is probably unnecessary. The closing admin should look at the deleted article and determine if major contributions were merged or not, and some admin could comment on it too. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of the redirect — Le Grand Roi apparently didn't read those parts of the DRV instructions where it says "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." and also "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)." GFDL problems are non-existent and, more importantly, are employed solely as a tactical argument in the DRV-nom's strategy to transform Wikipedia from an encyclopedic project into a trivia dump. dorftrottel (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD was closed fine as far as I can tell. Le Grand Roi, if you'd like to perform a merge yourself I'm sure the content can be userfied for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure represented a very clear consensus on this. The content can be preserved by copying it somewhere else. There is a limit to the amount of appropriate detail in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/relist It isn't at all clear to me that the many delete votes saw the improvements to the article which were mainly made after they voted. Thus it should be relisted with the new material being explicitly taken into account. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - consensus appears to be clear, if the helmet is important to the character information can be included in the main Darth Vader article which isn't that long. If the information is not suitable for inclusion in the main article then a separate article would seem to go into an inappropriate level of detail. Guest9999 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any issue with restoring this as a redirect, so I'm going to go ahead and do so. DRV can decide whether to keep it as a redirect or restore the article entirely. --- RockMFR 02:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • GFDL issues. Overturn and redirect to Darth Vader. The ignorance of the inappropriateness of "merge and delete" persists. Work done on one page that now persists on another means that the history of both needs recording to comply with the GFDL. Content forks should *always* be merged and redirected by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, recreate as redirect to Darth Vader. As this has been done closure of this DRV may be called for. WP:MAD is something all administrators should be aware of and satisfying the GFDL takes precedence over a consensus at AFD, which could well be "wrong". The intended outcome was achieved; deletion was simply the inappropriate way to achieve it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the page has already been recreated and redirected, there is no longer a GFDL problem. Endorse the current state of affairs and Dorftrottel's comments. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Current state of affairs seems fine to me. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and merge into the article, as has been done. The AFD was closed incorrectly as the discussion clearly mandated a merge, rather than deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am also okay with the restoration of the article, merge, and redirect that has apparently taken place, which is where the AfD's discussion was headed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Can an admin look to see if any content was actually merged? If it was, then Overturn and Redirect really was necessary per GFDL. Otherwise, if no content was actually merged, then Endorse and Delete it again. -- Kesh (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the article had no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the helmet per se; in fact, the sources cited were not independent of the fictional character Darth Vader. What sources there were mentioned the helmet only in passing, or mentioned the helmet in order to provide context for more notable topics. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oddly enough, the article actually does have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the helmet per se; in fact, the sources cited were idependent of the fictional character Darth vader. The sources mentioned there mentioned the helmet in a prominent manner in order to provide context for this notable topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (checks all five sources again just in case) Uh, no, the first source is a guide to buying military memorabilia, so I don't think it deals exclusively with the helmet. Other two sources are references to the helmet on the context of japanese culture influence on Star Wars[110], and on the context of dealing with the figure of Darth Vader himself[111]. The last two sources are links to merchadising [112][113] in order to source that existed merchadising (of course, everything on Star Wars has merchadising of it own, so that's not notable either) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Time and fate deities in popular culture – Deletion endorsed. After reviewing the changes made to the article in the interval of the AfD, they do not appear to rise to a level where !votes early in the discussion should be discounted (and the closes seems to have accounted for these changes in the closure). The comments still address concerns that were certainly present in the article. I would not be averse however to userfying the article for further improvement. Assessments of particular topics as being "inherently unencyclopedic" are unhelpful and untrue. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Time and fate deities in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clear lack of actual consensus to delete; much stronger arguments to keep. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment In this case, everyone did agree that at best the material needed to be reworked extensively in some manner, and this can probably be done without undeleting the present article. DGG (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While thanking Sandstein for the thorough explanation, I believe that no consensus, keep for now, would have been a better close, especially given that the subject was a moving target and the latter !votes trended more to keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Sandstein correctly gave greater weight to those citing key policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DIRECTORY. Spellcast (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per all above, and I don't need a comment on why my endorse "vote" is wrong, thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per Smokeyjoe. Many of the delete votes occurred before improvements to the article. Since this was at best a no-consensus leading to admin discretion close without that fact that pushes it into the area where it should be closed as no consensus proper. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing improper in close, and the "improvements to the article" during the AfD discussion failed to address the arguments for deletion and so are irrelevant. Deor (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Claiming that all "in popular cultural" articles are somehow automatically unencyclopedic is problematic as Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC variations of "I don't like it". The fact is that the material is verfiable, covered in a variety of sources (thus, not original research), and presented in prose (thus, not a directory). Even if someone found this material to be trivia, well, trivia is encyclopedic. In the end, what it boils down is there is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this article when we have projects dedicated to revising and improving these articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that deletion is proper on the grounds of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but because WP:TRIVIA says "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations," I recommend that we remand it to the deleting administrator for reconsideration of whether deletion is proper based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and consensus, if any) or not. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request. Given that some are saying that improvements to the article during the AfD are irrelevent because they were not good enough, can we have the article temporarily undeleted so that those improvements can be reviewed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn article quality is not a reason to delete which the closer seemed to be intimating with their final comment. If it had have been closed as 'no consensus', adequate time would have been possible for improvement rather than the 5-7 days of scurrying around. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nilsson awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
6th Annual Nilsson Awards for Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • New information about the awards have been added to a blogger website that seems quite notable. [114]. I would like this for review. I also spoke to the webmaster of the blog and he said that he has been granted permission from C.D. Nilsson to record the past awards, and the future ones. I think this is an article tht should be included for information for people who want to learn about the selection and about who was nominated ad won in past years. Hooty88888 (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

A7: Notability Hooty88888 (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could very well find these newspapers, but I would not know how to present them in a way to prove their total notability. I'd also like to comment on how the blog presented is NOT the only source and I only showed that to show the fan following of the awards. As for the near-unanimous outcome, I believe under the undeletion policy if new sources are presented the article can be put up for review. Hooty88888 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can get one article from the "Thomaston Express" and one from "Grizzly News" both local newspapers. There may be a small snippet of information in the "Republican-American (Waterbury)", but that is a long shot. I will also work harder to find more, but that is all I have until then! Hooty88888 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The deletion closure was correct and the only additional material presented to justify changing that decision is a blog, which is not a reliable source, and indeed appears to be a primary source. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Near-unanimous outcome based on applicable policy. Sandstein (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I might feel differently if this blog were a well-known preexisting notable blog writing in the area that had an entry on the awards. But simply someone making a whole new blog about the awards really doesn't cut it. We need reliable sources that are independent and this one isn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the blog notable? If yes, then please explain; otherwise, endorse deletion. You can always re-add it, with appropriate independent sources that establish importance and notability. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blog has permission directly from C.D. Nilsson to post the winners of the awards and direct history and information about the awards and C.D. Nilsson. Apparently, however, this blog is not notable. And neither is C.D. Nilsson, who is an award winning screenwriter and well-known author, at least according to the people who closed the articles. I guess I can find the newspapers and reopen this when I can prove their notability. Hooty88888 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would like to note that this blog only puts up what C.D. Nilsson tells them. They have direct interviews with him and are starting to advertise. I talked to the owner of the blog and he said he is adding much more about the awards and should be adding the interviews with C.D. Nilsson within the next couple of days. just noting. Hooty88888 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to make it clear to you, but you're saying that the blog is a primary source with significant involvement by the subject. That makes it unusable as evidence of notability. This is going in the exact opposite direction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the prohibition against re-submission of deleted content applies only if the re-submission doesn't address the reason for deletion, even if the consensus here is to endorse deletion you can still re-submit the article with the newspaper article as a source. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He only asked what the blog was. I know that the blog, as a source, is a long shot, but it tells a lot about the awards. As for the newspapers I will dig them out and add them later! 69.118.168.125 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qualia (hotel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

G11: Blatant Advertising Potus1 (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. As I explained to you at the NCHP, the article is written like a brochure. You're welcome to clean it up, but as it was when you posted it, it's not acceptable for Wikipedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no content in the deleted history that wasn't cobbled together from various pages on www.qualia.com.au. —Cryptic 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GLScene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

At at least one point in time, this article was English: http://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLScene It shouldn't have been deleted; it should have been reverted to this earlier version. DanielPharos (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by mistake, I didn't check the history thoroughly. Undeleted and restored to English version. JIP | Talk 16:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've manually copied the Portugese version to the Portugese WikiPedia, so let them figure it out :0) --DanielPharos (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Draugiem.lv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

the most popular site of a European country merits inclusion on it's own right, I think. (a while ago I left a comment on the repeatedly deleted article's talk page with links to alexa rankings etc., but it's purged again) Lysis rationale (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, since you haven't provided any reason to restore the old article content, and the AfD was closed just fine. However, I suggest you work on a draft in your userspace (at, say User:Lysis rationale/Draugiem.lv) and make sure that the article doesn't still fail the policies cited at the AfD, then put it back into mainspace. Or, since the most recent deletion was over a year ago, you might want to try just writting a better version in mainspace itself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what you're saying is that it can't be restored by now...? I think the old content was just fine, I actually never saw it hehe as it has been deleted forever since, anyway there's no way it could have been an advertisement as was mentioned in the AfD discussion, the site is property of Lattelecom and Lattelecom is property of Telia Sonera or something, I think they really have better things to do than to write vanity articles on the English Wikipedia. I however am not planning to write it nor have I been a contributor, I just thought it should be undeleted. Lysis rationale (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just saying that the AfD was closed fine, and it appears that the deletions after that were also fine. So there's nothing wrong with the process for us to overturn here. The old content can be userfied for you to work on, if you want a starting point. But if you don't plan to write a version and can't point out why the old, properly deleted versions should be restored, I don't think there's much we can do here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Destrachan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello! :) In March, Destrachan was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, Secret deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters, which which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? I have brought this up to Secret, but the user seems to be mostly inactive. BOZ (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. :) It would be great if someone could restore the edit history to the original article. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restory history and keep as redirect History merge BOZ is making a reasonable request based on new information and that does not go against the old deletion decision --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the history under the redirect, the content can be merged from there if necessary. A history merge should only be used with cut and paste moves, not regular merges, since it would needlessly obfuscate the history of both articles. - Bobet 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking it should be, yes. :) BOZ (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2008

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

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Virgin Killer

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Raxivort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was apparently speedy deleted in March 2007. I don't know what was on it previously, but I was wondering if it could be restored. If it can be shaped into a reasonable article, I would like to do so, otherwise I could just merge the text that's there and redirect into List of Greyhawk deities or somewhere else appropriate. I did not contact the deleting admin, because they seem to be no longer an active editor? BOZ (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to that list looks plausible. The deletion was for lack of meaningful content, so unless you have sources for expansion, that is all that really can happen. For comparison, the full content of this approximates the intro paragraph and references sections of Semuanya or Skerrit. GRBerry 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be good enough for a start, and I could probably add to it. BOZ (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright then, I've lost all my support.  :) As long as there are no issues with doing so, I'll start working on a copyvio free version, probably tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to the history, content was stubbed because of 'plagiarism' but neither lack of context (CSD A1) nor lack of content (CSD A3) seem to be applicable here. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that issue, we shouldn't restore history, that is essentially a copyright concern. What we can do give BOZ the sources that were in the deleted article, and let him read them, add content to the list, and create the redirect. GRBerry 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was it actually a copyvio though? BOZ (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources had url links, all appear to be printed sources. None I still own (though at least one I did years ago) So I can't call it blatant proven copyvio eligible for speedy deletion on that basis, but I do strongly suspect it of being a copyvio. The text removed in the relevant diff just feels like it was copied from some of the sources that were used. GRBerry 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that really is the case, and worse comes to worse I can just recreate it as a stub, or just as a redirect to the list; it's not a big deal either way. :) BOZ (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Parish (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted again after notability asserted and AfD vote to keep! As per WP:MUSIC#6, I believe notability is asserted. Two members of said group are current and founding members of Crimson Glory, a band whom themselves are at least notable as per WP:MUSIC#5 (Two album released on a major or more important indie label - they released two albums on Roadrunner Records) and WP:MUSIC#12 (Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network - they had a full two-hour concert broadcast across America on Z ROCK Radio from the Manatee Civic Center on Sept. 2, 1989). They could quite possibly meet others, including #3 and #4 as well... 6wolf2112 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ARTICLE_NAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON My name is Frank Bentner and I work at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. Our University does what little research there is out there on First Nations Alaka Natives and we view our work as important. There is a researcher/published author named Ernest Sipes who is being quoted often at UAF and in academic journals and he is doing a lot of new research on First Nations Peoples. I put a page on him at Wikipedia but it was removed and I don't know why. I read all the causes for deletion and I redid the page but it was removed again yesterday. Can you please review the new page on Ernest Sipes and reinstate it? The new page contain bio info and is somewhat longer than the original page. Thank you, Frank Bentner P.O. Box 3247, University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Tele. (907)458-8510 e-mail: frank_bentner@hotmail.com

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

8 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wayne Nelson Corliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was speedied WP:CSD#G10. It had a {{hangon}} with an explanation on talk (I added both). I think this is close enough to notable (meaning it may be) to warrant AfD. Elliskev 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, hmmm... G10 isn't really about notability. Page isn't in the cache, but if it was sourced, as you say on your and the admin's talk pages, I don't believe there's anything in WP:DEL to cover the speedy deletion of this. I'm going to assume it was written in a neutral tone and suggest a restore and list at AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, assuming the G10 was valid (I have no way to be sure). Why not rewrite a neutral version? That should solve the issue. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was very neutral and sourced (only two sources had made it in however - it was a stub). Is there any way to get an admin to pull it up so we can see? --Elliskev 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. G10 wasn't really relevant but A7 would have been. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In line with Stifle's comment above, circumventing G10 would lead me to consider A7. And BLP still concerns me, as the man has not actually been convicted of the crime(s) for which he is accused, and there was no balanced presentation; only that he was a suspect apprehended, and while it was reported clearly, it would undoubtedly inspire further conviction in the court of public opinion before the legal process is permitted to run its course. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs.) Regarding notability after a presumed conviction, I would consider an AFD to discuss the notability of a criminal convicted of a (disturbingly) non-notable crime, and/or a (disturbingly) non-notable number of times and/or a (disturbingly) non-notable level of severity. The google hits I got was 64 (one of them was this article), and most of these are press that repeat what other sources report, such as AP. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I think G10 was fine as a reason, but A7 will do it also. I don't see evidence at this time that this merits AFD consideration. GRBerry 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion He hasn't still been convicted, the article would be changing with every news article about the trial, with no reliable sources specially if the trial summary is secret. Once the trial ends, an AfD can see if he is notable enough to have his own article or should just be included on a list of famous convicted pederasts or, who knows, a list of people accused wrongly of pederasty :P --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice The final version of the article, even with refs, was definitely A7-able in my mind. He's suspected of rape. What about the case stands out that it merits an article? That being said, if events develop that an article can be written, by all means let one be created. Blueboy96 13:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Critical Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Didn't have a watch on the page and missed the PROD warning, can re-edit page and clean up links once it is restored. Nelsonbu (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just asked for it to be restored, being a PROD deletion. Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pink (Mindless Self Indulgence album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contains important information to fans, can have disclaimer regarding issues surrounding tracklisting requiring more sources. EarthBoundX5 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - deleting admin notes that deletion was after an expired prod. No reliable sources found to support the notability of the album. No prejudice to recreation should such sources materialize. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Just to be clear, the reason in the deletion log was not my reason for deleting it. My reason for deleting it was simply due to the expired PROD, and the reason listed in the log is the reason that was on the PROD tag. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A reasonably extensive search found no reliable sources (and none were provided). The purported album might be important to fans (though we have nothing to substantiate this), but we have no verifiable information to provide. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. It's an contested prod, so it gets restored. Discussions about notability can be had at AFD. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD. Oooopsie, lack of notability is not listed on the list of speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD. You first need to go to AfD, get a delete result, and then you can apply {{db-g4}} "Recreation of deleted material" Endorse If it really had no verifiability at all (I can't see the deleted version), then restoring it can only end with a speedy deletion. AfD would be a waste of time unless the article is recreated with sources asserting notability per WP:MUSIC. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Lack of verifiability is not a valid reason for a speedy delete. If UsaSatsui is correct on the procedure on this one (and I don't know), I'll send it right to AfD if someone doesn't beat me to it (or reliable sources don't suddenly appear). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • School alumni categories – leave them undeleted, possible relisting possible. (I noticed that the later CFD for a later discussion for a school in Baltimore had unanimous "delete" opinions before being closed due to this DRV, but with further discussion that may of course have changed). Like the last DRV I closed (Enc.Dram.), I disagree personally with the existence of such pages, since alumni lists in the school articles are easier to build and source, but my personal opinion does not trump consensus. We might note that WaltCip is wrong when he says "Consensus trumps policy", but DGG has the right idea when he says "consensus interprets policy" (as long as its within reason.) I have taken note of the WP:V concerns, but note that the fact that categories lack citations and references is something true of all the categories we have on Wikipedia, so I don't think the WP:V policy is applied in that manner to categories. (Rather a citation in the article which is put into the relevant category is desirable/required in the long run, if this remains a problem for most of the categories, they will eventually become quite empty as the articles are removed from them.) – Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Admin initially correctly closed the CFD as delete but after being pressured by two editors reversed himself. Closing admin has expressed deep regret over allowing himself to be pressured in this way. The original interpretation of the CFD was correct, the categories fail WP:V and are also non-defining of the people included, CFD is not a vote and the original deletion should be reinstated. Otto4711 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore - Consensus trumps policy.--WaltCip (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I wasn't going to chime in as closer on this one, but I take exception to the "consensus trumps policy" statement above. No, it doesn't. You can have unanimous support to keep an attack category, but at the end of the day it's gone. --Kbdank71 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment consensus does not trump policy, but it does interpret it. The attack policy for example is applied strictly because such application has very strong consensus every time. DGG (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way to put words in my mouth. I didn't say vegetarianism is "crucial;" I said it was defining. And for all of your bluster about red herrings you have yet to rebut my point in the CFD that these categories are nothing but Category:People who graduated high school and that people are neither notable for nor defined by graduating high school. It may very well be interesting that so-and-so graduated high school but it does not define who that person is as a person. Pick any person in any of these categories and list off the things that define them. Does "graduated high school" make the top ten? The top fifty? For the vast majority of them, no. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn "consensus" decision and delete wtf? WP:V does trump the consensus at a CfD. It's supposed to be a fucking core policy. The interpretation at the CfD is too loose and makes WP:V almost totally irrelevant on discussion categories. This closing was faulty and should have been "delete the cats and add the sources articles to the school article". Actually, nobody has stated what purpose the category serves on the first place or what is the purpose of making an alphabetically sorted list of every person that ever set a foot on a Baltimore college (see my examples below), specially when you already have List_of_Baltimore_City_College_people (check the well organized list on the article) which has the same list, only that it lists people grouped by meaningful groups, sources on a centralized place the claims of assistance, can state clearly on the same list when and why the person has been specially relevant and can even place photos. There is nothing notable on that category and does not aid navigation since nobody has a reason to navigate such a trivial list and the article with the list of people is way better and it's linked from the school article. This is a case of WP:OVERCATegorization that is defended with no arguments backed on policy. Nobody has made a case of when a visitor to the encyclopedia would find this category useful. should have been a "delete per being empty categories after taking out unverified articles" like the original decision stated. Delete all the categories and restore them only one by one once you have 4 or 5 articles that verify assistance to that high school. Once they are created they can then be brought again to CfD for being irrelevant categories and then the info be added to the school article instead, but that was not the argument used on this CfD closure and the discussion would be out of place on DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESTORE categories on grounds that the deleting admin erred: Failing WP:V applies to the articles themselves not the category. DO go back and remove all articles from categories where the references do not support the alumnus status. THEN delete all categories that remain empty after the usual few days. After all of this is done, if there are any sparsely-populated categories - particularly those with only 1 or 2 alumni - nominate them for deletion individually. I fully expect 80-99% of these categories will disappear by virtue of being empty or having only 1 entry in them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh, isn't this just a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy? The closing admin states that out of 50 articles that he tested only one was properly sourced to be on the category. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The original nomination targeted categories containing 1,489 articles. A result derived from examining 3% of them isn't obviously correct for the other 97%. This discussion is perfectly appropriate. RossPatterson (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Sampling_(statistics). Unfortunately, the admin didn't say if it was random sampling or if he made some sort of case selection to get a representative sample of the articles on the categories. Anyways, even with a not-very-random sampling, if you get 98% failure when examing 3% of the total population, you can probably assume that the total population has at least 80-90% failure (giving a very generous margin of error), unless you have chosen a terribly bad sample. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, per Enric Naval. Neither verifiable nor remotely notable or useful categories. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given the circumstances of this deletion I would recommend that for clarity, people would refrain from stating "endorse" or "overturn" on their own as it is unclear what exactly you wish to overturn or endorse without further clarification. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the categories (they are not currently deleted). Given the way articles are categorized, it is literally impossible for a category to be verifiable - there's no way to put source references in the category listing. However it is absolutely possible for the categorization of an individual article to be verifiable, and any category added to an article should be supported by a statement in the article and a source for that statement. As to the claim that of 50 articles only 1 was sourced, I can easily identify 50 that are sourced. Despite Kbdank71's regret, he did the right thing in reversing his own decision to delete. RossPatterson (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Admittedly those who favored retention in the CfD didn't give the WP:V point much attention, but I don't think it's compelling. In most cases the alumni categorizations could be easily verified with a quick Google search. One might argue that citing such trivial (that is, trivial to verify) information as a subject's high school is overkill. In any case, though, it's at most an issue with the articles and not the categories. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Categories cannot fail V. DGG (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the articles that were listed at the categories that failed WP:V for inclusion on the category. The closing admin had reasons to think that most articles on the category were unverified, which means that the category was making unverified claims of assistance to a certain high school on hundreds of articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kbank says that in 49 out of 50 articles checked the high school was not properly sourced. Did K try to find sources? THis is usually quite easy (for politicians, academics, film people, sporetspeople, media people ...) but very time-consuming to add an inline ref for a non-controversial detail such as school, college. There is a difference between unverified and unverifiable. Also there are over 2000 articles in these 73 categories, many of which have proper sources. I would be happy to check over the 50 if I knew which they were. (The WP:V point, made right at the end of the discussion, applies to any artcile in any category. It was not explained why it is unusually relevent to High Schools.) Another point is that the school alumni catgory is usually included in a 'people from' catgory and deletion loses this. Occuli (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP:BURDEN of proof of properly sourcing an article before including it on a category is on the editor that adds the article to the category. In this case, the closing admin found 49 that had not done the sourcing work. So, he had reasons to believe that the articles on the category were in its majority unsourced. It's not the responsability of the closing admin to go over 2000 articles to source every single on so the category doesn't get deleted and it's unreasonable to expect closing admins to make this sort of work. Editors are supposed to first source the articles correctly and *then* create the category and put the articles on it. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we are talking bussiness :) Just make a list with the small categories so we can verify them, and save them from deletion, and then we nuke the big ones that have dozens of unverified articles (unless someone is willing to verify them article by article before the DRV ends). If you know of some category where you know for sure that all articles are sourced for attendance to the high school, please list it too and mark it as verified so we can make just a cursory check to make sure the sourcing is correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About sampling.... I checked the first category that you list Category:Baltimore City College alumni, and I started looking one by one from the first one on the list. Under "A" there 5 articles, 4 are properly sourced and such, but Balamurali_Ambati says nothing about Baltimore, but it says that he graduated from New York University at age 13, and he seems to be from New York [115]. If we look at List_of_Baltimore_City_College_people, which is a total repetition of what the category lists, we can see that it is properly sourced and listed under "Science" (more proper context than the category), and that its source says "Bala, as he is known, is relieved to be out of Baltimore City College High School, where he resented the peer pressure to not excel.". So, his stay as Baltimore student is non-notable, and there are obvious advantages on letting people click on "Baltimore High School" and then clicking on the list of people, like the name of school being listed only on articles where the school is actually relevant to the article, instead of indiscriminately put at the bottom of everyone that has put a foot on the college as a student. These categories are just unverifiable repetitions of lists of people that can be easily sourced, and which give undue weight to ever having gone to a certain college in cases where this is not a notable event at all and it could have been any other college --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the above was on "A" which is at the start of the list and probably gets verified more often. Let's check the only entry at "U" "Uris attended schools in Norfolk, Virginia and Baltimore but never graduated from high school" Leon Uris. Hey, this looks fun, let's try "W":
  • So, if this is what you call well-cited, then I want to see some serious proof that the categories are actually sourced. Notice that the samples I choosed have some article with huge WP:V issues for the inclusion on the category, and that there is no guarantee that the categories are not filled with articles with this sort of problems. And, no, I'm going to go trought 50 articles to source them all for a category with almost no utility at all, and much less go trought all the other 1439 articles to fix them. if you want to be able to say that the categories are well-cited, then go fix it yourself, since you are the one that wants to preserve the category. I take special offence on the cases where the stay on a Baltimore college is totally irrelevant to the article and is not mentioned anywhere. If the mention of the college is irrelevant, then the category is also irrelevant, and the proper place for the mention of that person is on List_of_Baltimore_City_College_people where it is actually relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was one of those who "pressured" (really?) Kbdank into his rethink. These categories aren't inherently unverifiable such as to violate policy. If any particular article fails to use the category correctly, then either a source can be added or the category removed. Deleting all the categories regardless is a WP:BATHWATER reaction. NB clearly no consensus to delete based on such categories being "non-defining". BencherliteTalk 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect the closing admin to do this work for you. On its current state, the articles' inclusion on the categories was not verified, and a CfD is not about any particular article but about a category --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Quite aside from the fact that high school alumni categories are basically WP:OCAT-violating trivia, which isn't any less true just because it isn't part of DRV's role to evaluate, a category most certainly can fail WP:V, albeit indirectly: if the entries are all unreferenced, then proper category maintenance requires them to all be removed. And if that happens, then the category is empty and thus deletable. Bottom line, if a category doesn't have a single properly-referenced entry in it, then it's an invalid category. And then we come back to the fact that even if the entries are referenced, it's still essentially trivia which merits a list, not a category. And no, consensus doesn't trump policy, either. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOFIXIT — xDanielx T/C\R 07:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the closing admin's work. On CfD he only has to assess if the cat ought to be deleted on its current state and he may give advice on what to do to restore them. People who want the categories back should fix it. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To draw a few quotes from our easily-forgotten deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. . . . [An article may be deleted if] all attempts to [bring it in compliance with WP:V] have failed . . . [P]ages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept . . ." — xDanielx T/C\R 17:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a single page that can easily be verified. As RossPatterson points above, the categories had a total of 1,489 articles. Suggesting that the nominator should make an attempt to bring them to compliance to WP:V is madness. I think that common sense requires to interpret that sentence from policy in proper context (aka, what the heck can possibly qualify as "all attempts" on this case apart from trying to verify a thousand and a half articles. Again, this is madness). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1,489 sounds like quite a figure until we realize that deletion implicates 74 categories and detrements 1,489 articles. Improvement doesn't need to be a one-man task -- I'd be happy to pitch in, though quite frankly I think the current state of the articles is perfectly satisfactory. (As I said earlier, easily accessible information like school attendance is trivial to verify and generally not challenged or likely to be challenged.) — xDanielx T/C\R 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you going to check regularly the categories to see that nobody adds unverified articles? This is not like an article, which can get watchlisted and then you can check the newest additions one by one and click on the sources. Maintaining this category verifiable is a *huge* trouble compared to keeping a list that already exists. About challenging, do you realize that any editor can add any unverified article that he wishes to any of the categories and that you will never notice unless you check the category list regularly? And those are 74 different categories that you have to check regularly for unverified articles, compared to watchlisting 74 articles. This is just WP:OVERCATategorizing for the sake of it, when there are "list of" articles that already handle the task on a way better manner, can be verified much more easily, can put persons on proper context (grouping by achievemnts on life rather than alphabetical order), etc. And the articles don't get detrimented at all because on those articles where the assistance to a Baltimore college is actually relevant', there is already a link to the college page. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Is there something unique about alumni categories that calls for designated category maintainers, as opposed to regular categorization work by regular page editors? There's just no pertinent distinction between these categories and any others. One could certainly argue that category oversight in general is unsatisfactory, but that is a general issue that has nothing to do with these categories in particular. It may be true that the uncontroversial nature of these categories cause page editors to relax their verification standards, but this is only natural and proper -- we needn't give Category:Bolton High School alumni the same attention we do Category:Murderers.
                • Given this, it follows that any energy we might spend maintaining categories or lists of alumni would be equally well spent doing categorization work in general. Click the Random Page link, study the categories you see, add sources or add/remove categories as appropriate -- it would be just as productive. Maintaining a list of alumni might be easier than maintaining a category of alumni, but in either case we might as well be working on categorization in general instead of arbitrarily narrowing our focus.
                • Of course, you would be right in asserting that fewer categories means better category oversight -- just as fewer articles means higher article quality. But, again, this issue is completely general. We can't delete categories arbitrarily simply on this basis -- policy, editorial norms, and common sense require that we identify unique problem areas. Ambiguity, triviality, etc. are perfectly valid reasons to get rid of certain categories, but whether or not verifiability could constitute a proper justification, it doesn't have any unique application in this case. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • See, this article is unnecessary, has a list that covers the topic better, has articles on it where the relevance is nil or where the claim is completely unsourced, its function is already covered by simply linking to the college name on the articles where the fact of having gone to the college is relevant or sourced, all time spent trying to maintain is time wasted since it serves no purpose. Oh, yeah, I forgot, nobody has explained what purpose does this category serve on the first place --Enric Naval (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The admin didn't "assess if the cat ought to be deleted on its current state". No assessment appears to have been made on a category-by-category basis. When dealing with a large collection of categories, the standard of care should be high enough so as to not throw out the good with the bad. I know that sounds hard on Kbdank71, and I don't mean to be incivil, but it's the reason I support their now-regretted decision to change the closing to "keep". Personally, I think they did a good job making a tough choice. RossPatterson (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested compromise: relist. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica – recreate. For a contentious issue as this has been, I think the participants of this discussion deserve a lot of praise because, while their opinions have been strong, they have kept the tone civil and constructive. The consensus here appears to be that the source found should allow this article to receive further discussion. I will move the draft at User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica to the new title as a first round. Regarding listing this on AFD, I don't see a clear consensus here that this needs to be done immediately, but nor is there a consensus that AFD should not be used. I am leaving that matter up to individual editors. (Personally, I continue to have reservations about the website, and will probably vote to delete it if it is brought to AFD.) – Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Before you instantly consider closing this as a disruptive request given that the last DRV was speedily closed, something happened overnight concerning Encyclopedia Dramatica's notability. Something big happened. Specifically, an article in a major Australian media outlet was published about ED. It is obviously a reliable source. It is clearly non-trivial coverage given that the article's primary subject is Enyclopedia Dramatica. Given the draft that already exists at User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica proposed by User:Shii in March 2008 was already at the stage where consensus was that if an article that was primarily about Encyclopedia Dramatica was to be published, notability would be clearly and firmly established per both WP:WEB and the general notability guideline on top of the existing sources we have on the site. Other than WP:IAR, there is nothing in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I know of that can be used to deny Encyclopedia Dramatica an article at this point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousUser12345 (talk • contribs)

  • overturn/allow recreation This nomination was started by an SPA but it seems to have a valid point worth considering. For me at least the MSN article seems to push us clearly into the notable end of things. I suspect that some people will argue that this article focuses on Anonymous more than ED which may be a valid criticism (and it is fairly short). (I wish that these trolls would have the minimal social understanding to have a normal user like Shii or Running start this DRV...) JoshuaZ (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per WP:IAR - this is a perennial issue, and one that will not be solved by DRV alone.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - there is no real reason for not having the article. I have the history of this article (with maybe too much personal opinions about the matter) on my userpage, which was already linked here. ED has three sources that talk about it and 16 sources that mention it somehow (and there are maybe more). I think it's enough. --Have a nice day. Running 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I now read this page and I see that in last month some ED requests were speedily closed with messages like "no new informations" - well, now there actually are new informations - the new msn article. While I think ED was worth the article before it, now it's even more. I think now it's not so much about having or not having the sources, it's more about general principles. I am against this "Oh my, we don't want all these bad trolls and anonymous hackers on our wikipedia!", - WP should not be like that. Wikipedia:Assume good faith --Have a nice day. Running 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist enough for a relisting, though I'm not sure how the AfD will turn out--but finding that out is what AFD is for. DGG (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • annother comment - in one of these closed deletion reviews, I read something like "show us some good draft". Somebody with better english than me can try edit the draft here - User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica/Draft - it's just copied version from march or something, written by Shii, without the new sources. --Have a nice day. Running 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - It's going to be an uphill battle to keep the ED article from becoming a mini-ED itself. Nevertheless, there seem to be good sources, and a large number of people are interested. As for notability, it's currently ranked 2,099 on Alexa, which is significantly higher than Uncyclopedia (Really, check it out). I realise the site is a vicious parody of Wikipedia, but this shouldn't prevent us from covering it. In fact, it should make us more inclined to cover it. --Estemi (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The site is a pile of non-notable nonsense about equally non-notable Livejournal users; to label it "a vicious parody of Wikipedia" may be to give a wee bit too much credit. As for using Alexa to rank ED against Uncyclopedia? Good luck getting anything meaningful, as some unsuspecting fool selling the "uncyclopedia.org" name to Wikia in a backroom deal in July 2006 pretty much ensured that fifty of the fifty-two Uncyclopedia languages will remain hosted on domains other than "uncyclopedia.org" - either "*.wikia.com" or independently - with no new *.uncyclopedia.org subdomains created. This means that Uncyclopedia has multiple Alexa ranks (uncyclopedia.org, uncyclopedia.info, pedia.ws and various others) but no means of obtaining valid info for Désencyclopédie, Inciclopedia and the like. --carlb (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion, and non-notable nonsense, well I guess uncyclopedia isn't nonsense and it's a very useful source of information. Oh and sub-domains are also counted in alexa.com ranks, so even with those 50% of those other uncyclopedias domains you speak of, ED is still considerably more popular.
  • Relist - I have no opinion on the reasoning for the deletion review. That said, the new source seems to be enough to warrent a new AfD. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Stupid nonsense, but that meets my standard for this sort of thing on the notability scale. It's far more than most websites we have articles on achieve. The article if it's remade should be permanently semi-protected to keep trolls at bay. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and make sure to point to a good draft finally a source that unambiguously covers ED directly and not its actions. And it's on the technology section too. I would say "overturn" but an article with such a contentious article should go throught the long path because skiping any step would cause heavy amounts of WP:WIKIDRAMA and flood ANI with cries of undue procedures. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While I think this is a bit early to have another deletion debate about this article, I outlined some sound reasons for keeping it at User:Shii/ED and I think this new source should prove quite helpful to maintaining a good article. Shii (tock) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. The deletion was for notability and sourcing concerns and this seems to have been met. I see no reason we have to go through an AfD; DRV is the proper venue for this sort of thing. Mangojuicetalk 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The various objects to an ED article reek of POV corruption. Wikipedia's mission necessitates an article on this notable (yet still disgusting) wiki. --Truthseeq (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - per the additon of new sources. I was just about to start a DRV myself. Also see my version of the draft at User:Urban Rose/ED.--Urban Rose 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The arguments against always look like a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD, but keep the article permanently full-protected if it is kept - even as Wikipedia's anti-ED poster child, I think the source just pushes it into notability. Just. The problems with an ED article now are troll attacks - the former can really only be dealt with by protecting, as any Grawp-basher knows - trolls from the 4chan family of websites are the most persistent. Do note, that even if the article is kept, the site can not be linked to directly - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO explicitly disallows any links to the site, and the remedy (and enforcement) was upheld two months ago (annoyingly, using my ED page as a reason for denying links). Sceptre (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew this day would come Relist per my prophetic remarks here, barely hours ago. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation On the last extended DRV discussion I thought there was a good claim for notability. This new article solidifies it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, stop the nonsense. Enough already. How many times have we been through this? DurovaCharge! 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apparently you seem to be confused. New sources have turned up that establish ED's notability. There is no policy which forbid that there be an article on ED and consensus can change.--Urban Rose 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, third or fourth nomination inside a week. Disruptive. It has been very clearly established that this article is not wanted on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I (and I'm sure that many other Wikipedians) don't particularly "want" to have to look at pictures of male genitalia on the article penis. That doesn't mean that the images there deserve to be censored. And also, you completely ignore the fact that this nomination differs from the other three in that new sources have recently been found. You simply fail to give a valid argument against the recreation of this article.--Urban Rose 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like Wikipedia:WEDONTNEEDIT. In previous attempts, it has been said many times, that there are not many sources for possible ED article. Altough judging from other articles about other sites, previous news coverage should be sufficient, but there is this new, reliable msn source, which gives ED a little bit more notability. Of course, the article will have to be protected from vandals, just like 4chan article. --Have a nice day. Running 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And your reason being?--Urban Rose 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Last time this came up at deletion review I did not think notability was quite established, with the new article am convinced that it has been and do not see any arguments that it has not been. Anyone can list it at AFD once it has been recreated of course but am convinced it will be kept now. The article should be premamently semi protected at least as a rather special case where it is needed. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Keeping them out because they're odious is contrary to our principles of no censorship, fails to provide neutral coverage of that segment of the web, and passes up the chance to neutrally describe their odiousness. We shouldn't let their misbehavior drag us down towards their level. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as it has become more notable. If we can have a bazillion articles about paedophilia, really weird sex acts, zoophilia, graphic photos of various STDs, etc, etc, I'm sure we can bear the grossness of having an article about ED. -- Naerii 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation notability has been established with the significant MSN source. Of course, relist at AfD if you disagree. EJF (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Encyclopedia Dramatica is clearly relevant enough for an article to be created, not having one seems irresponsible. The content of the site shouldn't affect whether or not there is an article on it, and certainly hasn't stopped articles being created on similar sites.--Advwar (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Advwar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • comment I still don't think this source is very good. It is only one source about the subject, it is quite short, and is it not a web source rather than a paper? It's definitely not the most well known of papers. We often delete articles based on their having only one source. The other sources are not primarily about ED, and all only mention them for a few sentences. It has pretty much the same number of sources than Wikipedia review but not with the same quality or depth, so if we remake it, we technically should have the WR article as well, not that I really think we are obliged to have either. In the case of ED, t's free advertising for what's effectively an attack site.Merkin's mum 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and yes we know ED users want to validate their tawdry website by having a Wikipedia article, and nothing grieves them more than the implication that their little website is of anything less than surpassing importance but tough. It's just another site full of juvenilia and acutely unfunny "humor", there are a million of them. Oh, and I just visited the shithole to find out of Urban Rose has more edits htere than here, but their popups crashed Firefox. So: not only is it a cesspit of boring sophomoric nonsense, it's an ad'-riddled one at that. On the plus side, Rose does have fewer edits there than here (remarkable given her few edits here), but I did rapidly find out that she is active in the discussions about Grawp, who appears to originate at ED (I guess everybody else already knew this and I am just slow catching on). So another reason for not having an article: they are co-ordinating vandalims of Wikipedia as "punishment" for our daring to say how insignificant they are. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have anything to say about the arguments presented here or do you just want to make ad hominem attacks? Shii (tock) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your point - you are trying to say, that WP shouldn't have ED article, because it's attack site and it's full of vulgarities? Well, this can be easily described in the article. If you are implying that all users, that want ED recreated (I shouldn't say recreated, because ED article never really existed) are trolls or something, you are insulting me a little. --Have a nice day. Running 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guy, I understand where you are coming from, but NPOV more or less says we shouldn't let our personal views figure into deletions. The fact that ED is composed almost exclusively of a bunch of complete shitheads who probably get laid even less often than I do and will go shoot themselves in a few years when they realize they haven't contributed anything to humanity at all shouldn't factor into our decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anywhere on ED said Grawp originated at ED. There are some imitators of him operating now. Yes ED is effectively an attack site but that's not the main substance of Guy's argument or mine, which is its lack of sources discussing it in depth- one at the most, and not in a paper, saying how naughty it is. An aside- I think if some people had a very nasty article about them on ED, not just an attractive pic of them, and some of their own words like Urban Rose has, they would understand the views of some who are upset about their articles there a little more. I'm not so upset about mine nowadays but someone (not a regular at ED) wrote one where the title was my full real-world name, which personally I have never posted online. Even ED were sound enough to change it, as it's against their policies. Merkin's mum 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. When the draft at User:Shii/ED (see version [116]) was brought to Deletion Review on March 6th, I thought it was sufficiently well-sourced and sufficiently established notability that, if it were any website without ED's history of conflict with Wikipedia, there would be no dispute about its inclusion. This feature article from ninemsn (which is a collaboration between Microsoft and PBL, one of Australia's largest companies, and according to Alexa is the highest trafficked news website in Australia[117]) clearly pushes the notability level even higher. --Stormie (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - perhaps someone can figure out what exactly ED's claim to fame is. If it is to lampoon/attack WP (which is what the msn article is primarily about), then a redirect to Criticism_of_Wikipedia should suffice. If ED is a shock site, then it belongs in the same group (and is just as worthy of coverage) as goatse. At any rate, I don't think attacking WP is sufficient reason to not have an article/redirect. But then again, I have never been personally attacked by their sophomoric army of twits; my opinion might be different if it were otherwise. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist End the drama. Just relist this for crying out loud! It is more vigourously attacked than most websites, and now that we have a good source, I don't see why this should continue. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per the new source. And let the chips fall where they may. - Merzbow (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation and relist at AfD is anyone feels necessary (which they will, but I don't think it's the job of DRV to tell them to). Sourcing looks nearly excessive from where I stand, and at the very least the new source pushes it close enough to the criteria at WP:N that the community needs to decide on it. It also looks like this is nearly snowballing to allow it, since no one has managed to bring up a reason not to yet except things like "dear god no" and "disruptive", the latter of which is wrong. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually, "relist" is one of the votes at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review. Not sure if the closing admin is supposed to relist it himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The admin doesn't have to relist it... but he can relist, or leave it up to editor discrition. If the admin relists, in my opinion it helps if the admin actually thinks the article should be deleted... a procedural no-vote AFD nomination can be confusing and counterproductive. --Rividian (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break for sanity
Comment - The namespace that the article should be recreated under is Encyclopædia Dramatica. Also, I will mention again that I have a version of the draft at User:Urban Rose/ED which I think is more in line with the sources than Shii's. But if someone wants to use a different version of the draft, I'm okay with that.--Urban Rose 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That name, while more accurate, has the "æ" character on the name, a character that most keyboards don't have. Since enwiki uses mainly latin letters on the english alphabet, I'd rather not use it --Enric Naval (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, my version of the draft has been redirected so it seems that there is one particular draft that consensus is currently in favor of.--Urban Rose 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though whether an article's existence leads to disruption of the project is not a valid consideration for it's deletion. If it was, then articles that have to be permanently semi-protected just to deal with vandalism like George W. Bush should be be deleted as well.--Urban Rose 00:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By any reasonable standard George W. Bush is much more notable than ED. So I'm not sure that argument would hold water. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that considering notability level past the point of inclusion makes sense. We have non-notable for subjects which can't sustain an article, and notable for things which can. It makes some sense to introduce a "semi-notable" category for things in the middle, but it's not clear how to classify things as more notable than clearly notable. -Amarkov

moo! 05:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Is it clear that ED is "clearly notable"? If we had this many sources for a BLP who wanted deletion many people would probably call this borderline notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Per user:Merkinsmum ED seems to have a policy against outing people who haven't already made they're personal information public so I don't see the concern with having this article. Notability should be determined in the AFD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation I have to admit it is notable, even though they have banned me twice for "being a faggot" and seem to love raping each other in the ass. :-P Electricbassguy (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - No need to relist, original reason for deletion no longer met with introduction of non-trivial source, so an article would now fall within policy. VegaDark (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am also for recreation, but I feel that direct recreation would cause a lot more drama than relisting. And the article about ED never really existed - it was always deleted in matter of days.--Have a nice day. Running 11:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not actually true... there was one version that lasted a decent length of time and even survived at least one AFD before succumbing to the successful one. (Supporters of the article don't have a monopoly on the "if at first you don't succeed, try try again" strategy.) *Dan T.* (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if this article doesn't survive the upcoming afd, I think we should unprotect its page from recreation. The only time that I believe pages should be protected from recreation is if a disruptive user is repetitively recreating a specific page. If an article is deleted because of a lack of reliable sources, then the page should still be allowed to be recreated, as if new sources turn up it the future, it's not really fair that those who wish to see the article recreated should have to go through this process, as it was really an entirely different article that was deleted way back when. If someone recreates it without new sources, speedy delete it, but there's no reason to protect it from being recreated.--Urban Rose 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break for sanity 2
  • Allow recreation, but permanently semi-protected I had always been of the mind that given the pain ED has caused, any attempt to recreate the article better be impeccably sourced. The draft provided by Running, combined with the source UrbanRose provided, appears to meet that threshold. Blueboy96 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original ED article was plagued with problems as people from that site were editing disruptively, at one point going as far as to repeatedly remove such basic information as the name of the site's legal owner. In short, the intent was to create an advertisement, not an encyclopædia article, as those who control ED made their endless attempts to control what information appeared in the Wikipedia page on ED. Various sockpuppets like "encydra", "encydra2" were created here as part of this effort. Any reason to believe that yet another recreation of this page will look even remotely like an encyclopædia article instead of just another online battlefield? --carlb (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently protect it, if necessary. But it makes the inclusion criteria, and the possibility of those problems shouldn't preclude inclusion. The same possibility exists for virtually any article, if people care enough to constantly vandalize it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not surprising that when it was a page not based on suitable sources, the contributors were not following other guidelines. Now that there is a well defined suitable source, it should be expected that the content is largely defined by what's in that source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with this article, in its original form, went well beyond the lack of sources. I don't see how one mention in a news article is going to magically change everything, if the content of this wiki has such little notability beyond the brief Jason Fortuny prank notoriety. Given the improbability of this becoming anything more than a mess of advertising, POV pushing and disruption that adds little of any encyclopædic value, it may be best to endorse deletion at this point. --carlb (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one defining source can be like the string of the kite, or the question that defines a debate. Without a proper secondary source, it’s not surprising that there was a rambling flow of original research going wherever the breeze was blowing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a mention, it's substantial coverage.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation now a very notable website with plenty of reliable sources to make a good article.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD. There is a stub with 23 sources. Aren't we holding this to a higher standard than...well...every other article on Wikipedia? Those who wanted the article were told to create a draft with sources to have a discussion...when they did that on May 3, it was closed as a disruption. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation and relist for good measure. I thought Shii came very close in March, and this new source puts ED over the top. Notability is established, and to exclude the article for other reasons doesn't seem to fit our "neutral point of view" ideal. ED isn't even the worst website on the Internet. We have articles about shock sites. Trying to keep this article deleted for eternity isn't going to solve any problems. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation — It's real-life, it has received non-trivial coverage. What more do you want? Granted, ED poses certain unique problems, but if we're going to make an exception here, why not simply shut down Wikipedia altogether? Also endorse User:Blueboy96's suggestion to indefinitely sprotect the article, and the draft at User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica. dorftrottel (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if we make an "exception" here and exclude an article on a marginally notable website that attacks Wikipedians, we might as well just shut down the project. Sorry, I don't follow. Everyking (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If and when we begin to simply decide ourselves what kind of knowledge we want to provide to mankind, then Wikipedia has stopped being an encyclopedia. "Marginally notable" is at least as subjective an opinion as "sufficiently notable", and that means that if we are going to take Wikipedia seriously at all, we have —for better or worse— simply no other choice than to have an article about a topic that has been covered, and mentioned at least in passing on several notable news sources: [118](The Observer), [119](NY Times), [120](Danas), [121] (NU.nl). We can decide not to have an article about it, but we cannot do that without abandoning the 'encyclopedia' aspect of the project, and the 'free' aspect too, for that matter (not to mention the 'anyone can edit' portion). Consider that I have no strong preference either way, but at this point it is either - or. I for one would like Wikipedia to be about 'all human knowledge', and yes, even in the face of the fact of what ED is and does. dorftrottel (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we have an article on Stormfront (website), complete with external links to that site. Thus, there's no grounds to claim that there's any exclusion of hate sites that overrides normal WP practice. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not completely convinced. An encyclopedia that is missing certain topics would still be an encyclopedia. Deciding a topic will be more trouble than it is worth doesn't make us not an encyclopedia. Ultimately we need to think about what will benefit our readers more. Now, as far as I'm concerned making such decisions provides seriously perverse incentives to people to harass and disrupt when they don't want articles and also possibly undermines WP:NPOV. But claiming that doing so would make us somehow not an encyclopedia is hard to accept. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you also agree to removing the occasional problematic BLP? And for all, again: I don't mind not having an article about ED, just not under the intellectually dishonest pretence that Wikipedia can still be an encyclopedic project while we make such purely self-referential decisions. dorftrottel (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be in favor of that (I'm not in favor of it in this case either) but doing so wouldn't make the project non-encyclopedic. This is something annoys me a bit- many people have their own notions of what constitutes something being encyclopedic and then argue either for or against deletion based on that. The term encyclopedic is at best vague. Let's not get into arguments over which personalized definition makes the most sense, ok? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted an Alexa rank of 2,250 and not much increase over the last time this was up, surely indicates the non-notability of this website. WP:WEB. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument is ridiculous. That rank is superior than 95% of the websites in the "Comedy websites" category (including Uncyclopedia, compare their ranks on alexa.com), and every website in the MediaWiki websites category. It clearly passes any Alexa litmus test. --Truthseeq (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't that imply the exact opposite? Out of over 100 million websites, it's in the top 99.997% --SmashvilleBONK! 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, we don't care about Alexa rankings. Something could be ranked 10 millionth. What matters is if we have enough verifiable content to write an ok stub on the topic and we seem to have more than enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - As much as this website is disliked by many here, it does now qualify for inclusion under our standards. --Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. As much as I think ED is a POS site that doesn't deserve an article here, let alone a mention at msn, JoshuaZ convinced me with the NPOV argument and his other comments. So I'll compromise with relist at afd. --Kbdank71 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Yes, this may be deja vu all over again, but we got a draft of a new ED article with sources and everything up and running at User:Urban Rose/ED. Is this enough to assert notability, etc? ViperSnake151 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As far as notability is concerned, I'll copy here what I posted at the DRV for ED I tried to start a few days ago:
First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability should not be a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated.
This addresses the notability issue. But as I've yet to add any new sources to my draft, I don't think this review is going to go through. Though I personally think that any other article with the same amount of sources would have survived afd and that it's impossible for people to vote objectively on this (I can understand why).--Urban Rose 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Demetria_Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

This article had been up for the last 2 years. It also clearly meets or exceeds the guidelines of being included in Wikipedia. Dhartung stated that it should be deleted because "Self-published sources only" This is clearly not the case as none of the listed periodical articles are self published ones. It also clearly lists many more publications then many of the Bios on Wikipedia. Also a quick google search turns up many results ranging from the US to CH most of which are not from self sites, many of which are from published periodicals. Clearly there are as many or more results/published articles as any of the other alternative health community people that are listed on Wikepedia. -Thanks! Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This has been deleted in two separate AfDs. The AfD was up for 5 days and there were no keep arguments. Where are these non-self published sources? The article listed a few articles she had written in minor journals and websites. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No sources available on the subject. The minor list of publications that the subject has written for doesn't constitute verifiable, reliable, independent sources. You need to have things about the subject, not things by the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please keep in mind that these "minor journals" such as Midwifery Today are major publications in the field. As for things 'about' the subject, I wouldn't argue that more content could and should be added. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Drumz, you are confusing what a person has written and published, which are always primary sources even if appearing in a reliable publication, and what secondary sources have said about a person. Simply publishing material is not by itself notability. "Self published", as your confusion indicates, is not the ideal term for this as Wikipedia usage is slightly different from mainstream usage, but we use it here as jargon for anything that is essentially relying on the subject themselves for accuracy, such as articles they publish, books they write, or interviews they give. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see the article and its references before making a decision. Is it possible to undelete it while this discussion is ongoing. A brief review of Google search material has yielded no sources significant enough to meet our notability criteria, but my gut feeling is that this person is notable and we can demonstrate that with proper research in off-line sources. I've had good success saving marginal articles in the past but it is a lot of work. Any time that I see a great deal of discussion about someone on the internet, I think that it is a service to our readers to answer the question, "Who is this person?" Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When you say it was up for two years, what you mean was that you reposted it after it was re-deleted the second or third time and nobody noticed. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No when I say it was up for two years I mean - I rewrote the article after it was weekly deleted the first time, to conform with the the standards at that time, and it has been online for the last two years. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My memory could be faulty, but I think the page was recreated several times by Drumsandspace (talk · contribs) and Drumzandspace2000 (talk · contribs) and speedily deleted just in the past couple of days. I think I noticed at while patrolling new pages, so it hasn't been up for two years, but my recollection could be wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little faulty but not too bad. What happened was that I rewrote the article around two years back after it was deleted. It pretty much sat untouched for the last two years flash forward to the other day and I noticed that it had been deleted I had a brain lapse and forgot the 2000 part of my username and in the process of trying to log in created the account drumzandspace and recreated the article. So yes I did recreate it but it also had been up for 2 years. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure of second AfD was correct, though I probably would've relisted it myself. Still well within the closer's discretion. Usually, it's quicker to write a new version in your userspace that meets the requirements from the AfD and ask for it to be put back in mainspace than ask for an overturn. Feel free to bring this back here after you have one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • lifebaka Thanks for that tip I will do just that. After rewriting the article in my userspace, so that it meets the requirements where and to whom should I bring it up so that it can be put back in the main space? Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask the deleting admin or bring it back here. I'd suggest checking with the deleting admin first, and only bring it here if they refuse to allow recreation or wish to check for how the community feels about it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AGF. He means it was up for two years prior to the AFD. As I noted in my nomination, it had an odd history in 2006 (I can't see that anymore, of course) and then was left untouched (in deletion terms) until I found it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment lifebaka - thanks that is what I will do. So I would say that this matter is pretty much closed, for now. Life is a bit busy for me now but I will rewrite this sometime and then bring it up to the deleting admin. Thanks to everyone who helped her. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hero Certified Burgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was unaware of the AFD, I was not informed, please relist for AFD so that I can present a rebuttle. The reason for nomination was invalid as the claim was that there are 13 restaurants and there are now more than that. Also the number of restaurants is not a factor of notability, there could be one restaurant and still be notable. I am unable to present a full rebuttle without seeing the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As the deleting admin, I've pasted the last revision of the article here for the nominator's convenience. I'll weigh in once an argument has been presented. Lara❤Love 02:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold per notability criteria, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Article is basically one paragraph and sources cited were company's own website (not independent) and two reviews from the local newspaper bordering on advertising. Correct to assert that the number of restaurant is irrelevant but that does not get over the problem of lack of multiplicity of sources. One newspaper does not satisfy that criterion. --Rodhullandemu 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- Looking at the userfied article, there are no reliable sources to verify the information. The Toronto Sun link is broken, and the final cite is just a yellow pages style directory listing. That leaves no procedural problem with the AfD close, as there are no sources to show notability at all. -- Kesh (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - our role is, as always, to decide whether the AfD was properly closed and not to re-run it. The AfD commentators considered whether the subject was notable and decided, unanimously, that it was not. On this basis there could have been no other close. BlueValour (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The problem, as I stated in the AFD, is not the number of stores, but the references. There was nothing indicating anything more than that it's a local restaurant. Compare Billy Goat Tavern, a six-store chain that is the subject of much local lore, a famed SNL sketch, and a book. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per BlueValour. Not wanting to be rude, but it is clear in the instructions that DRV is to correct errors in process. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there is no additional information provided to warrant a review of the debate or the article's status, in light of the concerns raised at AfD. I note that, if the restaurant's fortunes have turned for the better and their operations have expanded, then maybe an article would be acceptable - if and only if additional independent sources are available to document the facts of the article. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, however, and my own research turns up nit. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nominator should be looking at his watchlist more than once every five days if he is interested in protecting his articles from AfD. That said, there's no policy-based rationale to suggest that this was an improper deletion. Consensus was clearly that the article wasn't worthy of inclusion with the available sources. Celarnor Talk to me 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the one hand, there is no requirement that article creators be informed of AFDs. On the other hand, there is also no requirement that editors visit every day. I note that Popo... visits about 5-6 times a week, not quite daily. Finally, AFD is not formulated as a trial where each side presents an argument. The best argument for protecting an article is to source it impeccably to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses to procedural related comments -
    1. Nominator should be looking at his watchlist more than once every five days if he is interested in protecting his articles from AfD, I note that Popo... visits about 5-6 times a week, not quite daily - Response: I normally put an article on my watchlist after I created it. In this particular case, I learned after the fact official name was "Hero Certified Burgers" so I moved the article after putting it in my watchlist and assumed that the move would watchlist the new article as well. I didn't find out until Lara speedied the redirect "Hero Certified Burger" that I found out about the deletion.
    2. There is no requirement that article creators be informed of AFDs. Response: It might not be the official policy but it's considered a good practise and seeing as how I'm the creator and sole writer of the article why not just post a note to my talk page?
    3. AFD is not formulated as a trial where each side presents an argument. The best argument for protecting an article is to source it impeccably to begin with. Response: Yes it is. The Keeps and the Deletes presents an argument as to notability. It's completely open to their interpretation as to what constitutes notability. If it was as simple as you say, then we wouldn't need an AFD and it would be an easy matter to have admins speedy non notable articles after creation.
    4. there is no additional information provided to warrant a review of the debate or the article's status, in light of the concerns raised at AfD, our role is, as always, to decide whether the AfD was properly closed and not to re-run it, The AfD commentators considered whether the subject was notable and decided, unanimously, that it was not. On this basis there could have been no other close. Response: I'm not saying overturn, I saying undelete and relist or at the very least simply undelete and open up the AFD for a few more days to let a broader audience have there say. Besides myself I'd like to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto and perhaps get the WP:RESCUE to find any additional notable sources if they exist. It couldn't hurt and might help. Do it under WP:IAR if you like. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. The Toronto Sun. Response: It doesn't mean that it can't be used. Just because a source isn't online anymore doesn't mean it's invalid. The Toronto Sun is one of three major newspapers in Toronto. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to notability related comments I believe this restaurant is notable because any company that rents a cow to walk through Toronto's most notable street is notable. And this was a notable cow used in Chicago's columbus day parade. The number of restaurants is not up to date on the website and if you count the number on the side it's actually 17 not 13 locations. In addition to the sources provided, we can also add Metro News "Four beerlicious days ahead" by Ann-Marie Colacino/Metro Toronto. Metro News is part of the Toronto Star. Furthermore, this company is notable because of the uniqueness of the niche it is in (making all burgers with angus beef). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's nothing preventing you from recreating it once you've established notability. You can work on improving it in your sandbox and then move it back to the mainspace once you've expanded it with reliable sources. I would like to say, however, that I don't see how local reviews establish notability. We had a little Thai restaurant here that received rave reviews in the local newspapers, but I don't see how that makes it notable for an encyclopedic entry. Lara❤Love 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. I will work on the article with some of the sources I've found above and move it into mainspace when I'm done. If local reviews don't establish notability then I think we will be biasing our restaurant articles towards the bigger chains. I think we should have an open mind. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The reliability of the Toronto Sun has just taken a further hit--it never had much, for its just a tabloid modelled after British tabloids, & we never count on them much for notability. Reading that "article," it's entirely an advertisement for the company. Half of it consists of quotes from the owner and the rest sounded as if he dictated it. " But, if you happen to be walking by a HERO Certified Burgers, it’s best that you stop, head on in and enjoy quality from the very first bite." is not a restaurant review, its a PR placement. There is, unfortunately, nothing more common for restaurants than to do this with local papers & tabloids &c.. And even for the Sun there is some extenuation: it was not in the regular section, but a special section on the festival, and such sections are in most cases at least half-way towards advertising. DGG (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Corey Delaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There has been a fair bit of discussion related to this topic in the past, so please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion before commeting here. The 4 February DRV, especially, contains a fair few sources or claims to notability, to which this DRV will add.

Since our February discussions, Delaney has continued as a well known figure in Australia. He is set to release a single, "Fight for Your Right (to Party)" (a Beastie Boys cover), and when news.com.au reported this, they also noted that "Since January, when he became either the most loved or hated party boy, Worthington hasn't stopped fielding offers for work". source Delaney also recently entered the Big Brother house in Australia, and has received significant coverage on Google News for this; see the numerous articles listed here. As well as reports on him being in the house, there have also been responses to his entry, and criticism of what this means, see for instance this AdelaideNow article.

While Delaney's notability does still stem from that party he held, I believe it has now expanded beyond WP:BLP1E, and that he is thus notable for an article here. I am happy to work on a draft article with others (I haven't had the time to do one now...) if nobody has one lying around for now.

Note: I have used the name Delaney, but there is some debate as to if he should be called Worthington...Delaney is the name I'm used to, and there should be no percieved bias (on my part) in which title is to be chosen ultimately.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently in long anticipation of this moment, JRG has maintained a draft at User:JRG/Corey Worthington. It is a bit out of date; for example it contains very little on his involvement in Big Brother, and nothing on his musical career. But it may serve to bring newcomers to this discussion up to speed on the topic, and is probably a good place to start if there is consensus to allow an article. Hesperian 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the assertions in that article are blatantly false, although did appear as speculation in the media (mostly News Ltd publications) at the time. Someone contacted Southern Star-Endemol and confirmed point blank that he would not be involved in hosting Big Brother, although it appears they've brought him on the show in a different capacity. Orderinchaos 08:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesperian, I don't want to criticise, but please get your facts right before making assertions about my userfying. I wasn't waiting for the article to be re-written, I was actually going to (in good faith) put some facts on some other pages such as the Narre Warren page for the party incident (as opposed to wanting his own page). I actually thought at the time he wasn't notable for his own article, but the out-of-control party, which got unprecedented media coverage, was. JRG (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do most humbly apologise, JRG. I should not have assumed; or rather, I should have checked with you or kept my assumptions to myself. Hesperian 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want to point out that I have also been involved in editing this draft article, and I have added quite a lot of current info to it. To be honest I can't stand this guy, but that is why I have been working on the article, so there is a factual representation of his actions without all the cruff that the media places on it. I can only do so much though, it needs other editors to work on it.Fosnez (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem - you are forgiven. JRG (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow recreation I was actually going to wait a few more days before I filed this DRV myself but H20 makes essentially the case I was going to. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If he releases a single, and it charts, then he'll pass WP:MUSIC and be worthy of an article anyway. Until then, still looks all a bit BLP1E to me. Black Kite 06:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. He is of marginal notability and there's been some serious questions as to whether he is a minor being exploited in this situation. Per "do no harm" and also WP:BLP1E, it's doubtful. Incidentally, it's been confirmed since the original coverage that his name is Worthington and always has been, but his mother's name is Delaney and that's what caused the confusion. Essentially a case of very poor fact-checking by media agencies. Orderinchaos 08:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the continued/continuing news coverage he's getting, I would say these serious concerns about exploiting a minor have probably been diminished...at this stage, it seems fairly certain he wants/is asking for the publicity (IMO). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctant restore I don't want this guy to have an article, but I think that he's now notable for more than one thing (just). The article should be carefully written though. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - let's see how he goes in Big Brother— he may gain the notoriety that some of the past contestants have and would become notable enough for an article. If not, then the current paragraph on him in the Big Brother 2008 paragraph, with the facts of the Narre Warren incident, should be fine. It's way too early in the show for us to make any judgements on this. By the way, OIC, the "serious questions" are as yet by a single person so I wouldn't make too much of it. He's on Big Brother, whether we like it or not, so he's going to get his paragraph there, own article or not. JRG (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Sceptre (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see that notability is established beyond WP:BLP1E before a standalone article, obvious some detail should now be in the appropriate BB articles. When that gets to the point where a daughter article is necessary then create. Gnangarra 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, being a contestant on what is essentially a game show is no more an indication of notability for Delaney than it is for anybody else. Nothing has changed in my view since the last time this was deleted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Orderinchaos above. Eusebeus (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Restore on the same grounds as Nick Dowling. The oneevent restriction is to prevent overemphasis on minor events in someone's life, irrelevant to any real notability, such as being caught up in a disaster or a bystander to a crime. By extension it can be used for a moderately significant event in the life of a minor, to protect him. He does not want protection--that much is obvious. So we include it. DGG (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. While pretty much everything he is notable for stems from a single event, the same could be said of many politicians who are notable for things they have done that have resulted from them being elected as politicians. I don't think this is a case of BLP1E, as the event itself is not the only thing that he is notable before. Celarnor Talk to me 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as the continued media coverage means his notability has gone beyond any rational interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT. The Big Brother situation/role, in particular, seems unprecedented (correct me if I'm wrong). Certainly he was not selected through any normal contestant process and is not subject to our "only winning contestants" rule-of-thumb, he was brought in as a spoiler precisely because of his national celebrity. Voluntary participation at this level makes him, even if a minor, no different than other pop stars e.g. Jamie Lynn Spears. I have no objections to continued vigilance for BLP issues. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Ongoing coverage from just the last few hours: [122] [123] [124] [http://top40-charts.com/news/Pop-Rock/Infamous-Party-Boy-Corey-Worthington-Releases-Debut-Single-Fight-For-Your-Right-(To-Party)/40029.html\. (Thankfully no one has yet decided to cover this discussion like they did our previous AfD and DRV). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Vapid waster. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hope the Australian project keeps this and the previous debate well linked and not lost into the ether - it is a good example of how we as a project come to terms with notoriety within our little corner of the planet - it compares interestingly with some other Afd's and keeps over time - I agree with Dhartungs comments - and others that we should keep vigilance with WP:BLP1E both for keeping or deleting - so in the end I am a wait voter SatuSuro 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Orderinchaos's reasoning. Sarah 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Initially Corey was famous for one thing which in itself wasn't considered noteworthy. Whilst others notable for one sport, or one pice of music or one other thing happening have had wikipedia articles created. Corey is now a famous Australian Personality certainly there are far less well known personalities who have wiki entries and far less notable personalities. If it was just over one party we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we! Orderinchaos argument seems to contradict itself the point is HE IS A BB HOUSEMATE, HE IS FAMOUS - WE CANT ACCUSE THE MEDIA OF BEING BIASED SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DONT WANT THE GUY TO HAVE A WIKI - people use media references in wikis all the time to support their facts so Orderinchaos more or less fall flat on their face 124.171.16.116 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - The media coverage of this person is way beyond the scope of "ONEEVENT" and there's an incorrect argument that just because this person is a musician, they must have a hit record to pass the main criteria of WP:MUSIC. People can be notable for reasons outside the "specially notability" guidelines like WP:MUSIC, WP:PROF, etc.. --Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you arguing to restore this article? This is not a policy forum. Orderinchaos 02:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think his comment is that complicated. The point can be interpreted two ways: first, that Worthington meets WP:BIO rather than a more specific guideline and second that even if someone doesn't meet a specific guideline we can use common sense to decide notability based on a collection of small events all of which provide reliable sources (which is essentially saying he meets WP:N). Moreover, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is relevant. Even if we didn't have a particular guideline to cover something it doesn't mean we have to establish a new guideline to include an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this article harmful? Below is the "inclusion test" from the policy you linked:
  • Is the information already widely known: Yes, it is already well known, check the sources on thee article.
  • Is the information definitive and factual: Yes, all claims have been backed up with sources
  • Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability?: Yes, other information about him has been entered into the aricle, such has the confusion over his name etc. But it needs improvement.

Fosnez (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreate - notable because of all the media coverage on him, no so much because of the oneevent! Notability is easily proved by multiple significant sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Subject no longer meets BLP1E; continued coverage is extensive and comes from credible sources. Since article was deleted solely because of BLP1E and notability based on events rather than the one party incident is verified, there's no reason not to restore the article.--PeaceNT (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main reason not to have an article would be because we don't want to be a tabloid encyclopedia. Sometimes things would be easier if wikipedia were paper - "Sorry, we only have room for 60 000 articles, and Corey was #60 001". Andjam (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think the main claim to "Subject no longer meets BLP1E" stands from him being in the Big Brother House—any mention of him can begin there, in the Big Brother season X article, and then when it gets beyond stub size, brought back here. But it still seems like BLP1.5E to me right now, hence, I endorse the initial decision(s). MrPrada (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate Someone deleted my reason for this nomination. Oh well. Anyway his notability is easily established by his Big Brother appearance and CD release. Even if nothing else, his name should redirect to the Big Brother 2008 article. JayKeaton (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion/keep deleted and wait per Orderinchaos and MrPrada. The Big Brother appearance does not make Worthington any more notable than he was, as consensus is Big Brother housemates are not notable enough for an article. Even if you could piece together the notability from the party, his "music" "career" and then the Big Brother appearance, he still does not meet the encyclopedic threshold for notability. By the way, to the closer, two things to keep in mind: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs requires that "[an article deleted due to biographies of living persons concerns] must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so" - therefore, there must be a clear consensus to restore this article should you close it in that manner, and if there's no consensus the outcome must default to keep deleted; and even if this is closed as allow an article, please do not close it as "overturn" and then undelete all the revisions, but rather close it as "allow recreation" and keep the old revisions deleted (as they were deleted under the biographies of living persons policy). I believe the article should not be recreated or undeleted. Daniel (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be interested to read this encyclopedic threshold for notability policy you seem to be quoting from, all I can find is WP:N which says: Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. - check the draft article for the sources, or hell, do a google news search. Fosnez (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Lankiveil. east.718 at 10:07, May 16, 2008
  • Endorse deletion so what if he's set to release a single that is a cover of someone else's work? Are we now going to allow every garage band onto Wikipedia because they have a single they are just about to release? I also note that not one of the big brother housemates has their own article, much less a *guest*. The people who want this article restored are grasping at straws. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNo, but combin the with the other things he's done, and you get:
The single, if it has even been released, is of zero consequence until it hits a chart; intruders on Big Brother are not inherently notable; show me some academic coverage regarding this lad being synonymous with "Generation Z" in Australia; etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. He is most notable for trying to be notable; the limited success he has achieved is not worth the long term damage we do by allowing a minor of little significance to be the subject of a biography that will probably be scathing, a magnet for vandalism and an opportunity for attacks. Lets wait till he has done something of merit, or is no longer a minor, before taking that step. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status note With no prejudice to the outcome of this DRV, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 16 this title was turned into a redirect to the one article in which he is currently mentioned. The closer there explicitly notes that the closure here, if allowing an article, should overrule that action. GRBerry 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for copying that over, GRBerry, I forgot all about doing so :) Yes, naturally, if a DRV finds a consensus for an article to exist, that will override an editorial decision to redirect. Daniel (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now. This no longer strikes me as a BLP1E issue as the subject is now actively courting publicity, that said the article is likely to be a magnet for BLP projects as John points out. All in all, I am simply not convinced that this person meets our notability requirements. Per some of the comments above, lets wait to see how he does in Big Brother and how high his musical offerings chart... WjBscribe 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:N notability is defined as: Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. - please check the draft article for sources, and you can see that infact it does meet WP:N
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 May 2008

[edit]
  • Category:People from Riverdale, New York – Relist without prejudice against the closure. The participation in the initial CfD was limited, and there seems to be no consensus regarding whether the closure of the CfD was appropriate. Tough decisions sometimes must be made in cases of limited participation, and although no consensus defaults to keep, substantial arguments (such as overcategorization) can be given more weight. That being said, this seems to be a larger issue, one dealing with how neighborhoods that are not political entities are treated in terms of categorization. In categorization, unlike in articles, there is no recourse to "improve" a category once it has been deleted, and so such decisions should be made with extra caution. Since this is a larger issue, I am relisting at CfD so that more discussion can occur. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:People from Riverdale, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York also included.

Category listing individuals from Riverdale, Bronx was deleted improperly in the face of consensus supporting retention and the inclusion of clear arguments for retention under Wikipedia policy. Administrator who improperly closed the CfD acknowledges that there are valid arguments for retention, but has stated in the close and in discussion that he disregarded valid arguments he disagrees with and imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus. As the sole justification for deletion in this case was the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention, these improper actions should be overturned. Similar improper deletion by this same admin in the face of clear contrary consensus was also a factor in Category:People from Greenwich Village, which is also included here. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn In the face of consensus to keep and acknowledged valid arguments for retention, there is no place or justification for deletion based on arbitrary biases. Consensus is turned into a joke if any admin is granted unlimited discretion to overturn decisions on a deus ex machina basis. Concerns expressed regarding possible overcategorization have been addressed and are easily resolved, limiting such categories to articles with places, a suggestion that was disregarded by the closing admin. Given the improper close, overturing is the proper action. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Several of the keep arguments: Riverdale is a distinct and unique neighborhood, We shouldn't fault people for living in combined metropolitan districts. Consensus is not a vote count, and not all arguments are created equal. The delete arguments were simply stronger. --Kbdank71 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the excuses that the admin falsely defines as "simply stronger" and that were accepted by User:Kbdank71 for deletion -- "People can live in dozens of neighborhoods in the course of a lifetime." and "Merge per Otto" -- offer no justification under Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of the category. The arguments in the nomination -- "Single entry category without a parent category for the neighborhood." were addressed under Wikipedia policy and no longer relevant. The stronger arguments for retention, based on Wikipedia policy, were simply discarded. Admin simply refuses to respect or accept consensus without improperly inserting his biases. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The admin was mistaken in considering them valid & we are here to correct his misjudgment. He closed on the basis of his own doubts that "are people notable from where they live?"--which is not relevant --since a category isnt about notability, the people are already notable. He further accepted the argument that he didnt like people by categories, though even he admitted it was not in question here. And then he accepted the worst argument of all: that some of the people were mistakenly in the category. No valid reasons. DGG (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a defining characteristic is most certainly a valid reason for deletion. So is avoiding category clutter that will be caused by putting people into neighborhood-level categories for every neighborhood in which they have lived. So is hindering navigational utility by fracturing an already splintered category into ever tinier and tinier slivers. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Nothing procedurally wrong with the delete. While there was a small response, the deletion reasoning was sound and the Keep reasoning was that somehow this neighborhood was notable (with nothing to back up that assertion). -- Kesh (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the arguments for keeping were weak and generic, relying in large part on the problems that are inherent in the People from categorization scheme. As the closing admin correctly noted, there are indeed problems with that entire scheme but the problems with it in no way prevent us from dealing with particularly problematic categories as they arise. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the arguments for keeping were really about why the neighborhood should have an article, not about why it makes sense to categorize people by neighborhood of association. There are significant problems with the subnational "people from" categories as a whole, and those problems are far more egregious when dealing with something as tiny and amorphous as a neighborhood, which lacks formal, agreed-upon boundaries and is far more easily and commonly moved in and out of than a city. So keeping people by city categories, for example, by no means necessarily leads to keeping people by neighborhood categories. Postdlf (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's great to see Alansohn up to his old tricks. First there's the ridiculous and outraged overstatement, over-the-top denunciation and periphrastic caricature of the closing admin, who "imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus." Then, for good measure, we have the same point expressed with a slightly different emphasis: the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention. Then, Alan, so impressed by his own hyperbole, !votes to endorse his own nomination. Oh, it's too funny - worthy of Ionescu. Anyway, endorse and keep deleted as a proper and procedurally good close, as noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is a violation of NPA-- please refactor. We're discussing the arguements , not the nominator. DGG (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with the braying schoolmarm DGG; it's tedious. Alan's nomination is over the top in its caricature of kbdank's close. Calling him out on that is not a personal attack. Eusebeus (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closer stated that the category had problems of verifiability (articles were being added of persons that had no source for residence there). The commenters didn't establish why exactly it was important to note that a person had lived at Riverdale and the closer correctly assesed so (aka, the need for the category was not explained). The parent category was created on-the-fly to try to save the category and it seems that it had the exact same problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, creates verifiability problems as well as overcategorization. Closer was somewhat outwith the apparent consensus but the end justified the means as far as I am concerned. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, admins can ignore what you admit as "established consensus" "apparent consensus" when they dont approve of the result and argue as here one side of the case in the closing, rather than participate in the debate and wait for someone else to close?DGG (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably should not put the words "established consensus" in quotes as it implies that Stifle actually used those words. Stifle said "apparent consensus" which is quite a different animal. Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, you are correct, so I just fixed it.DGG (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
aside from mentioning that consensus determines the interpretation and application of all policy, a question of WP:V would apply to individuals, and their presence in the category can be challenged. DGG (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, let me rephrase that "consensus at one AfD or one DRV can not overturn the consensus behind the current interpretation of policy". As far as I know, consensus at WT_V is that you can't overturn WP:V claiming consensus on AfD or DRV. You can go ask there if you don't believe me. Wikipedia:Deletion policy also says "Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to (...) content not verifiable in a reliable source (...)". You should go to the talk page and say that you want the wording changed to include "unless there is consensus between CfD commenters that WP:V can be ignored for a certain category". I think that you can imagine what they will tell you about that. Btw, I had not noticed that reasons for deletion include Wikipedia:Overcategorization which would probably apply here. The page says "However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category", I wonder what the policy says of creating categories on non-verified facts on an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear overcat, while I could rant about the whole "people from" tree being an exercise in weasel words, "from" meanining whatever it means to any one at that moment in time, I will focus on its wholly inappropriate application to neighborhoods, which due to their notability have articles - rightly so; because it makes no allowance for whether someone "from" Greenwich Village has anything to do with whatever made the neighborhood notable. We don't have that issue with cities, towns, villages, settlements; they are inherently notable, so you can be from Detroit and have nothing to do with MoTown music or the auto industry, it's just where you're "from" (whatever that means), but being "from" Greenwich Village, or "from" The Castro, say, has an implied meaning that doesn't apply to everyone who meets someone's definition of "from" and gets dumped into the cat. The other reasons that this is overcat is that even if we could absolutely define the extent of these neighborhoods, which seems to be in flux and differs according to the period or whether the neighborhood is "in fashion or not" in real estate agents' parlance, people move around between and among neighborhoods with some frequency more than between various cities (especially given the liberality of someone clearly from a distant suburb being dumped into the category as being "from" the distant main town any way); it's transitory and having lived for a year or two in a particular neighborhood is probably trivial unless it's Chernobyl (recently) on one's being. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You get an amen as well, brother Carlossuarez. Postdlf (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riverdale and GV are more than geographic regions, but also cultural ones, as applied to the sort of things that produce notability at wikipedia. It's a reasonable grouping for a great many literary and musical topics. GV is better known, but they're both of major historical importance that way. DGG (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good reason for maintaining a list of notable residents, which can include such salient facts as when they lived in these neighborhoods and what impact if any they had on the neighborhood or the neighborhood on them. That would be quite an interesting article, as opposed to a dry alphabetical clutterful category. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riverdale, New York already holds such a list of notable residents, each one with a short mention of why they are notable and a source for its residence there. The articles on individual persons can link to this article is for some reason it was important for their biography that they had lived at Rivendale and not somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but that's not what Wikipedia does--your argument would invalidate all List of people from articles, and this sort of article is well accepted. As for links, any article for a where the place is even mentioned in any context at all in the article important or not, will automatically be linked to the city regardless of "importance in the career" that's what Wikipedia does with internal links. This list is much more specific, as it ought to be. DGG (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • hum, I must not have expressed myself clearly. I meant to say that the list on Rivendale article is adequate and correct, and that it's better than the category. I'm not sure how this affects any "List of people from" articles, except for non-US lists that have lots of unsourced red links like List_of_people_from_Andhra_Pradesh and ought to be mended anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor is it formed by one person. MrPrada (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is worthless if only one person has a vote. Kdbank71, in his blatant refusal to respect consensus, has turned himself into judge, jury and executioner. Why do we bother with discussions if one individual can take it upon himself to spit in the face of clear consensus. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that the nomination was based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a gross mischaracterization of the nomination. Second, that the initial reason given in the nomination may not meet your standards, the closing admin does not take only the reason offered by the nominator into consideration. Here, the nominator weighed the arguments offered by other editors, including the non-definingness of the category, the subjectivity involved in deciding that someome is "from" a particular neighborhood, the category clutter that would result should people by neighborhood be widely implemented and the damage to the navigational utility of the category system should fracturing an already fractured categorization structure continue. These were weighed against such arguments as (paraphrasing) 'the neighborhood is important' (which is why it has an article) and 'we shouldn't blame people for moving from one neighborhood to another' (as if categories are rewards for good behaviour or something). Finally, I find it more than a little amusing that the editors wishing to overturn this decision can't even decide amongst themselves whether there was supposedly no consensus or a "clear consensus." Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it may be unclear that there was sufficient consensus for a keep close rather than no-consensus, but that does not mean there was sufficient consensus for a delete close. DGG (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find all the humor you want in "no consensus" or a "clear consensus", but I find it rather disturbing that there is no one, not even the closing administrator or his apologists, who believes that there was a consensus for deletion. The basic and fundamental concept of consensus has been tossed out by an admin who acknowledges that there were perfectly valid arguments for retention, ones that he arrogantly chose to ignore. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin's whole basis for his decision was that the arguments for retention were not "perfectly valid" but instead weak and missing the point of why these are problematic as categories. No one here has yet responded to those criticisms, which Otto in particular has very clearly restated above. We're discussing categories. There are established criteria for what make good, useful, and even necessary categories. That's a very different discussion from what makes a valid article topic or sub-topic, which is instead what comments on the importance or historicity of the subject matter are relevant to. So please shift your gears to addressing those category-specific concerns, if you can. But as someone who has personally created a number of articles on neighborhoods, I would implore you to instead direct your energies to improving article content. Articles on the neighborhoods should of course include well-referenced histories, both political and cultural, of who had an impact there. And lists of people associated with a given locality can be organized by the kind of connection (born there, worked there, etc.), by chronological relationship (such as by birthdate), or by field of the individual, and can be annotated and sourced. I've tried this before (see List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio) and would appreciate any help in improving the formatting. I think we'd be better off if these lists would replace all subnational "people from" categories, as these actually have the potential of being useful, unlike an alphabetical dumping ground category for everyone who ever set foot in a place for however long and for whatever reason. Postdlf (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn/Relist. I agree with the outcome (that this category should have been deleted) but it is a bit .. how shall I say .. inappropriate for the closing admin make what is essentially a unilateral decision. A more appropriate closure would have been no consensus or to relist for further discussion. Arkyan 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark The outcomes for the 2 very similar discussions (neighborhoods in NYC) are differnt - one gets upmerged to the borough, the other is deleted. Anna Wintour who is a soureced resident of Greenwich and was in P from GV is now not even 'from New York'. Now the arguments were mailny that neighbourhood is too specific. No argument has been put forward about borough, or city, so it seems unreasonable for a cfd to affect these less specific catgorires. The closer should perhas say that delete is not an option and instead merge up to 'PPLe from Manhattan' and let there be a cfd on that if reqd. (I endorse the merge but not the delete.) Occuli (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn clearly pertinent. Sgt. bender (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Wow, I get to use an oft misapplied link appropriately: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. (Oh and throw in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for good measure.) This, as noted by the commenters and the closer is simple overcategorisation. (Indeed it looks rather close to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location.) A list of such people would likely be deleted as WP:TRIVIA. And of course there's always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which may actually apply in this case. (It rarely does when referring to categories). So in all, this is a "nn" intersection. (Looking over Notability is not inherited, as well.) And what do you know, that's what others in the discussion said, and was re-affirmed by the closer. Endorse deletion - jc37 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Category:People from Riverdale, New York and Overturn Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York. The cases made for both categories are very different. By allowing Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York to remain deleted we are in fact saying that significant settlements can not have a category. I'm not sure that is what is intended. For this category an overwhelming, clear and convincing case to keep was made. For the Riverdale category it is not clear that it should be kept. I guess one could ask where is the dividing line between what is kept and what is deleted. It may take a while for some consensus to develop on where that line is. I'm also surprised that most of the opinions here seem to be applying the same logic to both nominations. Almost looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT v WP:ILIKEIT. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also an additional possible outcome from this discussion. And that would be to listify. This addresses the notability for a person to be included along with sources. However if that direction is taken here, then we need to be ready to apply the listify option to the rest of the 'People of' categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally would like to see all subnational "people from" categories listified, because they are all vague and ridiculously overinclusive to the point of making the groupings useless. But short of that, it is completely sensible to at least draw a line as to which ones are permissible and which ones aren't based on whether the settlement has a formal political existence, such as states and municipalities, so as to exclude categories based on informal areas such as neighborhoods, which also tend to be much smaller geographically than your average municipality...not to mention esoteric to nonnatives. It doesn't matter whether it's a "significant" neighborhood such as Greenwich Village or not, and you should know from experience that allowing a category for one inevitably turns into a system of categories for all. Once again, a neighborhood's significance is why it merits an article; it doesn't follow at all that it makes sense to categorize anyone's association with that neighborhood. We do not categorize actors by the television series they have acted on, notwithstanding the significance of those television series, nor do we categories workers by the companies they have worked for, notwithstanding the significance of those companies. Significance is clearly not enough. Postdlf (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak relist on grounds of no consensus. Reasonable arguments both sides [and even it were a mere vote-count, you get 3 votes to keep and 2 to merge (3 if you include nom.).] I would be inclined to merge on the grounds that Riverdale is not incorporated, and so the members of this category can easily be subsumed into category:people from The Bronx, but I simply do not see how there was a consensus at the time of closing. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RomexSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article has been changed and even the slightest hints on advretisement have been removed. It would be highly requested to restore the article so that appropriate editing could be done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuegoazul (talk • contribs) 08:30, May 6, 2008

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Inciclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was kept at AfD even though only one good source was found. As usual a bunch of Uncy' users voted keep. The article is almost entirely original research, so notability of this particular website isn't established.

Sources evaluation
  • I don't go around endorsing my own closures (evaluating my work is something I leave to others), but I will give a rationale for my close, and note that I have given my reasons on my own talkpage. First, the reasons given to delete were "Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB.", "another non-notable wiki", "This article sounds like an advertisement written by the website's users, also. It fails WP:N in that it is non-notable." These arguements are largely assertions of non-notability, and when the discussion contains people who argue for notability, they don't carry all that much weight. The fact that Rataube added a section on notability, and was able to produce a third-party source addressed the main concern in the nomination, that there were no third-party references. In short, there was in my view certainly no consensus that the article should be deleted, and with some of the concerns given by the nominator alleviated by the presence of a third-party source, I chose to close it as "keep" rather than "no consensus". Two points about this DRV nomination: An argument given in this DRV nom is that the article is "original research", this was not presented in the AFD. Looking at the article, I don't think that the article suffers from blatant OR problems, rather much of the article is sourced from the website itself which is OK to a certain extent (see WP:SELFPUB), and there is also some third party coverage now. Finally, the Alexa ranking looks like it's for "inciclopedia.org" which is probably a redirect address, since the actual address is "inciclopedia.wikia.com". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep referring to the sources like there's more than one, when infact there's only one legitimate one.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and DeleteSjakkalle offers a fairly strong defense of his close and it is not necessarily out of process, except that I think this site does clearly fail WP:WEB as noted in the original nomination with a dash of WP:RS concerns thrown in (noted in the DRV nom); so it would have been better for the admin to have closed based on policy, not !vote-counting. I am unmoved by the lazy endorsements of some of those below whose sanction is the usual stuff one expects when a close conforms to one's own views; but I include myself in the laziness category for not having consulted this discussion which I think provides sufficient grounds for retention and makes Sjakkalle's close reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, pretty clear consensus even if not for the best of reasons. Recommend merging with Uncyclopedia, which is a normal editorial action that can be done anyway. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, only Rataube & carl responded to my concerns, the rest were just votes. The discussion ended without the concerns of another reliable source being addressed.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer's explanation seems impeccable and the challenge to it seems not to have any basis in process. DRV is not AFD2. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want me to move this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2?--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good summation of closure from the closer, given that a reliable source was found to meet the core verifiability policy and provide some notability, overturning the consensus of the discussion based on the possible failure of a guideline would not have been appropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per Davewild and Colonel Warden. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse keep this is not AfD2. Since there was clear consensus to keep, if you insist on another AfD, i'd think it necessary to wait at least 3 or 4 months before starting one.DGG (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment If this is kept, I will make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2, as the fact still stands it still fails WP:WEB despite the Keep votes which never seem to address the problem at hand.--Otterathome (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the recent nature of the previous AfD, I strongly suggest you wait a while to do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. It's very bad form to immediately re-nominate an article for deletion just because you disagree with the result. Give it at least a month and, if it still hasn't improved, then you can re-nominate. -- Kesh (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the closer gave clear rationales for keeping the article. The article meets verifiability and is closely on the verge of notability. If one legitimate source can be found, it means that there's high chance of finding more sources on this subject. Remember we need sources when there's something that need to be cited. The first source from indymedia is ok, since it supports the information that "it was founded on February 24, 2006 to serve as a continuation of Frikipedia, a parody site closed by SGAE". The site is mentioned on a TV show, it means that it must have certain notability to be referenced in pop culture. Also, SELFPUB is sometimes acceptable, for example we still use information on Nobelprize.org as sources for Nobel prizes related articles. After all, this is a rightly closed AFD. If you want to renominate the article for deletion, you should wait for 2 or 3 months because there's a consensus for keeping it and in the meantime maybe many users may add more sources to the article. @pple complain 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually read my sources evaluation, the indymedia source talks about frikipedia being closed down, and Inci isn't mentioned. A small mention in a TV shows doesn't count towards the notability of the article as it is as trivial as info can get. I was mentioned as the winner of a competition, does that contribute to my notability? There was no consensus, there was a vote.--Otterathome (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete Merge with Uncyclopedia until better sources are found The newspaper source is horrible[125]. Did you look at its main page [126]. This is a sensationalist newspaper that looks for curious stuff to cover. FFS, this is just low-quality yellow press that I doubt that has any reputation for fact checking. Looking at the Society section: "Condoms sell like hot bread this week(...) this time (people) is buying boxes of 12, tells Mirta Salazar, shopkeeper of the sucursal of Farmacias Ahumada of (street) Providencia with (street) Manuel Montt"[127], they only asked one pharmacy shopkeeper. Not only this source is awful but it asserts no notability of Inciclopedia at all. See, it only covers Inciclopedia because it had a fun page, not because they found it notable, the article only talks about a parody that is found in *one* page on the site. The page could have been hosted at any other wiki and it would have been covered in the exact same way. Also, they just interview the senator to show him the parody and ask him about it and, from context, they never ask him about a website called Inciclopedia or ask his opinion about it. If *this* is the better source they could find at eswiki and here, then the assesment that there were no sources on the article asserting notability is totally correct. In other words: Dios mio, pero que mierda de fuente es esta, hace falta valor, qué coño estaban pensando en eswiki. The eswiki votation was based only on the fact that the voters like the website and want the article preserved, and they make absolutely no assesment of sources at all. I just don't want to watch the video from TV Cuatro in case I find something worse than the newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that newspaper wouldn't do as a RS for negative information in a BLP, but this is not a bio article. DGG (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The *real* problem is not that those sources are verifiable or reliable. The real problem is that those sources are not establishing enough notability to have its own article since they don't cover Inciclopedia itself. Some of them either cover frikipedia, or cover things that happen to have appeared on Inciclopedia, like the newspaper source I comment above. That's just enough to have a section at Frikipedia but not for its own article. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, no WP:RS available whatsoever. The delete arguments in the AfD, drowned out by the keeps, were the correct answer, not the original research from constantly varying Alexa results keep rationale. MrPrada (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Original poster's edits removing information from the page and adding a nonsensical 10,267,272 Alexa rank are not constructive and are based on badly fallacious logic. The name "inciclopedia.org" is a redirect to "inciclopedia.wikia.com"; I'm surprised it even appears on Alexa but its use to establish supposed "non-notability" for "inciclopedia.wikia.com" quite clearly fails WP:RS. --carlb (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were actually bothered to read the edit summaries there was a legitimate reason for the removal of content. But no, you assume bad faith and vote solely on the fact of the person that nominated it. This is a review of the article and afd, not the user that has nominated it. Gotta love Uncy-pedians.--Otterathome (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nonsense claiming "the site is currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web." is part of the supposed rationale for nominating this for deletion review. As such, this data being just plain wrong is relevant here - attempting to get an Alexa rank of a redirect instead of the destination site will never return meaningful data and I'm surprised it returns any numbers at all. The edits adding this nonsense to the article should be reverted and any nomination for deletion review that relies on this number as a factual justification or rationale should be speedily closed. --carlb (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very small part of a very large reason that it is not notable. The main reason is lack of third-party sources, read WP:WEB. The alexa rank will never be used to determine the notability of a website by itself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You attempted to AfD the Inciclopedia page, claiming lack of sources. Rataube added some sources. The AfD was closed. No idea why you keep trying to re-open this, especially since your edits to Inciclopedia and Uncyclopedia-related topics on Wikipedia have been largely disruptive - in Inciclopedia's case deleting more than half the article text without any prior discussion. --carlb (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You can't find any reliable sources? Then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.--Otterathome (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LaTiendaUSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latienda (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


5 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Real social dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New evidence of notability raised at end of discussion Ellmist mentions at the end, right before it was deleted, that he added more sources to establish notability. Here is the last version. 5/22 of the people (23%) voted Keep before seeing these new sources. These new sources include an article in Edge Magazine focused on a RSD course as well as other print articles in Men's Health and various newspapers. By the way, how would I notify the people who were watching the AfD that this is being raised in a deletion review? Do deletion reviews should automatically place a notification on the AfD, for those who are still watching the AfD. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should leave them a notice on their talk page. There is no automated process for this. Remember that you should leave notices for *all* participants. If you leave notices only to those that you think that will vote to keep then that would be considered WP:CANVASS canvassing --Enric Naval (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to do that, and considering that we want this encyclopedia to be contributed to, we should implement a much more efficient method of automatic notification -- which would involve simply generating a transcluded note on the relevant AfD page. This would be good for future reference. In fact, many things need to be automatically linked together. I've made a Proposal about it. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the below say that 'consensus was overwhelming', 'this is not AfD 2', ect. All of the previous voters expressed their opinion on the article without several of the 7 independent references (newspapers, magazines, and 1 book). Their expressions are therefore at least somewhat invalidated. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zorpia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV1)

The article of "Zorpia" was deleted due to its lack of notability. However it has received multiple non-trivial coverage by a few major news sources recently.

Here are its coverages:

The Standard is an English newspaper from Hong Kong.
The Wall Street Journal.
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is a listed multi-media conglomerate in the Philippines.
The Economic Times, launched in 1961, is India's largest financial daily with a daily readership of over 650,000 copies.
Enterprise Innovation is an technology publication under Questex Media Group which also owns The Hollywood Report.

Web 2.0 Junkie (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to DRV1, March 2007. GRBerry 13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Listenability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I contributed this article in October 2008. There was a question about the copyright of two quotes which I took up with butseriouslyfolks and OTRS. They acknowledged receipt of the verification, but the page has not been restored. What do I have to do to have it restored? Bdubay (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which right date, the date I posted the article, the first time it was removed, the second time it was removed? My correspondence with permissions? Bdubay (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The original article was deleted on October 22 2007 by butseriouslyfolks. The next day it was restored by Michael Hardy. It was again deleted by Spike Wilbury November 18 at 20:09, leaving no reason why he did that, other than notice of "blatant violation of copyright." What violation of what copyright? There was no violation.

I have left a review of deletion with both butseriouslyfolks and Spike Wilbury. I have also emailed permissions en at wikimedia asking what the problem is.

There were two quotes that were questioned, both of which came from my materials and of which I own copyright. I explained that at the time to permissions.

If listenability was not an important subject, I would not be pursuing this. There has been extremely little research done on the subject, which I briefly reviewed in my article. You currently have no page on this subject. I would think that someone out there would be interested in getting this page back up.

Should I attempt to repost that page? Would that be the best way to get someone's attention? Dealing with the bureaucracy and the really strange way you have of communicating here makes it very difficult for scholars and other knowledgeable people who would like to contribute. Bdubay (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I understand now. Simply stating that you are the copyright holder is not enough. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Copyright owners. You need to email info-en-c@wikimedia.org with a URL to the copyrighted material, and "provide enough information to substantiate your claim of copyright ownership." If it's not online, you may have to submit the copyrighted work via email or postal mail, to substantiate your claim. Please be aware that, in doing so, any material you post to Wikipedia from that copyrighted source will be released under the GFDL, meaning anyone can reuse your work without your permission, even for commercial purposes.
I'm sorry this process is so confusing, but it's really for your protection. Anything posted to Wikipedia is automatically released under the GFDL, so keeping that material would have caused problems with your own copyright on that material. If you really want to re-use it here, the process takes a little time, but it will make sure things are done properly. -- Kesh (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kesh, I really appreciate that. Sorry about all the trouble this caused.

I had given permissions permission to use what I had quoted. Butseriouslyfolks had told me originally that the only concern was that I had to verify my copyright ownership and to identify myself, which I did. That apparently wasn't enough.

Anyway, I will do what you say and see if that works. It is all so dumb, isn't it?

One of the quotes that you contested came from my online newsletter that I used in the Wiki piece was a quote from Cicero. The translation that I used has been in the public domain since 1776. How can that be a copyright violation? Can anyone hold a copyright on Cicero?

The other quote came was just a couple sentences that came from an online book of mine. I will send both to info-en-c as you recommended and we will see what happens. Will they know what I am talking about? Does the deleted piece exist somewhere still? Will I have to repost the article?

The general rule of copyright law is that enforcement is incumbent on the owners. People who go around trying to protect other people's property only create damage, as in this case. You don't have to protect me against myself. Please!

Bdubay (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've got things in hand, now. As to "protecting you," the issue is that we don't know that you're the copyright holder. We have to ask you to prove it, otherwise we risk other people claiming to be copyright holders and releasing someone else's material into the public domain. That would be a legal problem for Wikipedia, so care has to be taken to make sure we're actually talking to the copyright holder.
You may have to repost the article, but once the copyright issue is resolved, any admin should be able to un-delete the article for you so you can work on it again. -- Kesh (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Play party (BDSM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AFD was closed improperly because the closer somehow bought the dubious "sources will be found someday, but not today" argument. Despite being tagged for sourcing for 2 years and going to AFD over sourcing, all that was found was a half page of an in-genre book that confirms 1.5 sentences of this article... that's just not enough per WP:V and WP:N. Despite the closers confused argument that "assertions made by several editors that sources were out there. There were assertions made by several editors that sources were not out there. Strong arguments on both sides" policy (WP:V) clearly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". No one found sources beyond the one weak one already mentioned... the closer bought a classically weak argument (I'm sure it's in that "arguments to avoid at AFD" essay), so the close was not proper. I'm bringing to DRV instead of another AFD because I suspect an AFD would attract the same people and the same arguments, and perhaps the same policy-ignoring close... DRV seems a more appropriate venue. Rividian (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse no- consensus close. which fairly represents the discussion. No objection to nominating it again in a month if nobody works on it. That would be an appropriate AfD2. Deletion review, however, is not. To say that one is bringing it here in the hope of finding a more sympathetic audience is Forum Shopping. DGG (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are the sources to meet WP:V and WP:N? How many poorly closed AFDs to we have to sit through before policy is actually applied here? To me it's just as bad as "forum shopping" to keep nominating for AFD again and again, hoping the right people show up. --Rividian (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus keep close.
"closed improperly", "closer bought the dubious", "confused argument", "closer bought classically weak", "policy-ignoring close". Someone's fired up about this. Putting aside your obvious WP:CIVIL issues and the clear agenda you have, let's take a look at notability for this article:
This is clearly a notable subject. But, I haven't addressed your WP:V concerns, which are valid for eviscerating the current article or going on a massive sourcing campaign - but not to delete it entirely. All the energy spent trying to get this deleted probably could have made the article half as long and much more well sourced. Tan | 39 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I haven't addressed your WP:V concerns" - so how do you endorse a deletion based on this meeting WP:V? You have found some sources, which is better than anyone else so far. Nevertheless, if you admit the WP:V concerns aren't addressed, why am I such a jerk for trying to apply WP:V, and why do you want to keep content that you say you can't prove meets sourcing requirements? All I ask is that policy be enforced here. Those sources are a start, but merely use the term "play party", so they run afoul of WP:NEO which says "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". There's nothing in WP:CIVIL that says I can't make strong arguments... the only incivil thing I've said is the word "jerk" but that was referencing myself. --Rividian (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I didn't call you a jerk, and certainly not for trying to maintain policy. Your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is another story, but I won't comment further. You may think you are merely making strong arguments, but in reality, you might want to consider that you are alienating other users and probably mobilizing opposition to your opinion. Replying to almost every single !vote in the AfD that you don't agree with merely highlights that !vote and gives it weight - and you are doing the same thing here. My endorsement of the close stands; there was no clear consensus, which defaults to a keep. Tan | 39 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy against replying to weak arguments... if people want to keep a questionable article to spite me, that's rather sad. --Rividian (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that you believe that people are replying/posting here to "spite you" is what is actually sad. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person I was replying to said "you are alienating other users and probably mobilizing opposition to your opinion". So that implies people are opposing because of me, not because of the article. I was just replying to what was said... it's not my fault he put it out there.--Rividian (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No objection to a renomination, as DGG suggests, in a month or two if there has been no improvement. This is using DRV to forum-shop despite Rividian's protests to the contrary. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were 26 months to find sources... how much more time do we have to wait? It's disappointing that we should keep an article around due basically to bureaucracy. Do we really need 18 AFDs to realize WP:V applies to an article, even if a bunch of people like that article? --Rividian (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently, it took 26 months, one afd, and a deletion review. Thank you Rividian, for bringing a subpar article to the attention of the community. There is now a plethora of sources found by Tan above, ready to be added to the article that was not deleted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nine pages of Google news hits for this topic. Nine pages. It's been covered, it's notable, these things happen and it's not just a chat room term. Many of those articles are specifically about these events. I don't know why you're so hellbent on deleting this - I agree the existing article isn't very good, but if it bothers you so much, work on it. Change it. Make it conform - but comparing this to the Gay Nigger association is a bad-faith strawman argument - how the two things are similar is beyond me. In fact, I should probably put this on my to-do list. Tan | 39 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 results and all are casual mentions, as far as I can tell. This is related to GNAA because both were kept due to spurious arguments about the quality of sources, and promises that better sources would be found eventually. I would improve the article, except I improve articles using sources. Every source I find with this term has useless information... like "Bondage Land is a blend of play party, skits, disco, and carnival". That's just not encyclopedic in any way... and yet it's one of the sources people keep suggesting we use for this article. --Rividian (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) As I said, these sources mention the term but do not come close to providing the coverage required by WP:N and WP:NEO. Despite what people want to assume about me, I will drop this the minute there actually are credible sources shown to exist. --Rividian (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rividian, what you are doing to the article is not wrong (stubbing it basically), just be careful not to get in an edit war over it. The last thing I or anyone else wants here is for you to garner a very unnecessary block. Right now, you've substantially blanked the article (again, not inherently wrong), but when reverted, you have now reverted back to your version twice. A friendly bit of advice to you that you need to use the talkpage of the article and not just edit summaries with reversions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually I didn't revert back to "my version", I was careful to retain sources (well, attempts at them) that were added. And I did comment on the talk page... no one has replied yet. I'm sorry but you need to be more careful with what you imply about me... I'm not doing the stuff you allege, and it would be easy to verify this. --Rividian (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't trying to imply anything about you Rividian, and my apologies that that is the impression you got. I saw your posts on the article talk page as well. I saw that you had three edits to the article with today's timestamp, all removing the same content. My advice was meant as merely that, advice - I clearly said I wanted you to avoid a block as I feel you would not deserve a block. The article should be stubbed, but that doesn't mean continually reverting to your preferred version (even if it's the "right" version). The same advice goes to User:Simonxag if xe continues to revert you as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article is much better the way it is now. Tan | 39 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gary Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Creating a discussion in the relevant place per this mailing list thread and this New York times article. Catchpole (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but support userfying and improving the article to a higher standard by anyone interested so that it can be reposted in articlespace at a future time. Lar's close wasn't flawed - the arguments in the AfD were minimal, and "Gary Lynch" isn't exactly a unique name to search for on the 'net. Information turned up after it was closed presents the article in a different light, I assume (can't see the actual article as it was) and so it seems like an entry could be crafted. Is there a vote for "endorse deletion but recreate article"?Avruch T 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Chief Legal Officer for Morgan Stanley is almost certain to have multiple references when looked for, and so it did. The link added to the NY list is obviously sufficient -- literally dozens of articles; almost all are obviously the same person. Google search for +"Gary Lynch" +"Morgan Stanley" brings 1800 for just that phase of his career --and is almost perfectly precise for getting the right person. . 2nd item on it is a profile of him on Forbes. About 1 in 10 are usable 3rd party substantial references. The closer compares the article with a similar one he closed, and that might also merit deletion review. The AfD should have been continued, not closed, but the material put forth by now is sufficient. The excessive protests about the deletion shouldn't prejudice us--we are looking at the article and the close. DGG (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These arguments should have been advanced during the deletion discussion, or better, the things behind them used to enhance the article. We cannot expect closers to be mind readers, we can only ask them to evaluate whatever arguments and links are presented. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This New York Times article clearly shows notability. It's just a matter of improving the article a bit and finding more information. No reason to have to draft the article on some other page. Fred Talk 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • as above... should have been advanced during the AfD. But now, just use this material to improve the article. I'll userify it to wherever, or merge with Davewild's userpage or whatever seems to make more sense, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Ah, the Dramaz, it is here.
  • Lar is an awfully nice chap and a more than competent administrator. However, this decision needs overturning.
  • First, because it runs contrary to policy about consensus.
  • Background: WT:BLP saw a failed attempt to introduce into the wording of BLP the recommendation that marginal BLPs with no consensus at AfD default to delete instead to keep.
  • Lar didn't approve of this, and, so disapproving, closed the contentious Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination) as no consensus defaulting to delete. The close edit-conflicted with a close by User:Sandstein that cleaved closely to policy - and found in the opposite direction. Perhaps fortunately, they were able to work it out collegially and agreed to relist.
  • In puzzlement, I urged him on User talk:Lar to reconsider this, pointing out that WT:BLP explicitly notes that there is no consensus to change. He, with his customary politeness, told me he intended to ignore that page, saying "I think if we start doing what we know is right in this matter, we'll find that consensus has indeed changed."
  • This explains the puzzling policy-exceptionalism of this close. Lar is launching a satyagraha.
  • I would not call the policy change "failed"... it had a majority in support, and I think you may want to examine some considerable number of other recent AfDs of a similar nature. I'm not launching a satyagraha, because policy here is descriptive. Do things a certain way, and have them stand, enough times, and voila. consensus changed. Consensus on this matter is changing. I'm just chivvying it along a bit. I don't really think this aspect of your argument stands... you can still carry the day using the other two points. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, because it runs contrary to policy and custom about notability.
  • In the close, Lar says "There is no specific biographical mention given. So notability is not conferred by Gary having been the subject of a substantial biography in book form, or multiple substantial biographies in articles."
  • I have argued in the past - in fact, on one occasion very recently in favour of excluding articles in which the subject has not received substantial biographical coverage, but only coverage about his or her isolated statements, opinions or actions.
  • Opinion clearly disagrees with me on this interpretation of notability. A fortiori, Lar's more stringent condition is more out of line.
  • Not being a law student I had to look A fortiori up, but I don't think my condition was out of line, much less stronger than yours. We DO have a policy that random mentions don't carry much sand. My checking (close enough or not) found only random mentions. The article now has lots of good stuff but I didn't find it then. And I did look. Perhaps not successfully enough. (that is why I asked that this be kept going longer...) ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirdly, because Lar didn't look closely enough.
  • The third, and only informed comment, came from User:Minos P. Dautrieve, who self-identifies as a lawyer on his userpage. His comment begins "One of the most prominent lawyers in the USA." Now that would make me sit up and check, AGFing that this chap isn't someone trying to keep the article in because of CoI or POV - which is easily checked by determining whether he has edited it extensively and tendentiously in the past.
  • This comment then links the Google news search for "Gary Lynch"+SEC. There are 1500 articles listed, all of which on the first several pages appear to be about this Gary Lynch. Several are detailed profiles, including this from the Associated Press the Chicago Sun-Times and this from the sadly defunct but very reliable Regardie's. On the first page itself, fourth row down is this from the New York Times that would at least grab the eye enough (His name's in the headline!) to make a closing admin keep looking.
  • Lar dismissive these comprehensive results - which should meet even his standards, surely - as "deceptive". I have no idea why.
  • Again, how much searching is enough? If I spot check 15 articles in the search returns and all I find is mentions in passing, and baseball players and the like, the returns do seem deceptive to me. The onus should not be on the closer to determine if there are references somewhere... it should be on the article improvers to add them. And I've done my share of improving, (believe me, I take User:Anthere/Values#Deletions pretty seriously, I'm inclusionist) but I was the closer, not one of the voters. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believe the closure should be overturned based on the arguments above but recreate anyway regardless. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closer, I would reiterate what I said in the close... the article did not itself give evidence of notability (it had no references after all). The Google search given, when I spot checked its returns, did not give articles that gave strong evidence of notability either. Now, others have done more work (the work that perhaps should have been done during the discussion) and found better evidence of notability. Excellent! Recreate the article, then, and add the sources that have now been found. I'll userify it myself to whoever asks, as I already offered. (or, perform a history merge to Davewild's version, if that makes more sense, whichever) But I think the proper outcome here is to endorse the deletion, as the deletion itself was proper... and then recreate the article, since there are now several enthusiasts ready to do good work on it, which was lacking before. DRV is about process, not about rearguing the AfD (which is what DGG and Fred Bauder are doing). Proper process was followed, in my view. I'll be delighted here if the outcome is that we end up with a better, more properly sourced article, that offers good evidence of notability. I'm inclusionist, remember? The article as it stood at the time, did not. Finally, the time that Minos P. Dautrieve and Enchantress of Florence spent casting aspersions in various places could better have been spent accepting my first offer of userification and improving the article, in my view. But that's just me. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, which was properly done, support recreation with new sources, as per Lar. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Subject is obviously important with significant press coverage. Proper process was not followed, Lar; you applied a standard that did not achieve consensus when discussed and ignored an informed keep argument. I support recreating as a sourced stub and working from there. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

( The following was Davewild's close statement:)

  • Gary Lynch – As agreed with Lar, the deleting admin, I have restored the article with my userspace version history merged in. Regardless of whether the closure was correct or not the article has now been sourced to establish notability and restored thus resolving the matter – Davewild (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undone the close (per agreement with Davewild), because I welcome more input on this. The article has been recreated, properly sourced, but if this AfD was closed improperly I would like to learn from it so please see if there is a consensus... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To some degree, Lar, isn't this just drama waiting to happen? Whether it was closed improperly or not seems immaterial at the moment. A solution was found at the end of DRV. Using DRV "for your own improvement" seems a bit of a stretch. (keeping in mind that I've already "endorsed" your previous deletion). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe. But I hope not. I do personally welcome the input. If taking it to my talk is the way to go, I guess that would be fine too. But it's not just about me, I think it's larger, I think we have had a large number of closes of BLP AfDs lately that have advanced the "no consensus is delete" argument, which is what a large majority of commenters endorsed at the BLP talk page (whether it was consensus or not, or just a large majority... meh) .... if having a 70% margin isn't sufficient to get a policy changed, then there are a lot of AfDs that need overturning, not just this one. So I think there is merit in discussing further. The closer did agree that a reopen was fine with him. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, your punishment is your reward:-) Even though I personally think this may be better served on talkpages (yours, BLPs, someone elses...have fun! (Also, for the DRV closer, I stand by my initial post here -- endorse deletion, allow recreation...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec)Several comments - Firstly as I said on Lar's talk page I don't mind either way whether this deletion review was reopened and said if anyone wanted to reopen they could. As to my opinion on the actual closure I believe the best thing to have done would have been to relist the discussion so further comments could been made after the assertion was made that sources were available. It is very likely that the sources that are now in the article would have been found and a consensus to keep would have formed. Finally I cannot see any consensus on WT:BLP to change the default for no consensus BLPs. A straight vote shows 60.99% in favour of changing of changing the default (and that takes those who said things like 'support only if' and the ip address with no other contributions). I cannot believe that 60% is a consensus to change policy so the existing default to keep should continue. A more limited proposal might persuade some of those opposing (such as me - see my comments there) to support it but the change does not have consensus at the moment. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I could offer a somewhat different observation regarding what occurred here: it seems that at least part of the problem is the rather broad divergence between WP:NOTABLE and the actual English word "notable". I think most active Wikipedians tend to forget just how different WP usage and the general usage of this word are. I think that's at least part of the problem here. From the perspective of a Washington regulatory attorney, Lynch is clearly notable. From the perspective of a hard-bitten Wikipedian, who's trying to help diffuse BLP land mines having seen how explosive they can be, Lynch is not clearly WP:NOTABLE. Neither are incorrect incidentally. It's WP:NOTABLE and the word notable that disagree.
  • As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I recall thinking that it is, of course, encyclopedic to have the basic biographical details of most government officials, business leaders, etc. Where they were born, went to college, worked over the years. What's not obvious to a newcomer is how these articles can turn into "WP:COATRACKS", smear campaigns or prank hatchet jobs against marginally significant or even by right completely private citizens. Again, neither side is incorrect. It's just an understanding deficit between those initiated in our ways, and those with a fresh perspective.
  • Incidentally, to cite prominent examples: original research, encyclopedic, civility, assume good faith, indiscriminate, consensus, fair use, are all words and concepts that, in the real world, mean something slightly to dramatically different from WP:OR, WP:ENC, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:FAIRUSE. (We needn't quibble over the strength of the divergence, I hope most people can see my point here: these terms have non-obvious legalistic interpretations that are exclusive to Wikipedia.)
  • Not sure what the solution is, but this is at least part of what happened here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good analysis, JayHenry, you often bring an excellent fresh look to things, I'm glad you stopped by. I'd never considered myself "hard-bitten" before, but I think you nailed it. And it's precisely this sort of wider ranging commentary I was hoping to get by keeping the DRV open even after the proximate issue was resolved... No I'm not quite sure how to close the chasm of meaning either. We can point newcomers to various help texts, essays and the like till we are blue in the face but that won't quite do it. But this does need some thought. ++Lar: t/c 10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article Without researching the history, I won't comment on what should have happened, but the article now appears to meet the criteria for inclusion. It seems to be undeleted now, so I'm not sure wheter to say endorse or overturn -- just keep it. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This perhaps is a bit of an odd DRV since it's being prolonged at my request... the question is not, at least to me, whether the article as it is now should be a keep. I don't think anyone here debates that, certainly not me... The question is whether the article as it was here, taking into account the arguments advanced in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Lynch (the nom and two deletes against one keep which asserted notability and gave some searches), as well as anything else you think relevant (like whether I should have done more research into whether it was notable, or whatever) was one that should have been deleted then, or kept, or relisted. This is a BLP, remember, and we have an ethical duty to make sure that a BLP that isn't or can't or likely won't be maintained, should be gone. No article is better than a hurtful/harmful/potentially libelous article. Also, to those that said more research should have been done... how much? I'm saying it's not reasonable to expect a closer to read minds, if some amount of checking (how much is reasonable? 5 min? 20 min? 3 hours?) doesn't find the refs, the delete is in my view justified. Now, I've also been criticised (and probably rightly so) for not just userifying the article to Minos's talk space right away, as soon as he turned up. Yep, probably should have, and then committed to keep an eye on things (because remember, user space gets searched by Google and indexed and returns results just like articlespace, at least for now it does, and we certainly have had users making nice [[WP:COATRACK]s in their user space... not that Minos necessarily would or wouldn't, but you never know, you have to keep an eye on that.)... all that said, was it a good delete at the time or no, and why? The feedback is useful, believe me. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article (As it was recreated after this DRV began, there's going to be some confusion as to the intent of the "overturn" and "endorse" votes here.) - The New York Times reference, which clearly demonstrates notability, was made known after the few and majority "delete" votes came in. As always, I have issue with the deletion of articles when references are easily found I believe it should be a requirement for closing administrators to at least perform minimal amount of research into a topic before deleting. The Buy.com deletion and the subsequent overturn was another classic example of this. --Oakshade (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure which is what we should be looking at here not least by the closer's request. As the discussion presented itself, it wasn't 'closable' yet. The three initial keep opinions weren't very elaborated and lacked information what (if any) kind of sources had been looked for. The late keep opinion, while not examining the search results in detail, should have been sufficient to open up further discussion on sources and notability claims or concepts. At that point there was neither consensus nor indication that there isn't consensus, so for me it would have been a clear case for relisting. Instead of relisting or simply joining the discussion himself, the closer offered an extensive analysis of his own in the closure, which isn't really his role, shifting thus the whole focus from the diligence of the discussion to his own. As the debate has been closed as no consensus, I'd also disagree with applying the reversal of the default decision for BLPs, since that proposal is still being discussed. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you think the close discussion veered from analysis of the arguments presented by those who opined into presenting my own arguments? I agree that's definitely a thing to be watched for... but I do think it's important for the closer to present an analysis of the arguments given, not just a statement, because in other DRV's we have seen closers get faulted for apparently closing the way they felt like or for not giving the arguments presented suitable weight... this is a balance I think. If this one went too far that would be good to know. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The close certainly needs to analyze or let's say weigh arguments. here, the keep arguments neither really addressed his jobs nor mentioned any search for sources, the keep mentioned Ghits and NYT coverage. At this point the arguments as presented were were few and rather sketches and the overall discussion still too 'light'. Their sole analysis would have been reflected by a relist to generate a "more thorough" discussion, while the close seemed to rather elaborate all possible arguments first before weighing them. More specifically it was you who went through the list of roles, the NYT articles and the Ghits adding also a comparison to another AfD.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Natali Del Conte – Endorsed. The sources presented here do not persuade people that the notability threshold is crossed, being as they are videos of her or largely blogospheric material. These same points were made at the end of the AfD by Tikiwont. The claims of 'notability by accumulation' are not terribly persuasive, as revealed particularly by the "more famous every day" comment — the article should come back when the 'becoming famous' process has led to third-party discussions of the subject. – Splash - tk 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Natali Del Conte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello a few weeks ago I reposted a web page that was deleted. As part of that process I asked a Wikipedia administrator why it was originally deleted. I was informed at the time of the original removal of the page the subject in question (Ms. Natali Del Conte) was did not achieve a level credibility to obtain a reference on this site. However even in the original deletion it was noted that the subject was in the process of moving to a new job where they could likely become worthy of a Wikipedia page.

Since then this person has become a host of CNET and has her own show on CNETTV called Loaded. In addition since being with CNET she tech guest on the Today Show (NBC), CNBC, Fox News as well as other significant TV programs. So the feeling was that the reason for the original deletion was no longer valid.

I must respectfully say that I didn’t appreciate that at that time when I reposted the story that I should have first done an undelete request as I am doing now. I didn’t know the process existed and the administrator I spoke to at that time didn’t inform me of this process. For this I do apologize.

I know at this time Ms. Del Conte has now achieved more main stream credibility then may others who currently have long standing pages on Wikipedia. Therefore with great respect for the fine work done on this site, I would like to request a review of this judgment if possible.

All the best,

Joe Dawson --BitStop (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don’t want to debate to much about the logic behind the original delete because I honestly think that was not fair, due to the fact that many other pages have existed on far more minor internet celebrities then Ms. Del Conte.

That said to answer your question Ms. Del Conte moved from a podcast to working on her own show on CNET TV. Link: http://www.cnettv.com/9742-1_53-31863.html

Since Moving to CNET she is now been on Fox News and NBC and CNBC. I don’t have great access to all references as most of them existed on her Wikipedia page. But here is what I can find with a quick Google search. Hope this helps.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=657645382

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24103730#24103730

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24197124#24197124

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=722762374

I should also add that a number of other Cnet host such as Molly Wood, Tom Merritt and others have pages on Wikipeida. Also many more people who exist to smaller audiences such as Roger Chang and 100s of other just like him also have wikipedia pages.

--BitStop (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and rewrite on t he basis of the above. DGG (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited sources are just videos with her in them. These are not sources we can use for a biography. Endorse deletion unless and until non-trivial independent biographical sources are available. We have too many thinly-sourced biographies WP:OWNed by obsessive fans. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the biographical information has been independently verified by direct contact with Ms. Del Conte. The original writing of the Wikipedia page was done by someone else who sent a long list of questions to Ms. Del Conte. Since that time I have spoken to here she informed me how the page was created and she has also validated that all of the Biographical information on this page is correct. --BitStop (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing to indicate the deletion was either out of process, nor that anything has changed re: notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I had given a close look at the available sources in the original AfD and going through the latest version I still don't see that we now have enough substantial coverage about herself from independent (as in independent from Ms Del Conte) reliable sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry I didn't know other sources from the person themselves had to say that she had a sister or a dog or a cat. :) Ok now that I understand the problem you have with the page I have found sources that could be used to support some of the other information on the page. Information that can not yet be supported by independednt sources could be removed form the page, and added in time when such sources exist.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/02/textras-natalie-del-conte-leaves-podshow-for-cnet-tv/

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/17/why-is-natali-del-conte-speaking-spanish/

http://www.centernetworks.com/natali-del-conte-welcome-to-nyc

http://www.crunchnotes.com/2006/12/18/natali-leaves-techcrunch/

http://nymieg.blogspot.com/2008/03/natali-del-conte-ripoff-artist.html

http://sarahmeyers.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/natali-del-conte-the-next-veronica-belmont/

http://revision3.com/internetsuperstar/loaded/

By the way I want to make it clear I am in no way connected to this person. I am not a fan or anything like that. I am only doing this because I think 1000s of other pages exist on Wikipedia that should be removed before this page. And none of the other Bio pages have been reviewed to this level of detail as if they where they would be removed. There are BIO pages on this site about fictional people who existed in trivial TV shows. With no validation the sites of other Podcasters exits, and I am just unclear why this one person is being reviewed at what looks to me to be a higher degree then all others who currently exist. My reason for doing this is purely fairness and constancy across Wikipedia. If someone can tell me why pages such as Cali Lewis, Molly Wood, Tom Merritt, Roger Chang and 100s of other just like him also have Wikipedia pages. If your going to remove lots of Bios such as some of the others I have mentioned then fair enough I just want to make sure the approach is constant and fair.

Or maybe the issue is that to much detail exists on this page and some of it should be removed. Fair enough… That could be a valid point… I am not sure killing the whole page (tossing the baby out with the bath water) is the right approach for helping foster an environment where people want to contribute to Wikipedia.

Again I say all of this with tremendous respect for you as unpaid administrators just trying to do the right thing. I am just trying to build a better site so we are all on the same side... --BitStop (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest links look still very much like bloggers and podcasters blogging and podcasting about other bloggers and podcasters. If I understand correctly she actually worked for one of the sites in the past. So I have to stand by my opinion. Part of the problem that you have unfortunately run into with your article, is that the community has already once taken time to evaluate this. The guidelines and policies are the same evrywhere, so this isn't unfair, but their application certainly isn't constant either, for a number of reasons, one of them being that the number of editors that are actually interested in more than a few articles is rather limited. In other words, this isn't a linear system, but one that while being governed by the same rules everywhere is overall constantly far from equilibrium. Once there are some more reliable references for Ms Del Conte you can just ask for the draft to be restored into your userspace and work on it. Meanwhile I hope you you stay around to improve things elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I don't like taking this decision, but the new sources provided look like fluff pieces and not real coverage of her. Also, there is no actual biographical data on those sources, they just cover her because of her work at journalist at a certain company, so she should appear listed on an article that has a list of journalists working for that company. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reverse and Keep Granted that no individual reference is compelling, but cummulativley these show a person who is noticed by independent 3rd party journals. When we get to splitting hairs, let's remeber that we should error on the side of providing the most information to our reader's benefit. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and Keep - The topic is clearly the subject of multiple secondary sources and this was not known during the AfD until towards the end of the discussion period. While the closing administrator's closing was in good faith and proper, an AfD being improperly closed has never been the only reason we overturn AfD closings.--Oakshade (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and Keep - This reporter is gaining notoriety every day, being invited as expert on debates, discussion panels, etc. If we can keep the page content under control, I can't see what the big problem is with a simple reference to who this person is, When people will look for her on Wikipedia, they'll simply see who she is, where to find her work and see useful references to help them judge for themselves how notable she is or should be or shouldn't be.--ptousign (talk) 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse original deletion - The article deleted failed to meet our standards. If you think she's notable now, create a new article; but lose the bloggers and podcasts, the video links, etc. Read WP:BIO for further guidance. If there are that many podcasters and other non-notables out there, then tag the non-notable ones with the appropriate notices; WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument for retention or restoration of a non-notable, but rather a sorrowful acknowledgement that we don't catch 'em all. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Restore and Keep - Rewriting an article with generic and useful references is precisely what I did at the end of March for this very reporter. The article later got cluttered with "less-objective" material, I removed most of it when I found the time but it remained reasonably informative as far as I can remember. I have no intention of recommending the deletion of the equivalent bloggers, podcasters and what not, they are people gaining notability with their medium of choice. Many of them have been asked to participate in TV shows as experts. It's a sad sociological mesure of standards to use TV to gauge notoriety but what can we do. We're not talking about reality-show-style notoriety here, people like Natali Del Conte, Cali Lewis and others like Leo Laporte and Patrick Norton spend time researching complicated technology subjects and their opinion help form people's position on those subjects. The simple fact that this page has resurrected three times and generates a debate after deletion should already give you a clue we're not dealing with teenage-crush material but people with real a interest. Ptousign (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • UniModal – Overturn. I'll list it again at AfD. You really can't go speedy deleting things that have already survived a legitimate AfD. On checking the central claims in this DRV, I find them to be spurious. The article is not blatant advertising requiring a fundamental rewrite, certainly not of the kind of level that is typically treated with CSD G11. Furthermore, it seems from the DRV that there is the likelihood of a meaningful AfD debate (which may nevertheless conclude with deletion) regarding sources and the status and like of the thing. Finally, I think it is bound to cause over-excitement when someone makes a series of edits to the article in February 2008, before summarily deleting it two months later. Other people should be left to do such things and then we can help reduce this kind of thing – Splash - tk 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
UniModal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The UniModal article was clearly cited and objective. JDoorjam deleted "UniModal" based on his sole opinion that "Reading through the article's history, it becomes clear that this was added to the project as purely promotional material. The bare bones that remain seem to outline an untested idea that no one wants to invest in." I very much doubt a proper AFD exists for this. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list at AFD. Deletion was not in accordance with any of the criteria for speedy deletion. However I don't think the article will survive AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting administrator. This article was deleted under CSD 11. Though the content was edited and pared down significantly from its original form, it was still purely promotional material based solely on the assertions of the company that is the subject of the article. For those unfamiliar with UniModal, which I would suspect is most, the "company" of three people is trying to sell an idea for a rapid transit system, except no one's bought into it anywhere, and nowhere in the world is there a working prototype. This makes it difficult for secondary sources to say anything, because the product essentially does not exist. This means that anything there is to say about UniModal is by definition purely promotional, because there's nothing to say about UniModal except what UniModal says about themselves. My opinion is still that this article should stay deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD where it will probably fail if more references cant be found. To me, the article reads as descriptive not promotional. Only the most obvious & unfixable advertisements are eligible for G11. The arguments of the deleting admin are essentially lack of notability, but that also needs AfD, since the existence of the NYT article is a clear assertion of significance. DGG (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JDoorjam's reasoning. If it's going to fail AFD anyway, as asserted by DGG and Stifle, why waste the community's time? Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is pointless. Let it stay deleted. No sources, no notability = no article. Call it an IAR speedy then instead of a G11 (said the user that'sa stickler for the rules...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Objective is not a term I would use to describe this article, which documented a fictional concept in terms which made it very hard to tell that it was indeed fiction. It's been debated over a couple of years, during which time no sources which are not directly traceable to the originator have been produced. Newspapers reprinting the originator's publicity material do not magically make independent sources. There are no independent sources because there is no product. It has never existed, no prototype has been made. There has never been more than an artist's rendering. PRT now exists, in limited fashion, and looks like this. Not that I've seen it, I've not used the Heathrow terminal 5 car park yet. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "documented a fictional concept in terms which made it very hard to tell that it was indeed fiction" - the article repeatedly reiterated that it is a PROPOSED system, exactly because you complained and complained about that. That problem has been fixed for over a year JzG, quit yelling about it. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the argument that a proper AfD should be foregone since a couple users think it will fail anyway.. is a falacious argument. Proper procedure should be followed in cases where there is any controversy. If I'm not wrong, the article has already survived an AfD (tho my memory might be dodgy). Fresheneesz (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: when I voted, I was not aware of the SkyTran article, which was just created two weeks ago. There is no need for both a UniModal and SkyTran, and the current SkyTran article pretty much covers it. So if the SkyTran article is kept, then I would vote to delete UniModal. ATren (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean Malewicki was punting it again in the hope of getting investment for a prototype. He never has, of course. He is pitching way too high. None of that discussion is independent, since all details about the system come fomr Malewicki, there being no other possible source for a theoretical project like this. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many "theoretical" projects that are perfectly encyclopedic, precisely because people have taken an interest in them. You are repeating arguments you have said over and over again JzG. Ideas are valid items for wikipedia, as long as they can be cited and sourced - just like UniModal can. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its conceptual nature is well documented in all the sources I've provided, and (as I recall) it was clearly labelled as such in the article. Every source indicated that he was seeking funding to build a prototype. There is nothing wrong with documenting a concept that has received independent media coverage from respectable outlets (NY Times twice, LA Times, etc) as long as it is clearly labelled as concept that has never been prototyped (and again, that's what the article said). Personally, I've always had some skepticism about SkyTran, and I think there are more developed systems that do not have their own articles (Taxi2000, maybe the Polish Mist-er), but the facts about SkyTran are quite verifiable: that Malewicki has worked on it for the last decade, and that he is still trying to get a prototype built. That, along with a very basic description of the concept, can be represented in an article, IMO. ATren (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD: while the concept has not been realised, many interesting concepts and ideas (including purely fictional ones) have articles in Wikipedia. The New York Times magazine article from 6 May 2008 shows that the concept generates continuing interest more widely. And although the concept comes only from the inventors, this does not in principle prevent critical evaluation of the concept from independent third parties writing secondary sources, providing potential material for reporting here. I look on it rather like the Channel Tunnel concepts which arose in the century or two before the actual tunnel was built, and which now appear in the History section of that article. PS I've been to Terminal 5 long term car park, and there is currently a coach service to and from the terminal. There is an internal rapid transit system though - as you can see on my video of the terminal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ULTra system at Heathrow is not scheduled to begin operating until 2009, so you can't ride it yet (though you can probably get a look at the guideway, which I believe is at or near completion) ATren (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to trying it out then! Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The SkyTran looks to be brand new, just added in the last week. I believe UniModal is the company, SkyTran is the concept. They are often used interchangeably, though I believe the term SkyTran is older and more common in discussions. ATren (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck me, yet another obsessive pro-PRT WP:SPA pushing Malewicki's fantasy. Where the hell do they all come form? I swear that 100% of the entire world's population of PRT enthusiasts edits Wikipedia - and the whole lot of them would fit in a single Ultra pod. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, redirect and merge into Skytrain (speedy was correct because, once you move all the Skytrain info to its proper place in Skytrain, not much must have been left because it seems that the only notable thing that the company has ever done is Skytrain, aka company is not notable by itself, aka it should be only mentioned inside the article of the notable product. This was an obvious deletion that takes load out from AfD) If Unimodal is only famous for making Skytrain, then make only an article about Skytrain and speak about Unimodal on a section. It's obvious that the concept that made the company famous is more notable than the company itself. Also transport buffs will be way more interested on the concept than on the company. This way it's better for the encyclopedia *resists tempation to invoke IAR*. When Unimodal has two very notable products each one with its own article, or when the company has coverage that is not on the context of covering its products, then come back to DRV --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. The product is interesting, not the company. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are we discussing the merits of an article here. if it has any merits worth discussing, it should go to AfD. And we seem to be discussing a possible merge--that should go the article talk page. Deletion Review is not for dealing with all the problematic articles in Wikipedia - it is for discussing the merits of deletion decisions. This deletion decision to use speedy is acknowledged to be wrong even by the people who want to sustain it. If anyone wants to change the reasons for speedy to : I think its not notable, and I think the people at deletion Review are likely to agree with me, it can be deleted. That's similar to the policy for blatant BLP violations, and I dont think that method of working applies to articles in general. DGG (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you are right, I corrected my vote to make clear why I don't oppose the deletion even if it's a speedy. I was veering off-topic. About the speedy rationale, the part "an untested idea that no one wants to invest in" is inadequate, but the rest of the rationale gives solid reasoning for deletion, and I agree with that reasoning. The fact that he let a personal opinion slip in at the end of a correct rationale is a reason to whack the admin with a trout, but I don't think that it's a reason to overturn a correct speedy. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See change below. Fresheneesz (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change - I removed the "cache" of the page - since it is an incorrect cache. People are basing their opinions on the current, and poorly written SkyTran, NOT the page that was deleted. I still want to see the article *before* it was deleted. Can someone PLEASE make that happen? Fresheneesz (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I've read two different versions in the article's history. One of them is advertising copy for a non-existant product, and the other is simply a description of a non-existant product. --Carnildo (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Promotes some entity? Apparently so. Exclusively? Seems like it. Needs a rewrite? Sure does. A fundamental, rip-it-up-and-start-again rewrite? Very probably. We don't need an AfD for stuff like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This already *survived* an AFD! Can I please see the old article??? Fresheneesz (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 May 2008

[edit]
  • Vicki Iseman – The operative question in both this deletion review and the deletion discussion which provoked it was how to apply WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLP1E. In a correct application of said doctrine, the outcome should be a balance of positive and negative information concerning the subject; at the very least there should not be an overwhelming preponderance of negative information. To quote the policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." At present the sole coverage of Iseman is in the context of the alleged controversy, which seems a perverse result. A clear majority of editors below believe that BLP1E has been satisfied (or, rather, that it does not apply here); said editors also point to the existence of pre-2008 sources on Iseman and the existence of information outside the campaign controversy. Given the non-libelous state of the article prior to its deletion and the lack of a complaint from the subject the result is to overturn the AfD instead of relisting. Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)
In accordance with the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, our policies should be construed in a manner consistent with their purpose. Our biographies of living persons policy is intended to ensure that our descriptions of living persons are accurate, fair, and balanced. Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination), on the sole grounds of the claim that Vicki Iseman was notable for only one event, and that deletion was therefore justified per WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event is designed to effectuate the removal of articles concerning events in the news which masquerade as biographies of the participants, thereby giving massively undue weight to the events in our description of the subjects lives, and violating WP:NPOV. Special:Undelete/Crystal Gail Mangum is architypical of articles legitimately deletable per WP:BLP1E, as it was comprised almost entirely of unfavorable material concerning Crystal Gail Mangum's involvement in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, and served largely as a coatrack for criticism. WP:BLP1E was never intended to destroy legitimate biographies which are well-sourced, fair, and balanced. Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was such a biography, deleted on the basis of vote-counting and a purely mechanical application of WP:BLP1E in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose. Indeed, the deletion of this article itself constitutes a WP:BLP violation, since it removes almost all of our well sourced favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman, with the result that we only describe Vicki Iseman in the context of the scandal in which she was involved, thereby producing the very sort of negatively-biased coverage that our biographies of living persons policy is designed to prevent. While considerations of this nature were raised by myself and other editors at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination), neither the statement by the closing administrator at the time, nor his subsequent explanation of this decision substantively respond to the WP:BLP rationale for the retention of this article. However, the administrator who closed the deletion review concerning the first AFD discussion concurred with my arguments:

the spirit of WP:BLP (i.e. do no harm) is better served with retention of the article than a "...Controversy" fork alone.[129]

Indeed, there might well have been a numerical majority favoring retention of the article, had this issue been raised immediately after the nomination. John254 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Added link to second AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The majority of the opinions were clearly that the page should not be retained. Happy with Philippe's closure here. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reasonable close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It seems the bar is being set unrealistically high here. Do we hear about monoamine neurotransmitters every evening on national television? Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generators? Iseman's become a historically significant figure mainly as a result of the recent controversy; such events naturally receive more attention in the week immediately following than they do two and a half months later. By the numbers this could have reasonably been closed in either direction, but I really think the case for deletion is tenuous. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I do not see a consensus to delete, & even the closer expressed some hesitation, saying this did not have the usual BLP provision against re-creation or userification. ONEEVENT was intend only to cover unfortunate or accidental news coverage for things unrelated to any real notability, such as being involved in an accident. When the event is related to the persons profession and has national political implications, its being used wrong if it applies to this. Its time we started interpreting NOTCENSORED as including politics. DGG (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See long discussion below about BLP1E having nothing to do with fortune or accidents. Also see arguments about the fame of this person coming from one event, being that event the publication of the improper relationship, and the non-notability of the person before that event. Nothing to do with censorship :P --Enric Naval (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per DGG and the nominator. BLP1E is not meant for this sort of situation. BLP1E is meant for accident victims or silly internet memes or similar junk not for individuals whose actions involve politics of large countries. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, fair closure, not out of step with the general premise of the policy or the opinions expressed in the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The event that made her famous is already covered on other articles. The event was famous only because of John McCain's implication, and the event is already covered on John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy. Iseman has no claim to notability other than this event, so BLP1E clearly applies. At most make a redirect to John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy --Enric Naval (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that the article John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy was created by removing all controversy material from the Vicki Iseman article to its own pagespace, in accordance with talk consensus at the time, in order to leave the start-class bio with the controversy mention only in the intro. BusterD (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, basically, the deletion of Vicki Iseman removes our well-sourced information concerning her career, and leaves us with just a controversy fork -- think that might be a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP problem? Perhaps this is why editors supporting deletion have offered no better arguments than repeatedly invoking the letter of WP:BLP1E. John254 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been a learning experience for me, I've conceded long ago. I hope others are learning something as well. For my part, through prior processes on this subject I've held that "one event" doesn't apply to a situation where the "event" is a newspaper article describing a series of actions which happened over a long period of time (and many years ago). After the controversy sections were removed (pretty early in the editing process, if memory serves), this article's inoffensive content put frequent BLP defenders in an awkward position: no material which was uncited or objectionable. (Of course, this was the entire reason for excising the controversy stuff.) This may have been why Doc and Tony seemed more dedicated to redirecting the page than deleting it (taking liberty to characterize). BusterD (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, actually, the newspaper thing does look like "one event" to me :) Once that was removed, I assume that the article just failed notability per WP:PEOPLE --Enric Naval (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation is slightly more complicated than that. She met PEOPLE/BIO but it was unclear if the coverage meeting that was due to the ONEEVENT. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The commenters on the second AfD said that she didn't meet them. I can't see the deleted article, but no one at the AfD provided *any* source stating notability beyond this one event or pointed at any source already on the article, so we have no reason to overturn the AfD decision since they appeared to have decided correctly on the available information. Please feel free to provide any sources that the AfD may have missed and that assert her notability and that this assertion is not based on this one event. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. There was no consensus to delete this and WP:BLP1E is intended for private individuals who through no action of their own became a news event (accident victim, for example). A major Washington lobbyist who is very strongly connected to one of the most notable people on earth currently and who's connection has major national ramifications does not fit that category. --Oakshade (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've delved into a classic red herring argument. Because someone became notable due to their own actions doesn't suddenly mean BLP1E applies. That's like saying "Delete Paul McCartney because he became notable due to his own actions." It's the grand significance of this person's associations and actions which makes her notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, BLP1E applies because she is famous for one event: the John McCain scandal. You said "WP:BLP1E is intended for private individuals who through no action of their own became a news event (accident victim, for example)" but this is not correct. I think that it was brought up because of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_2 when Daniel was famous for only one bad event, and he didn't want to have an article on wikipedia. I think that at the end they moved all information about this person to the article about the event and deleted his article, and BLP1E was created. The relevant discussions at WP:BLP appear to be here, here, here, here and here. A discussion that says that biographies should not be done until enough notability is found at here. Well, there are more discussions, but this one explains a bit the arbcom case situation (I found no link to the actual case). Basically, no source has made a bibliography of Iseman as a notable person by herself, they only talk about her because of that event, so this is the same case as Brandt, and BLP1E *does* apply. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that we should apply BLP1E to McCartney is fallacious since he launched several notable records while being a member of the Beatles and after that (aka multiple events). In comparison, a singer who has only released one famous record could have BLP1E applied to him and his article merged into the record's article. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still only throwing up a red herring argument to refute mine. All you're doing is pointing to my "through no action of their own" statement and refuting that (which I concede, btw) and suggesting that negates the rest of my argument. Even if her "actions were her own," BLP1E still doesn't apply as it was created for the "assumption of privacy" for private individuals. Powerful Washington lobbyists who are closely associated with one of the most currently notable persons in the world is not in any manner a "private individual". The silly Daniel Brandt comparison has nothing to do with this as the notability and secondary sources coverage of him were nothing as compared to this person. As memory serves, Mr. Brandt lobbied very passionately to have his article removed for privacy reasons and used his case as a cause célèbre to demonstrate how Wikipedia infringes on the privacy of private individuals. There is no such request from Ms. Iseman and likely there never will be as this is not a private individual. --Oakshade (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E states "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." No such source was given, aka BLP1E applies. The next sentence says "Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability (...)". Neither AfD not AfD2 provided *any* sources that Iseman had independient notability *before* that event or any sources that covered Iseman out of the context of that event. So, AfD2 was correct on applying BLP1E, and this DRV should endorse that decision (and, of course, if Iseman has no independient notability, then she has as much right of privacy as any other living person that hasn't independient notability). Notice that BLP1E gives no weight to the fact that the person has asked for the article to be removed or not, and, actually, it does not even mention it. So, now, can you point us at any source that indicates independient notability and that the AfDs ignored so that we can overturn the deletion? Actually, right now, I would be happy to be pointed at *any* source that indicates indenpendient notability, independently of whether it appeared at the AfDs or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I got a bit derailed with "no actions of their own" thing. I'm happy that you conceded so I won't have to search for the arbcom link and read that boring thing :D --Enric Naval (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Short indent for readability.) First of all, she's not notable for just "one event" but an ongoing major controversy that has currently major and potentially historic ramifications. The first paragraph WP:BLP1E (you only quoted the 2nd) states, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (underline added by me). This is not by any manner an "essentially low profile" person as which are the people WP:BLP1E clearly states applies to. --Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the one event is when it was published that she had an improper relationship with John McCain. Do you have any sources showing that she was a high profile person before that? Any sources making whole articles about her that are not on the context of that improper relationship? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things. First you're choosing to ignore the main point of WP:BLP1E and why it was created; for the protection of private individuals (have a browse of its history if you don't believe me). That's why WP:BLP1E clearly states it's for "essentially low profile" persons. Secondly, "one event" refers to stories like "Harrisburg man accidentally cuts off foot with lawnmower," which of course is one event about an "essentially low profile person," not an ongoing major controversy about a major Washington lobbyist and her connections with one of the most notable persons on earth, which you are so desperately trying to label as "one event." WP:BLP was specifically created for privacy reasons and accuracy. This is not an "essentially low profile" individual. --Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sorry for extremely long comments, but I like playing with google)
  • I assure you that I'm not ignoring it. You see, on the two AfDs only two sources were provided where she was mentioned outside the context of the event here and [130], both of them trivial coverage. No articles dedicated to her, no analysis of her activities, no news article at all about any of her lobbying activities. So, a low profile person, a run-of-the-mill lobyist. Since they were no sources indicating that she was really a high profile lobbyist at all, then the claim of privacy does apply. She could have passed the rest of her life getting only trivial mentions on lists of lobbyists.
  • On the other hand, they gave about 7-8 sources showing coverage of Iseman and McCain. They also showed how google news shows several results for Vicky Iseman[131](14 results right now) and every single result is related to McCain. Actually try to search the same words without McCain[132], and you only get one result from 2008 (after the event) and it makes a passing mention to Iseman as someone that would not make publicity tours.
  • Let's have fun with raw google hits, +"Vicky Iseman" gets 6890 hits [133] and trying to reduce all appeareances of McCain you only get 287 hits[134], and on the first page of results you still get three pages about the event result #10result #9result #8, one I'm unsure result #7, another is an empty thechnorati page with photos that bear the tag "Vicky Iseman"result #6 another is a blog post with a "vicky iseman" tag that brings to a blog post about corruption on politics that has a link called "who is vicky iseman?" that brings to a page called "Vicki Iseman: Who Is McCain Scandal Figure?"result #5, another empty page with a "vicky iseman" tagresult #4 then you have two pages with the same photo making a parody of the McCain-Iseman affair result #3 result#2 and then another empty photo page with the vicky iseman tag result #1. Can you explain me where you do you any notability of Vicky Iseman that is not associated to the McCain affair?
  • So, you say that Iseman was a high-profile lobiyist that was notable for reasons not related to the improper relationship. Cool, find some sources that show this. The AfDs had no such sources, so their assessment of non-notability was correct. If nobody can't still provide any sources, then their assessment that Iseman is a non-notable figure with right to privacy is still correct, and the closing admin has to endorse this assessment.
  • Also, about being one event, every single source at the AfD talks exclusively about the improper personal relationship. They are not talking about the lobbying activities, or about corruption. If they talk about corruption then they talk about McCain, and they make a passing mention to Vicky Iseman involvement. And it's one event because the real "event" that launched her to fame was the publication of the relationship on the NYT. Btw, I didn't actually check every source, so I could be wrong there, altought I doubt it very much :P
  • So, there are no sources asserting notability before the publication of the event, and there are tons of sources asserting notability of Iseman on the context of the event. So, no I don't agree with you and I still think that BLP1E can perfectly be applied given the information available at the AfDs. Now
  1. if you had some sources asserting notability of Iseman outside of the event that didn't appear at the AfD *then* we could overturn it on the basis that she is a public figure outside of the event (so no claims to privacy and no BLP1E)
  2. if you had sources asserting notability of Iseman on several events outside of the improper relationship event, *then* we could overturn the AfD based on that she is notable on more than one event (so no "only one event", and no BPL1E)
  • You've completely missed the point of BLP1E. It is a mechanism to preserve the privacy of private individuals, or, as BLP1E states very clearly, "essentially low profile" persons. This isn't a private "low profile" person or an "everyday lobbyist" but one very closely connected to one of the most notable persons on earth and extremely high profile. Despite this being an ongoing controversy, your emphasis on BLP1E's "one event" is secondary to the extremely high profile this person has. Even if you insist on labeling her notability to "one event" there are degrees of "events" (Lee Harvey Oswald was only notable in the "context of one event") and to say "She might be a high profile person, but she's notable because of only one event" and ignoring the purpose of BPL1E is simply Wikilawyering. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, I hadn't noticed the fallacious argument: Lee Harvey Oswald is dead. BLP is for living persons. BLP1E probably could be stretched for cases where there is stress for familiars of a not-very-notable dead person, but this is not the case of Oswald. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for informing us that Lee Harvey Oswald is dead. It probably wasn't your intent, but by pointing that out you actually confirmed the core intent and the reasons why BLP1E was created, for the privacy and accuracy protections of living people. If they're alive, articles that infringe on their privacy or are inaccurate and possibly slanderous can adversely affect their (living) lives. The secondary "in the context of one event" clause you keep repeating was created for those protections of private individuals. While I respect your opinion that this person is not "essentially low profile", the overwhelming reality of the situation contradicts that. If you want a living example equivalent, John Hinkley is notable solely "in the context of one event", was never notable before the assassination attempt, as far as I know he's still alive and the amount of secondary coverage of him warrants an article of him. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but Hinkley has extensive coverage explaining his whole life, including biographical details [135], and even analysis explaining the influence of a film on the ideas that brought him to the assesination [136]. That means coverage that explains Hickley's insanity and what lead to it, treating the assesination attempt as a culmination of the insanity, and not as the only reason to create the article, since his insanity was notable of his own and caused legislation changes on persons that claimed insanity like he did on his trial. I have yet to see any source that talks about Iseman's life on that way. You still have to provide any source that shows that Iseman has any notoriety outside of the improper relationship scandal.
  • Also notice that Hickley spawned new legislation ("The assassination attempt won him notoriety and media attention, and also led to legislation limiting the use of the insanity plea in several states") including the Brady Bill, and Hickley's defence on the trial is pointed as directly responsible of changes insanity plea [137] without making any references to why he was judged (the assesination attempt) so that can count as a separate event. Compare with Iseman's case, where the scandal of the improper relationship has had no repercusions other than affect the political carreer of John McCain, and nobody has shown on the AfDs any sources giving biographical details of Iseman (if the article had any, then please point to them). --Enric Naval (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've completely missed the point. That is the purpose of BLP1E is the protect of the privacy of "essentially low profile" living persons. That is the reason that it BLP stands for "Biography of Living People." All you did was give reasons why John Hinkley iss notable even though he became notable in the "context of one event." All the non-McCain biographical details in Ms. Iseman's article came from reliable sources. Those reliable sources aren't magically unreliable because those sources also report on the McCain relationship. --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, seriously, show sources that give biographical coverage of Iseman outside of the context of the improper relationship scandal. On the AfDs there were no sources that showed non-trivial coverage of her only because of her lobbying activity or for anything outside the scandal. Start showing some sources and I'll change my opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hickley became notable by himself for his defence at the trial, which is treated as a different event by several reliable sources who totally pay no attention at all to the event that caused the trial (the assesination attempt) and which give extensive coverage of all his life on details that have nothing to do with Reagan, so he is *not* a case of BLP1E. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I have already shown that she was a low-profile lobbyist that had only trivial coverage before the scandal with the publication of the improper relationship on the NYT (which is one event). She was already connected to notable persons before that publication but she wasn't notable at all, her lobbiying activities never got her anything other than trivial coverage, it was the scandal and only the scandal that gave her all that coverage, so all this coverage needs to be on the scandal page, per BLP1E. If someone has some proof that she is notable for something not on the context of that scandal, then show it now. The AfDs had no such information, so their application of BLP1E was correct. Get new sources and we can overturn it on the basis that it was done with unsufficient information. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, even BLP1E does not & should not when the events are in context of their professional lives. The relationship with MCCain was while she was actively engaged in lobbying and is directly relating to he professional career. Public figures and political ones especially have no right of privacy, and the part of BLP which does apply is that there can be no unsourced negative material. Lobbying in the US in a major part of legislative life & no lobbyist can reasonably expect privacy. This is directly and immediately related not just to his honesty but to hers. Second, by defining the rest of someone's career as trivial coverage, one can make a great many things into oneevent. Third, any event however lowprofile becomes significant when one of the people involved is running for presidential office. That's the way presidential politics work. Anyone';s even private relationship with him or her is now a public matter. DGG (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, DGG, you are right, I quote you: "any event however lowprofile becomes significant"(emphasis added). It's the event that is important here, not Vicky Iseman herself. If you think that BLP1E should not apply to events on professional life, then you should notice that Daniel Bradt case, which spawned BLP1E, was totally about his professional carreer, so I think it's clear that BLP1E is intended for exactly that sort of events. And, again, the AfDs had no sources at all that said that Iseman was a public and political figure outside of the context of this event or that she had received other than trivial coverage before or after the event outside of the event context, or that she was famous, lobbyist or not. (have you seen *any* source that talked of her lobbyist activities that she has done *after* the event?!). Provide sources that show otherwise or stop arguing the point. We are supposed to be having a discussion based on actual arguments, not on a personal idea of how very famous all lobbyists are and how they don't have right to privacy, or on how BLP1E should not be used for the purpose it was created for. If you can't show with sources that she is a public figure outside of the context of the event, then she is *not* a public figure and she *does* have right to privacy --Enric Naval (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That case didn't start BLP1E. Brandt was considered notable for a variety of different accomplishments. BLP1E was never the issue there. Let's not rewrite history, mmm kay? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the BLP3 part does not apply here, for since this was deleted as a BLP, coming here is the only mechanism for getting permission to remake the article. DGG (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per BLP1E process. The only source that did not discuss Iseman in relation to her alleged involvement with McCain was a brief mention of her speaking before a local school board, 50 paragraphs into the story. Her identity is irrelevant to the primary issue, which is covered in John McCain lobbyist controversy, and the issue does not appear to be "ongoing", as asserted above by one of the posters, since Google news shows a total of 11 hits for Vicki Iseman, all of which are blogs/non-reliable sources or passing mentions. If this were an ongoing issue, there would be far more hits. Clinton Whitewater (which is not an ongoing issue either) has 91 hits and Keating Five(another old story) has 34. Tony Rezko has 716, by way of comparison. And it's not at all clear that she became notable because of her own actions, as also has been asserted, since no reliable source has offered any evidence to support the "close relationship" claim in the NYT article. Ordinary everyday lobbyists are not notable, and being thrust into the spotlight with questionable justification does not make one a public figure. The lobbyist controversy article is relevant, but this is not. Horologium (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for great justice. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
explain it a bit :P --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can you explain how the closure was of process and how was BLP1E abused and misinterpreted i this particular case? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn bad close. A major portion of materials in the deleted article and the sources is entirely unrelated to the controversy; it's surprising WP:BLP1E was applied. Lack of rationale on the side of (more than a half of) delete voters, no clear explanation how the article met criteria of BLP1E. Beside the fact that delete voters basically said the same materials exist elsewhere in other event articles (which is false), they also seemed unable to reply to any keep arguments that emerged in the debate. This isn't a no-consensus for deletion, this is a consensus for keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Well, deletion was a slightly better option than redirecting her name to a controversy, but I don't think consensus supported a deletion. The article is neutral, and focuses on Iseman's career as a lobbyist, and as such she has had political influence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus and the closer himself seemed to have doubts. In such cases, the emphatic guideline of WP:DGFA is When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that the closer had any doubts. He only stated that he knew that his closure would be controversial, that there was "the majority (though not overwhelming) support deletion or merge", that he wouldn't oppose re-creation as a redirect, and that he would be happy to userfy. Where exactly do you see any doubt? Also, the closer appears to think that there was consensus, or, at least, a non-overhelming majority to delete or merge. On what do you base your afirmation of no consensus? Strenght of argument? Number of votes? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Techno Union – Pretty moot. The delete+redirect outcome does not find support here. I have restored the deleted history, as I cannot see why it should be deleted being harmless as it is. Arguments are finally made in the DRV that there may be policy-based reasons to do other than retain the article as it stands, but they do not cut the flow of this debate, and did not cut the flow the first time around (and noone claims they did). Therefore, since this was just a redirect and does not really need DRV at all, the editorial points can be dealt with separately and do not require deletion review's input (save for the history repair). Splash - tk 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Techno Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable plot element in an extremely notable series; plays a large role in the first three movies and also has appearances in Star Wars video games and cartoons. It has links from several articles, and was sourced appropriately before deletion. Further, the redirect to battle droid was completely nonsensical. GlassCobra 04:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Sourcing was not adequate. Please provide evidence of real world notability. AFD consensus gets closed by measuring arguments against policy/guidelines not headcount. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus for redirection and no significant policy argument made for such action. The argument seemed equally divided beween various options and so the proper conclusion was No consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A closing rationale would have been helpful, but the obvious fact is that this is a fictional element with no evidence of impact outside the fictional universe. The primary source was starwars.yahoo.com, far from being a reliable source, and I have to say that the term "Techno Union" is entirely unfamiliar to me as a parent of teenage boys who are all over Star Wars (to say nothing of having myself grown up with Star Wars as probably the most significant movie franchise of my formative years). Star Wars is notable, the droids are notable, that does not mean that every element of fanon related to battle droids is notable by inheritance. What's the Star Wars equivalent of Memory Alpha? That's where this belongs. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to I don't know what. I do know, however, that with only a single editor advocating redirect and no reason for it stated, that the redirect was improper. I personally lean towards a no consensus close. That said, the solution here that makes the most sense to me is to create some article about minor organizations and such in Star Wars, then redirect the article there. I'm aware no one thought of this at the AfD, but it's a better way to deal with the article than redirecting to battle droid, which does not contain content about the Union at all. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Note that there were actually two calls for a redirect (one was "redirect or delete"), but that's irrelevant. A single policy-based argument overrides hundreds of non-policy-based ones. In this case, DGG had the only Keep that was policy based. The rest were Delete or Redirect based on notability and WP:FICT guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but I'm not sure if any action at all is needed here; a redirect is not a deletion, and anyone can revert it and start a discussion of it on the talk page until consensus is reached there. The notability of fictional elements depends on the importance of the fiction, among other things, and the large published literature on Star Wars should produce some specific references. Please note that just yesterday I redirected a government article with respect to a less notable fiction to the main article instead of prodded it--see my talk page. Flexibility and compromise are the keys to handling this problem; those with extreme positions on both sides are not likely to convince each other. DGG (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus, because there wasn't any. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. There was no consensus for redirection whatsoever. The published literature of the Star Wars universe should be more than sufficient referencing to create a reasonably-sized article on the subject. The redirect to battle droid was simply inane, as that is roughly equivalent to redirecting Microsoft to Office 2007. There's no content available on the subject in that article, so it was an extremely poor choice of place. Celarnor Talk to me 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a new, radical, and possibly outright crazy idea... what if we discussed AfD closures with deleting admins BEFORE listing a review at DRV? I wonder what that would be like? Could that even work??? It's probably better for the admin to see 8 or more opinions from others and feel like there is some urgency before he reconsideres the outcome, though. Always better to have a chance to say "ooops, I goofed" when there is a big audience and a spotlight on ya! This is really, really stinky. Once again, I refuse to participate in this review because the instructions were not followed, and I believe in process. Noting that the requester is not a newbiee, so I am not biting a newbiee, as the requester is an admin, and ought to know the instructions for this venue. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jerry, you're absolutely right, and I apologize. I should have discussed this with you first; taking this directly here was indeed too hasty. However, I don't feel that we should close it, as there's been substantial input now. I want you to know that I'm sorry, though. GlassCobra 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of admins that I would bypass and go directly to DRV. Some people just can't be reasoned with. Celarnor Talk to me 11:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect -- or override just for flat-out deletion. I agree that the redirect destination is a little odd -- Attack of the Clones might be a more apt target -- but the lack of citations to reliable sources coupled with an unencyclopedic treatment seem sufficient grounds not to maintain this content. --EEMIV (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No policy based reasons for redirect or deletion then nor are there any now. Notable element of notable franchise that can be verified in reliable sources. I do nevertheless believe Jerry, who has always been nice with me, acted in good faith with his closure. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. I saw no consensus to redirect in that AFD and how do you even get "battle droid" from "Techno Union"? --Pixelface (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, very problematic closure. I can't see any consensus for redirection, not to mention that redirecting Techno Union to Battle droid was an absurd idea. @pple complain 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Spartaz: no real world notability outside of being a plot element on Starwars universe, so it should be inside the main Starwars articles that actually have real world relevance. Per Guy: ThechnoUnion is not really notable by itself and the only references are from the starwars guide. Obviously, the starwars guide treats every single irrelevant detail in depth, but that's just uncritical coverage by WP:SELFPUBlished non-independient sources. Per Kesh: the admin took into account those arguments that were actually based on policy, so it was a proper closure based on WP:Rough consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". Also, the !keeps at the AfD were not giving any source that established enough real world notability of Techno Union for an article of its own, and the !overturn votes here aren't giving any source either, so the closure was correctly assesing not enough notability based on current information at both AfD and article. Also, per WP:FICT, this is just a detailed summary of plot elements, with no real word relevance of its own, and notability is not inherited, so claims about the importance of Starwars films are not relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on redirect it was not *that* bad given how Battle_droid#Super_battle_droids covers the droids manufactured by Techno Union. There were better targets, as other commenters point out, and I would suggest Galactic_Republic_(Star_Wars)#Galactic_Senate where the different factions can be covered. I'm quite sure that the redirect can be changed to a better target without overturning the deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't know if battle droid is a relevant destination page for Techno Union, but there was decidedly no consensus for redirection in the debate, especially considering that the delete/redirect votes came before the article was cleaned up with two refs added. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dutch Acadie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It does not meet any requierments for deletion, for some unkown reason a few people want to delete this article I do not know why. The tag has already been taken off once but now it is back on. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, already done below as well TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Agavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedily deleted. Requesting temporary copy in my userspace to determine if the speedy was rouge. Andjam (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability is not a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated. What it boils down to is whether or not the sources are reliable. A link to a draft of the article with all of the sources can be found here. And also, I ask editors to remember that Wikipedia is not censored and to only vote against recreation if they truly believe that the sources are unreliable, not simply because of personal feelings they have toward the site. Pretending that something doesn't exist just because one hates it is juvenile. So are the sources reliable or not? Urban Rose 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, if notability is a concern, I definitely think the site is notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranks above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches. So notability is not an issue. The next issue is that it is not covered in reliable sources, which I believe is also false. For a list of sources, see here and here (and please read the latter of the two pages for a list of further rationale for the article's recreation). And a third point that I need to address is that I realize that it is impossible for many Wikipedia editors to vote on this objectively, as they have been the subjects of articles created for the site. I myself have been the subject of an article and have had my image uploaded to the site (though I have since created an account and have been accepted), and I haven't allowed my annoyance at this to cloud my judgement. What this boils down to I believe is that some Wikipedians simply aren't willing to give ED an article regardless of it's notability or coverage by multipe reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored, so unless you are willing to vote objectively I suggest that you not vote at all. I do believe that it is possible to vote in favor of the article's deletion and be objective, but I have my doubts that most deletion votes this nomination will receive will be objective. (Also, to all those ED haters out there, try thinking about creating an article on ED this way: The more people who no about the site, the more people will realize how offensive the site is and will support you in your hatred of it.) Urban Rose 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources:

I agree with you on this, but fully expect you to get shouted down rapidly in the standard visceral emotional reaction that comes up here whenever the dreaded name of ED comes up. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably deleted. Apparently even subpages that mention edit are deleted.--Urban Rose 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Prindle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I feel that the only reason this page was deleted was because anonymous users defended it, despite some of their arguments. Mark Prindle is a notable personality and has done many interviews of other notable personalities. Lunar Jesters (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim? D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD brought up these books which reference him: "Enter Naomi" by Joe Carducci, "Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story of the Ramones" by Everett True, and "Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and the Fall" by Simon Ford. Lunar Jesters (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources appear to have been considered at the AFD. You haven't said but have you discussed the close with the deleting admin and notified them of the DRV. Offline sources are acceptable but need to discuss the subject in depth as any other sources. Not having seen them I can't comment on them. Can you help with some detail of what the sources actually say about this individual. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Strings of socks and IPs do not a consensus make. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The commenters assessed correctly that is was an internet music critic that has managed to have no web coverage by notable sources after 10 years. The editor who listed the books did not explain what sort of coverage the books gave (trivial coverage, usage of one of his reviews, or long explanations about Mark Prindle himself?), and the books were there a long time enough that commenters could assess them. Notice that the commenters at the AfD even overestimated the importance of this person by WP:GOOGLEHITS saying the name gives 24,000 hits, but "Mark Prindle" with quotes produces only 11.400 hits on google, but if you try to reach the end you realize that the list actually ends at 445 hits[139], with all the rest of hits being repetitions. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. He has a non-notable music review website. And the rash of KEEPs from unsigned IPs only confirms this non-notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cameron Belford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now played in a professional football game [140] as per WP:WPF Kingjamie (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it.--Bedford 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Cab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I've been wanting to do this for a long, long time. This Internet buzz band made a big splash before their debut album came out...with the result that their Wikipedia page has been A7'ed no less than twelve times (under the cab, not currently protected, and The Cab, which is). As of last Tuesday, they've finally released a physical full-length album. I'd like to have this title Unsalted and my user draft moved to mainspace. Chubbles (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate new draft clearly establishes passage of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreate from draft Althought they have released only one album (WP:MUSIC asks for two albums) they have been covered on several media and made two national tours, so it passes WP:MUSIC --Enric Naval (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate from Draft, seems a very marginal pass of WP:MUSIC, but certainly a well-sourced article that deserves to be given a chance in article space. If anyone still thinks it's not worthy, they can make their case at AfD. --Stormie (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dutch Acadie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It does not meet any requierments for deletion, for some unkown reason a few people want to delete this article I do not know why. The tag has already been taken off once but now it is back on. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • XtremeData – speedy deletion of original article endorsed. Sources within, and discussion reveals that it is may be possible to write a decent article on this company (or on Enric Naval's suggestion might be better). Whether a better written article would survive AFD remains to be seen, but an attempted newly written article is certainly possible. – GRBerry 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
XtremeData (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The company is obviously notable. See my arguments on User_talk:Orangemike#Deletion of XtremeData. Some examples of third-party coverage, some several years old, was on the now-deleted discussion page. Oxda (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Oxda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just noting, but WP:COI doesn't ever say that having a COI compeltely disallows a user from editing on the topic they have a COI in. Now, if they do they'll have to bend over backwards staying neutral, but it appears this editor has from what I read at your talk page. And being a WP:SPA doesn't mean we should ignore the user. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please confirm or deny the requirement that notability be established in the article itself, please? I didn't see anywhere that that was necessary. And here is some of third-party coverage which is not just reprints of PRs: 2008 - [141], [142] (starts with a large picture of XtremeData module); 2007 - [143], [144]; 2006 - [145], [146], [147] -- just a random selection, there's a lot more. Oxda (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD there appear to be sources... [148] some are press releases but some appear not to be. I can't see the article, so if it's unsalvageable I guess the admin who closes this DRV can just opt to allow recreation. --Rividian (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Unsourced article on a company written by a single-purpose account whose username suggest a connection with the subject. Article describes it as a "small company". Yup, looks that way. You need a directory of companies, not an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? There are many articles about companies, large and small. How's this not a directory of companies? "Unsourced" -- sorry, forgot to add a link to the company web site where all the information can be easily verified (that was the first version, to be improved by everyone -- that's the spirit, right?) Oxda (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, articles have to be verified by reference to reliable, third-party sources. The company's own website does not qualify. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this page: List of Google products. Each item is backed by a link to Google's page about it. Would you require that third-party articles be tracked down and referenced instead? Would it make the page better, in your opinion? (If I have to, I can provide references to third-party sources about XtremeData products, but since they mostly re-hash the information from the company web site, some not even very accurately, I'd rather not.) Oxda (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article, as deleted, did not provide any indication as to why the company was notable. Like all other speedy deletions, if the article is recreated in such a state that it no longer meets the CSD, there is no problem. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, re-reading Wikipedia:CSD#A7 which was the stated reason for speedy deletion, I note this: "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." So if I add this sentence to the article: "XtremeData products have been mentioned in technology publications numerous times since 2006 when XtremeData went public with its first product", the article will be acceptable?
    I also would like to point out the following from Wikipedia:NN#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines: "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." As an obvious Google News search readily provides many reliable third-party articles about XtremeData, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Oxda (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. Remember that it's the article that was deleted - there is not a blanket ban on ever having an article about that company again. If you recreate the article including proper assertions of notability and strong references, then there is every chance it will not be redeleted. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doesn't look remotely notable. Once you get to this point instead of quoting policy back at us you would be better advised to show us the sources an article will be written from. Has anyone ever written in depth about your company? Surely you will know this so please cite the sources or stop wasting your time. Spartaz Humbug! 05:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look above in my comment in bullet 2 ("Oppose overturn" from Orangemike). Does it do it for you? Oxda (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the register isn't a reliable source. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I don't see anything in WP:RS to disqualify The Register as a RS. Got an explanation why it isn't? Do you mind updating The Register to say that it's not reliable? I can see 427 Wikipedia articles citing it as a source. (2) There's been coverage in many other places, just that those were the easiest to find, with free archives and no registration required (although one other was included in the list above). You can easily see other sources in Google News search for "XtremeData", though in most other cases you won't be able to access the articles themselves without registration. Tomorrow I may also scan a few pages of printed publications that talk about XtremeData -- although I'm spending too much time on this as it is, while it seems that others can't be bothered to look through a couple of pages of Google News search. Oxda (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per oaxdude's sources on the company's activity, speedy is not adequate and it should go throught AfD Endorse deletion Trivial or almost trivial coverage on some sources. The sources make clear that it's a minor company the register, enterpreneur.com and ZDNet. The register articles look more as promotion of the company by repeating whatever the company has said than like independient coverage. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trivial in some, a lot more than trivial in others [149] [150]. And Intel and AMD execs talking about a company, with coverage of that in independent mainstream technology publications doesn't make a company notable? (good find, I didn't see that ZDNet article before) And you're now requiring that not only the WP article itself, but the third-party coverage be neutral? Oxda (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be absurd to require that third-party coverage be neutral. But it must be reliable, and reprints of press releases are by definition nothing of the sort. There would be no purpose to scanning pages of printed publications, by the way; cites to printed publications are perfectly valid; whereas scans, aside from being copyright violations, can be doctored. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more than enough notability to include it on a "List of FPGA manufacturers" and to mention its product on a list of "FPGA chips", but probably not enough to have its own article as a notable company. I can't help but notice that the company is not even mentioned on the list of manufacturers at FPGA, wtf?. Could you list those paper sources? Maybe another editor will be able to check if it's only reviews of products or if it's something that asserts notability --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (replying to User:Orangemike) The Register articles are not re-prints of press releases. I think people making a positive claim that they are should back up their assertion, as I'm not sure how to prove a negative here. Their articles are written by staff writers, who seem to know what they're talking about and do their homework -- as evidenced for example by them talking about similar products from other companies in the same article. Yes they include the same info as PRs, and they read as promotion of the company, but maybe that's just because they're excited about the products -- and hey, I'm not the one to blame them (and by the way as I said before, that's the reason I didn't include them as references in the original article). And by the way I've seen The Register articles about new products talking the products down, so the fact that their articles about XtremeData read as a PR is a big positive for the company IMO. Oxda (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I left a note for the Electronics Wikiproject here --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    XtremeData is not an FPGA manufacturer. FPGAs are these monstrous chips that are hugely expensive to develop and manufacture, and which are comparable to the latest processors from Intel and AMD complexity- and technology-wise, so there are very few FPGA manufacturers. XtremeData makes FPGA boards utilizing FPGAs from Altera. What distinguishes XtremeData from most other FPGA board manufacturers is that they allow the FPGA board to be inserted into a processor socket of a multi-processor motherboard. Other FPGA boards connect into some kind of I/O slot, but then there are problems of supplying adequate power and cooling and high-speed access to system resources such as memory. These problems are significant and complicated enough that most companies utilizing FPGAs opt to design their own boards. By putting FPGA into a processor socket, all these problems are solved automatically, in effect allowing FPGA use in markets that previously had no chance of using them, such as financial analytics. This approach is novel enough that it's been generating lots of buzz in these circles. AMD and Intel have started big initiatives with catchy names to promote these applications: Torrenza from AMD and Geneseo from Intel (don't know where the Intel's Geneseo article went, it used to be there). Here's a couple more references of XtremeData, now from EETimes: [151], [152] (BugMeNot works for the second article). Both of these articles have appeared in the print versions of EETimes, one with a big picture of XtremeData module. Oxda (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hum, we should have an article on "socket-compatible coprocessors based on FPGA chips" and then list XtremeData, DRC computer, and all the other companies that manufacture this sort of product. On that articel we can mention what distinguishes ExtremeData from the other companies. That would be the ideal solution --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD - There's enough to warrant a full debate.--Oakshade (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Wii.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I FU reduced it under the pretense it was FU, but as it's free-but-trademark, size doesn't matter (see Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg). Should be uncontroversial enough. Sceptre (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sceptre - the item was last deleted for a lack of source. Is this request relevant to that? I may be being stupid but what does "I FU reduced it under the pretense it was FU" mean? Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was deleted because it was orphaned and had a non-free tag, even though it's free and is superior to the current image used. This is utterly non-controversial, so I've restored it. east.718 at 15:59, May 3, 2008
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Municipal districts and cadastral areas of Prague (edit | [[Talk:Template:Municipal districts and cadastral areas of Prague|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedied G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). I wrote 99% of the template and have not requested deletion or blanked the page. Mwalcoff (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I see the page content was moved to Template:Districts_and_cadastral_areas_of_Prague. The page should have been speedied T3, not G7. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but I've reviewed the logs and this was an uncontestable WP:CSD#G7 deletion. No links, no edit history except for the original author who is not Mwalcoff. I'm afarid this DRV is invalid. If Mwalcoff wishes it to be restored I will be more than happy to do so, but to be honest it can simply be re-created without this process. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened, because I know I wrote that template, but apparently there was an issue with multiple names. It's OK, because the content has simply been moved. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • One Fine Day! – The original request here is one for unprotection. No problem has been identified with the previous decisions and having the article recreated at a different place is by itself also no reason for overturning the deletions. Nevertheless, the new version seems to be sufficiently different to avoid speedy deletion as repost itself. Moreover, it obviously owes much to the old one, so I'll restore the histories to ensure GFDL compliance. – Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
One Fine Day! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|)

The original article title One Fine Day! had been deleted due to the series' lack of proven notability from when the series was simply broadcast on a single college campus. Since the original article's deletion, the series has gained an official webpage www.onefinedaytv.com, begun broadcast through the OSTN network, and an IMDB page has been created to mark its notability. There is also a grouping of print interviews with a variety of sources available on the series' press homepage. There actually is an article on the series located at One Fine Day (IPTV Series) and I would suggest that the One Fine Day! title be unlocked and the material from One Fine Day (IPTV Series) be moved to that location. Ofd2008 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn They finally got a weblink to the News-Gazette article, which considered the article interesting enough to also announce it on the first page of the paper, and found non-trivial coverage on the Daily Herald. It's also broadcasted on Open_Student_Television_Network. Altought it doesn't meet WP:MOVIE, it's notable because it's financed by the students themselves, and it's already on its second season. Notice that the Daily Herald article was from when they had only done one season, and it will get more notable if they get out a third season. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The series has also now been added to tv.com and imdb.com both of which have stringent moderation policies and will only list a series once it has begun national broadcast (such as the broadcasts on OSTN). (The article for tv.com can be found here and the imdb.com one here here.) These sites require third party verification of this release. My feeling is that if the series passes both of their requirements, it has as much right to have an article as any other television series so long as the article is maintained in a professional and non "promotional" manner. Ofd2008 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2008

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

I see no reason for this page to be deleted, but someone has put it up for deletion. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gigi Mon Mathew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It was a stub sort of article created with proper references. Even, each and every wordings were properly cited. Three main references was there including tradearabia.com, considered to be one of the Middle Easts leading business online. Low-blp criteria is not the reason for deletion. The closing admin also did not mention the rationale. In short, an article that is not spam and the contest was one of the first of its kind in the world. Therefore, it should definitely come under the category for Lottery winners Harjk (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, the AFD was pretty unequivocal, only keep opinion came from the creator of the article. Other folks who opined on the AFD agreed that the person was not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD should not be decided by the majority of votes. It has to be judged by consensus. No matter one keep vote or 100 delete votes. If the one who commented keep has valid reasons, it has to be accepted. I had clearly provided my rationale and stands for a truth to be added to WP, though I do not have any particular interest in this topic. I support for it because, it is one of the first of its kind in the world. That’s why I created it. Moreover, the material is total fact info by the support of references per WP:RS. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, if the hundred who comment delete also have valid reasons, then their hundred outweighs the one. Just having one valid argument (and I'm not saying it is or isn't, I haven't even seen it) doesn't defeat a deletion. You still need to convince others to have it and gain consensus. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced and the Consensus was not pretty clear for me. Because I disagree with the decision of deleting it. Because, it is fist of its kind in the world. If you could take off some time & read the deleted articles and supported references, you would say so.
  • What gives you the power to decide things based upon whether you agree with them? Those are the breaks of any group decision making process...sometimes things don't go your way. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Harjk, you are a bit out of process here. Have you bothered to notify the closer of the AfD, which is explicitly asked of you in the header of this very page? Does User:Sandstein even know this is happening to a debate he closed? Even with notification, the AfD was nearly unanimous, endorse deletion on that basis alone, regardless of procedural grievances. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldnt complete it as I'd to logout yesterday.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Lifebaka, for notifying me about this DRV. I make no comment about the merits of the closure or, indeed, on the process followed by Harjik, as all has been said already. Sandstein (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phoenix Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Linked to by former Article of the Day

The Phoenix Recordings are a very frequently bootlegged set of recordings by British singer/songwriter Kate Bush predating her signing by EMI records. A Google search for "Kate Bush" AND Phoenix produces 408,000 hits, limiting it to "Kate Bush" AND "Phoenix Recordings" produces 380. The article on Kate Bush (a featured article and former Article of the Day links to it. Admittedly, the article could be fleshed out, but deleting it without discussion does not seem useful. Any "bootleg" recording may be in a gray area as they are generally omitted from official biographies and record company supplied discographies. But the Phoenix Recordings are mentioned in several unofficial Bush biographies, and a considerable amount of information is provided on the Bush fan site Gaffa.org. K8 fan (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the life of me, I'll never understand those who "contribute" by deleting. K8 fan (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Page(s) currently unknown – Nothing's been deleted so it shouldn't be at deletion review. The issue is a content dispute about removing external links from an article – Bobet 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I would like to dispute my recent website deletion from both photoanalysis and optical granulometry. The website provided has information in regards to these technologies!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipware (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to the pages you want to dispute the deletions of? In the meantime, speedy close this, as it wasn't properly filed. To file one, put {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ on today's log page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Nothing to do here. This is a content dispute over linkspam being inserted into articles [153] [154]. -- Kesh (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May&oldid=420244976"